calls General rather than from Rome to other parts had not a preeminency of Power and not only a precedence of Rank bin acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome CORRIGENDA Page 29. l. 7. else he would Page 55. l. 80. thro five or six Page 115. l. 3. except that of one or two of his Predecessors CONCERNING ANCIENT CHURCH-GOVERNMENT PART I. Of the Authority and Subordinations of Ecclesiastical Governors § 1 FOR the better Governing of the Church of Christ in Truth Unity Uniformity and Peace Subordination of Clergy and for the easier suppressing of all Errors and Divisions and for rendring all the Church of God tho dispers'd thro several Dominions but one visible compacted Society we find anciently these Subordinations of superior Clergy 1. Presbyters 2. Bishops 3. Metropolitans and amongst Metropolitans Primates 4. Patriarchs and amongst these Patriarchs a Primate § 2 Of these Patriarchs in the first General Council of Nice held A. D. 325. there were only Three call'd Three Patriarchs only at the first at the first by the common name of Metropolitants tho with a distinct authority from the rest Then by the name of Primates 2. Gen. Con. Const can 2.5 this name also being common to some others Afterward by the name of Patriarchs Conc. Chalc. Act. 3. 8 Gen. Conc. can 10 Neither was this name tho most frequently always applied only to the Patriarchs of the first Sees But we find in the East the Primates of Asia minor Pontus Thrace and many others to the number of nine or ten call'd by Socrates who writ in the fifth Age Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 8. Patriarchs call'd so as well as by the name of Primates in respect of some other Bishops or also Metropolitans subject to them yet which Patriarchs had also a subordination and subjection to some of these prime or major Patriarchs of whom we here speak as appears in the Church-History and especially in Conc. Chalced. Act. and Act. 16. And we find also in the West after A. D. 500. several Primates in France Italy Spain call'd Patriarchs as the Primate of Aquileia Gradus Lions see Conc. Matiscon 2. in praefat Priscus Episcopus Patriarcha dixit c. See Greg. Turon 5. hist 10. Paul Diacon l. 2. c. 12. Greg. Epist l. 11. ep 54. yet over whom the Roman Bishop the major Patriarch of the West exercis'd a superiority and Patriarchal jurisdiction both before and after that we read this name given to them as will appear hereafter in this discourse and more particularly in the matter of the Letters of Leo and Gregory and other Popes written upon several occasions to divers of them This I note to you that the commonness of the name may not seem to infer an equality of the authority Now to go forward § 3. n. 1. The first of these the Bishop of Rome The first and chief of these was the Bishop of Rome whose Patriarchship the Bishop of Derry Vind. Ch. Eng. c. 5. p. 62. and Dr. Hammond of schism c. 3. p. 51 52. following Ruffinus Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 6. one less to be credited in this matter because by the Bishop of Rome formerly excommunicated see Anstasius 1. ad Johan Hierosol make very narrow and much inferior to that of the two other Patriarchs whereof one had subjected unto him all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and the other all Syria and the Oriental Churches allowing to the Bishop of Rome only regiones suburbicarias in the Eastern parts of Italy and the Islands of Sicily Sardinia The extent of his Patriarchate and Corsica near adjoining to it But over these Churches that Bishop might have some more immediate superintendency and Metropolitan or Primat-ship contradistinct to other Metropolitans as to that of Millan c. So the Primat of all England hath yet a particular superintendency over one Diocess more than over the rest of which more particular superintendency over the regiones suburbicariae as he was their Primate or Metropolitan Ruffinus seems to speak and perhaps the 6th canon of Nice Mos antiquus perduret in Aegypto vel Lybia Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habet potestatem quoniam quidem Episcopo Romano parilis mos est Similiter autem apud Antiochiam caeterasque Provincias honor suus unicuique servetur Ecclesiae may be thought partly to intend it for which consider those words in that 6th Canon caeterasque Provincias compared with Concilium Constantinopolitan 2. Can. and Conc. Ephes 8. can Yet do not these Canons therefore abrogate and superior rights of any Bishop quae prius atque ab initio sub illius seu antecessorum suorum fuerit potestate to use the phrase of the forementioned 8th Canon of Ephesus but confirm them not only the Metropolitan but also whatever Patriarchal Rights they held formerly as appears in those first words of the 6th Nicene Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which see more below § 19. from which the Roman Primacy was both urged by Paschasius a Legat of the See Apostolick in the 4th General Council and also acknowledged by the Council in their Epistle to Leo. See below § 25 n. 2. And again on the other side as Bellarmin de Rom. Pontif. 2. l. 18. c. observes the Pope's being Caput Ecclesiae universae supposing him to be so in some general way of superintendency or for some particular acts and offices as suppose for receiving appeals deciding controversies between the chief Governors of the Churches admitting them to and deposing them from their places obliging them pro tempore with his decrees hinders not but that he may be also a Patriarch a Metropolitan a Bishop in respect of some other more immediate super-intendencies and offices divers from the former which he doth actually exercise over some particular Church or Churches but doth not so over others or which also he cannot exercise over the whole as he doth over those particular Churches as suppose for ordaining the inferior Bishops and Presbyters and hearing their causes personally officiating in the Word and Sacraments receiving and distributing the Ecclesiastical revenue thereof c. Nor again e converso as Cardinal Perron in answer to K. James observes doth his governing only the Roman Province as their Metropolitan or only Italy as their Primate hinder that he should govern the West also as their Patriarch Nor again doth his governing the West as their Patriarch because he was Bishop of Rome the chiefest city of the West hinder that he may not also as S. Peter and S. Paul's Successor there to one of whom the Jew and to the other the Gentiles were committed Gal. 2.7 9. have some special superintendency over all the Church Jew and Gentile I know § 3. n. 2. it is earnestly pleaded by Bishop Bramhal Vind. 8. c. p. 251. and Rep. to S.W. 10. s. p. 69. That to have an universal Headship over the Church and to have a
THE SECOND and THIRD TREATISES Of the First Part of Ancient CHURCH-GOVERNMENT THE SECOND TREATISE Containing a Discourse of the SUCCESSION OF CLERGY OXFORD Printed in the Year MDCLXXXVIII TO THE READER IN the First Treatise of the First Part of Church-Government Printed A. D. 1662 and Reprinted 1685 is contain'd the Succession of the Apostles to our Lord in his Pastoral Office and the Primacy of St. Peter then the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles their Authority and the Subordination to them of Presbyters In this Second Treatise is discoursed the Indeficiency of the Clergy and of the Evangelical Doctrine deliver'd to them by our Lord. In the Third is contain'd the Subordination of Bishops their several Jurisdictions and tho Primacy and Supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome CORRIGENDA Page 6. l. 7. ought not to do the page should be 14. P. 24. l. 28. Mat. 23.2 3. P. 42. l. 30. Bishop Andrews in answer SUCCESSION OF CLERGY § 1 THese two things having been as I suppose sufficiently prov'd in a Treatise of Ancient Church-Government already published First Our Lord 's deriving his Authority and Pastoral Office here on Earth upon his Apostles and this not with an equal parity Secondly And again the Apostles transferring the same Office to others And this also for preventing Schisms and preserving Order and Peace in the Church done as before not with an exact equality amongst all the Clergy but with a certain preeminence and superiority of some above the rest the Bishops above the Presbyters and this a superiority too not only of precedence or honour which would not have cured Schisms but of Office and Authority I now proceed to shew more at large That Christ hath left the same his Ministers 1. The infallible Preservers of all necessary Faith and the supreme Judges to be submitted-to in all spiritual doubts and controversies 2. These in this their Government independent-on and not dissolvable by any external secular power 3. Firmly united among themselves in one external Profession and Communion not ruinable by any intestine Division § 2 For the first of these I shall shew you 1. That considering men's ordinary frailties and passions there is a clear necessity of such a Judg to decide Controversies resolve Doubts suppress false Doctrines c. And 2. That there hath always been appointed in the Church of God besides the Rule such a Judg both under the Law and under the Gospel and men never left to their own Conduct in Religion § 3 1. A necessity of such a Judg sufficiently appears from this 1. That never any Body of Laws hath been so punctually set down but that many doubts and questions do arise in the practice of it a thing which experience hath verified in as many such Bodies as have been made But 2. Could such a Law be yet that the Canon of Scripture is far from being such as to every part thereof is evident from the many Controversies of Religion that are on foot amongst those who all acknowledg the same Canon and who must be said at least some of them on all sides to be both of quick capacity and sober judgmemt and sufficient integrity seeing that almost whole Nations have thus opposed one another all whose capacities or integrities it were too much uncharitableness and pride to question Here therefore whereas frequently both the contrary parties use to say the Scripture is plain on their own side they both shew that it is difficult and whereas both also could wish an Arbiter of Controversies at least to silence their Adversary they mutually confess One necessary for them both And so long as sober Judgments contradict in their expositions of Scripture tho both should say that the Scripture is clear yet neither can say that in respect of all men it is so And so long there is necessary another Judg besides Scripture especially when none in Religious matters will confess that they contest about a Controtroversie which is not necessary to be decided Indeed this happens ordinarily that some sentences of Scripture seem plain on one side and other sentences thereof plain on another but since all parts of Divine truth must cohere and accord the more plainness in this manner makes it the more difficult And therefore we commonly see that in their not well-comparing of several Scriptures but fastning their thoughts only on some parcel thereof to which their fancy or interest specially guides them the more ignorant are the more confident and lest doubting and they who have least compar'd things soonest decide them And thus those who have the Scriptures the more common and open to each man's comment without dependance on any other Judg than themselves run into great varieties of Opinions and Sects 2 St. Pet. 3.16 takes notice concerning a chief part of the Scriptures and that written purposely for instruction St. Paul's Epistles but not only concerning these but the other Scriptures too see the end of v. 16. that in them there were some things hard to be understood which they that were unlearned and unstable did wrest to their own destruction These things then of consequence the mistaking of which tended to the Mistaker's destruction which yet men even in his days mistook by being unlearned i. e. not well taught in Christianity which teaching they must have from their Pastors and unstable which must be by departing from the Doctrines receiv'd from their Pastors as the words following v. 17. also imply Now I see not why the same accident concerning the same Scriptures should not happen still to the illiterate and unstable disclaiming any other Judg save these Scriptures and conceiting that God's Written Word hath render'd his Ministers useless This is said for the necessity of a Judg in matters of Religion where Scriptures indeed as St. Peter saith of them have some difficulty But 3. Since Controversies may be raised and maintain'd by the peevishness and perversness and passion of a Party even where Scriptures are clear enough here also no less necessary is a Judg juridically to suppress and silence those who irrationally and many times with autocatacrisie thus offend But 4. It is possible also that some very material Controversies there may be in Religion wherein the Scriptures have either been silent or have not spoken to them so expresly and openly but that they must be drawn out from thence by several deductions Here then also some other Judg is necessary § 4 Such a Judg therefore is necessary to be And therefore such a Judg there always hath been appointed by God to be consulted and submitted-to by his people both before the Law Written and under the Law Written and under the Gospel First In the times before the Law Written even from the very infancy of-the World God ever had a Church contradistinct after Adam's Fall of whose Sons as some were good so others were impious to the rest of the world serving God in a publick external Communion and
so far of it as that they may not ordain others against that wherein they grant is preserved the unity of the Faith tho I think that simply an unjust Excommunication never made such a manner of division in the Church but that those who have set up new communions have still disallowed some Tenents or practices of the former for which they would not if permitted return to communicate with her tho they seem to justify their new communion chiefly upon the pretence of being cast out of the former Now Schism as the former times understood it is any relinquishing and departing upon what pretence soever from the former external communion of the Church when we cannot shew that it hath departed from the former external communion of its Predecessors where we must grant was before the unity of the faith because there was no Christian communion at all besides it and in that faith salvation undeniably to be had and its judgment in all controversies of faith and interpretations of Scriptures to be obeyed Now who depart thus are also easily discerned 1. By the paucity of their number if we look not at the Succession but at the beginning of the Breach tho afterward in some places at least it may outnumber the Orthodox So Arianism was easily discerned for Faction at the Council of Nice when it was but new planted tho not at that of Syrmium or Seleucia afterward And 2ly By their plea one alledging Truth only the other also Tradition § 76 3. By the constitutions of the Church Ordinations are unlawful not only where not such persons as the Canons of the Church have appointed do ordain as one no Bishop or not such a number as for making a Bishop less than three where cannot be shewed an irremediable necessity which necessity where truly it is and not pretended to be if you please we will suppose Presbyters also may do the Office or propagate the Order of Bishops or the Christian people create all these to themselves or in practising the duties and retaining the faith of Christianity be saved without such Ecclesiastical Administrations but what will this avail those who pretend such necessities when they live in the middle of the bosom of the Church of God and the original ministery thereof but also where-ever a greater part of the Bishops of such a Province oppose than consent to it See Mr. Thorndikes concession Right of the Church p. 148. 250. 147. The Reason because Ordinations were to have bin made only by the Provincial Councils which were to be held frequently twice a year in defect of these the execution of it was committed to three or in a case of necessity to one but presupposing the consent and that by letters of the rest or the major part of them See Conc. Nic. 4. Can. Conc. Nicen. can 6. Apost can 1.36 38. Ap. Const l. 8. c. 27. Else the unity of the Church can no way be preserv'd Therefore Novatianus ordain'd for Bishop of Rome by Three was forc'd to yeild to Cornelius Ordain'd by Sixteen Again it was caution'd That all the Bishops of a Province might do nothing in these Ordinations without the Metropolitan's consent Conc. Nic. Can. 4 6. And again these Metropolitans were subjected to a Council And what is said here of Bishops in respect of a Provincial Council the same may be said of all those of a Province or also Patriarchy in respect of a General For as in a Province disagreeing those are only to be accounted Successions lawful i. e. such as all are only to submit to which the Provincial Council allows so in greater rents of the Church only those which the General Council allows which disauthorizing of some if it be not allow'd there can be no Unity in the Church nor suppression of Heresies Schisms c. If it be allow'd there can never be two Successions opposing one another both lawfully by such Clergy exercis'd and submitted to by the people after this exauthorizing one of them by a Council And this is the reason why we find the Canons of the ancient Councils not so much busied in debating Opinions as about setling Peace and Unity and perfect Subordination amongst Ecclesiastical persons knowing that upon this more than evidence of Argument and Reason which in most men is so weak and mis-leadable depended the preservation of the Unity of the Church's Doctrines and requiring in any division of these Governors Obedience still to the major and more dignified Body of them Christ's promises of indefectability belonging to a City set on an Hill and to a Light set on a Candlestick that we should not leave this City so eminent to repair to some petty Village nor this Light that shines over the whole House to follow a Spark glistering for a while in some corner thereof § 77 Two great Divisions or Separations of external Communion there have been in Christianity before this last made after the Christian Church was fifteen hundred years old The Sect of the Arians and afterward the Division of the Eastern Churches from the Latin or Roman Now for the first of these which seemed for a time to eclipse the Church-Catholick and to be set higher on an Hill than it very small it was at first when censur'd and condemn'd in a General and unanimous Council and tho afterward it grew much bigger by being promoted by the Secular power yet it never grew to a major part as is shew'd in the Discourse Of the Guide in Controversies Disc 2. § 26. and the violence of it vanish'd in fifty years i. e. when the Secular power fail'd it and the former Church-Communion hath out-liv'd it And for the time also in which it most flourish'd the Catholicks valiantly kept both their Bishops and Communion distinct there being two Bishops at Rome at Constantinople c. one Catholich and the other Arrian and two external Communions one containing that of the former times and adhering to the General Council of Nice the other deserting and deserted by the former Communion nor admitted to any Fellowship with it till at last many of the penitent members thereof return'd to the Catholick Communion and the new Sect expired See before § 62. § 78 For the second the Division of the Greek Churches from the Western it is granted that two Churches co-ordinate may upon several pretences moving them thereto if such as are not determin'd by the Superior to them both abstain from one another's external Communion without incurring any such Schism as to cease to be still both of them true Members of the Church-Catholick But if one of these Churches either desert or be deserted by and excluded from the Communion of the other for a matter once determin'd by an Ecclesiastical Authority Superior to both and such Superior Authority be embrac'd and adher'd to by the other rejected by it Here the Church that disobeys its Superior and departs from such other Churches as are united to them is Schismatick
so few in the council surely could not weaken its acts which receive force not from all for what acts almost have such universal consent but from the much major part thereof But if these Canons without the concurrence of those persons were invalid so was also the Anti Arrian Creed of this Council and their sentence in the behalf of Athanasius And indeed hence where there is any Schism by some part no act of the Church can thence-forward be valid For example What act of the Church Catholick could be valid at that time against the Arians if these of Sardica were not 3. Let it be granted that these Canons rejected at first by these Schismaticks were afterward for some time in the East omitted by the Catholicks in their collections of the Churches Canons yet it seems sufficient that the Oriental Church of latter times when the Arians were crushed acknowledged them as well as the West which we find done by the Concil Constantinopolitan in Trullo Can. 2. Obsignamus reliquos omnes Canones qui a sanctis nostris Patribus c expositi sunt similiter ab eis qui Sardicae convenerunt 4. For the equity of these Canons if we consider any obligation which they lay upon these Western parts of the Church in respect of the Bishop of Rome it is no greater than the acknowledged-General Council of Chalcedon layeth on the East in respect of the Bishop of Constantinople Can. 9. 5. However it be the acts of such a Council wherein the Western Bishops are conceded to have unanimously agreed are obligatory to the West and particularly to Africk from whence were present therein 35 Bishops consenting thereto and no dislike thereof afterwards profest by the African Church of that present time Nay Gratus Primat of Carthage who was present in this Council quoteth the authority thereof in 1. Conc. Carthag 5. Can. Mamini in sanctissimo Concilio Sardicensi statutum c But had its Canons bin disallowed by the African Church his quoting them would have prejudiced his matter Therefore To β I say neither were these Canons opposed by the African Council which contested with Zosimus about them above 60 years after as known to them to be Sardican Canons but only because they were utterly ignorant thereof for t is clear by S. Austin's words contra Crescon 3. l. 34 c. and Ep. 163. ad Eleusium that he who may be presumed as knowing as any other of that Synod knew of no Sardican Decrees at all save those made by the separated Arians I know not where and called by them Sardican Canons of which he came to have notice only casually from the Donatists and perusing the Book they shewed him found them to be made by the Arians because saith he legi Athanasium Julium illo Conc. Sardicensi fuisse improbatos Ep. 163. But it had bin some advantage to his matter then in hand had he produced any true and Orthodox Council of Sardica opposit to this who defended Athanasius but of this he is silent Neither will this altogether seem so strange when as in another matter we find him confessing himself ignorant also of a Canon of Nice that There may not be two Bishops resident of the same place at once See Austin Epist. 110. Quod Concilio Nicaeno prohibitum fuisse nesciebam nec ipse Valerius the former Bishop of Hippo sciebat Neither did Zosimus in all probability know these Canons which he urged to the Africans as the Nicene to have bin the Canons of Sardica for else we would have pressed them for such being thus as obligatory to the Africans as if they had bin the Nicene To ◠Photius a single person his rejecting these Canons when opposite to him in a matter so nearly concerning himself 200 years after the Eastern Council in Trullo had acknowledged them amongst the rest is to be looked on as a piece of passion and his own putting these Canons also amongst the rest in his Nomo-canon see Balsam in Nomo-can Photii is a sufficient self-condemnation Thus much for vindicating the authority of this Council Of which thus Mr. Thorndike Epilog 3. l. 20. c. p. 181. This difference came afterward to be tried by a General Council at Sardica c. For surely the Council of Sardica was intended for a General Council as the Emperor Justinian reckons it being summoned by both the Emperor Constantius and Constance out of the whole Empire and when the breach fell out and the Eastern Bishops withdrew themselves to Phillopopolis the whole power in point of right ought I conceive to remain on that side which was not the cause of the breach But the Success sufficiently sheweth that it did not so prevail was not obeyed and submitted to by all as a General Council for many a Council which followed after this about the Arian opinions might have bin spared The sovereign regard of peace in the Church suffered not those that were in the right to insist upon the acts of it as I suppose In the mean time the Canons thereof whereby Appeals to the Pope in the causes of Bishops are setled whether for the West which it represented or for the whole Church which it had right to conclude those Bishops that voted in it not having caused the breach shall I conceive them to be forged because they are so aspersed they having bin acknowledged by Justinian translated by Dionys Exiguus added by the Eastern Church to their Canon-law Or shall I not ask rather what pretence there could be in these Canons to settle Appeals from other parts to Rome rather than from Rome to other parts had not a preeminence of power and not only a precedence of rank bin acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome Thus Mr. Thorndike candidly of this Famous Council § 12 The 7th and 17th Canons of this Council above recited the Bishop of Rome urged A Digression concerning the controversy between the Bishops of Africk and Rome about Appeals by mistake to the 6th Carthaginian Council contesting with him about Appeals for Canons of Nice By mistake I say For these two Canons are found verbatim the same with those which the Pope sent to the African Bishops as appears by their Epistle to Boniface wherein the Canons are set down And the 17th Canon it seems was understood I say not whether rightly by the Bishop of Rome in such a sence as that it established his as well as the finitimi Episcopi's receiving the appeals of Presbyters which appears by his pressing that canon to them by his admitting the appeals of Apiarius only a Presbyter the occasion of this controversy and by the African Bishops opposing him in their Epistle to Celestine as well concerning Presbyter's as Bishops appeals to Rome These canons of Sardica as I have shewed out of S. Austin t is probable that the African Bishops had not seen tho they had the consent also of their predecessors there being no less than 35 Bishops from Africk in
communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit profanus est c. Ideo hic colleg as tuos Aegyptios Confessores sequor communicating with them Non novi Vitalem Meletium respuo ignoro Paulinum There being much division and distraction in the Church of Antioch under which St. Hierom liv'd between Meletius and Paulinus successively Bishops thereof and Vitalis a Presbyter Cui apud Antiochiam debeam communicare significes decernite si placet obsecro non timebo tres Hypostases dicere si jubetis And in the second Epistle In tres partes scissa Ecclesia ad se rapere me festinat Ego interim clamito si quis Cathedrae Petri jungitur meus est Meletius Vitalis atque Paulinus every one of them tho of several tenents tibi haerere se dicunt possum credere si unus only one of them hoc assereret nunc vero aut duo aut omnes mentiuntur Idcirco obtestor ut mihi literis tuis apud quem in Syria debeam communicare significes Thus S. Hierom. To which Bellarmin adds Erasmus a moderate man his comment upon it videri sibi Hieronymum his verbis asserere omnes Ecclesias subjectas esse Apostolicae Sedi At least it seems in times of schisms and divisions this Father thought it for the season mention'd the safest way to adhere to the Rom. See yet speaks he not of the B. of Rome as judging singly whom he thought liable to Heresie saying in catalogo Scriptorum some such thing of Liberius subscribing Arrianism tho indeed much apology may be made for Liberius in this matter yet not such as can free him from all fault he subscribing only and that when he was tired out with banishment and other cruelties the Sirmian Creed which only omitted Consubstantialis see Part 2. § 41. but of him join'd with his Council or with his Western Bishops Therefore he saith apud vos solos c. and Decernite si placet obsequor c. Therefore the more strict vindicators of the Roman inerrability in matters of Faith take not the Bishop thereof singly and unsynodically as his private judgment may inform or passions incline him especially upon some violence and terrors used as in Liberius it was but as assisted with his Council he weigheth judgeth and defineth such matters see Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2 3 4. in a time when a General Council is not nor cannot so conveniently be had In which intervals it may be presum'd Christ is not wanting to the supremest Guide of the Church using what helps he hath at hand considering what he saith Mat. 18.19 20. And Dr. Field in answer to these places of Hierom p. 547. goes thus far Thirdly we say it is more than probable that the whole Western Church shall never lose or forsake the true profession and therefore he may truly be judg'd a prophane person that eateth the Paschal Lamb out of the Communion of the same tho sometimes the Bishop of Rome in person be an Heretick other of his Collegues continuing faithful But then I ask according to this when-as not none at all or a few but most of his Western Collegues are join'd with the Bishop of Rome in which Communion no instance in Antiquity can shew him to have been Heretical and only a few in the West divided from him which will seem safest to those who will be guided by authority in St. Hierom's opinion to adhere to Cathedra Petri or the Cathedra elsewhere opposing it As for what is urg'd by Dr. Field ibid. out of St. Hierom Epist ad Evagrium to counterbalance these of a deprav'd custom in Rome when-as this was no way patroniz'd by any Episcopal Constitution and of his holding Presbyters and Bishops and again Bishops of Alexandria and Tanais ejusdem meriti sacerdotit when-as he meaneth ratione ordinis not jurisdictionis or jure divino not ecclesiastico for so he saith in the same Epistle Quod postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatum remedium factum est Factum est i. e. by the Apostles or the Councils which sufficiently justifies his allowance of and submission to Patriarchal authority These places seem to me of no force to null or to qualifie his former expressions to Damasus See Optatus who disputes thus l. 2. against the schismatical Donatist Bishops Videndum est qui ubi prior Cathedrâ sederet Negare non potes scire te in Vrbe Roma Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse collatam in qua una Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singulas Cathedras sibi quisque defenderent ut jam schismaticus peccator esset qui contra singularem Cathedram .i. e. Petri alteram collocaret Ergo Cathedra unica sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus Lino Clemens c. Damasus Damaso Siricius hodie qui noster est socius Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in una communionis societate concordant Vestrae Cathedrae vos originem reddite Sed habere vos in urbe Roma partem aliquam dicitis Quid est hoc quod pars vestra in urbe Roma Episcopum civem habere non potuit Vnde est quod claves regni vobis usurpare contenditis qui contra Cathedram Petri vestris praesumptionibus audaciis sacrilegio militatis Probatum est nos esse in Ecclesia sancta Catholica apud quos symbolum Trinitatis est per Cathedram Petri quae nostra est caeteras dotes apud nos esse etiam Sacerdotium c. I hope none will say that Optatus argues thus because St. Peter's Chair happen'd in his times to be orthodox but because he took it for granted that it must be orthodox and so all the Churches join'd to it because St. Peter's Chair See Damasus Epist 5. ad Africanos § 23. n. 3. Instituta esse majorum ut cuncta quae possit aliquam recipere dubitationem ad nos quasi ad caput ut semper fuit consuetudo deferre non dubitetis Of whom thus Spalatensis l. 7. c. 5. n. 23. Ex non Apocryphis Damasum primum observo qui talis sui privilegii metionem fecit ipsum vero ad sola majorum instituta refert See the Epistle of Siricius Bishop of Rome A. D. 389 to the Metropolitan Bishop of Tarracon in Spain c. 15. Explicuimus ut arbitror Frater charissime universa quae digesta sunt in querelam ad singulas causas de quibus ad Romanam Ecclesiam utpote ad caput sui corporis retulisti sufficientia quatuor opinor responsa reddidimus Nunc fraternitatis tuae animum ad servandos canones tenenda decretalia constituta magis ac magis invitamus ut haec in omnium coepiscoporum nostrorum perfâ—rri facias notionem ad universos Carthaginenses atque Baeticos Lusitanos atque Gallicos c. See the
indeed with application thereof to the Pope as guilty therein To rebel against the Catholick Church and its representative a General Council which is the last visible Judg of controversies and the supreme Ecclesiastical Court either is gross Schism or there is no such thing as Schismatical pravity in the world To rebel against such a Council i. e. against the constitutions thereof in affairs meerly Spiritual therefore if their Canons establish such and such Patriarchates to rebel against these will be Schism So p. 269. he saith In cases that are indeed Spiritual or meerly Ecclesiastical such as concern the Doctrine of Faith or Administration of the Sacraments or the Ordaining or Degrading of Ecclesiastical persons I add or those mention'd but now § 38. which relate not to the Civil State but meerly to the well governance of the Church Soveraign Princes have and have only an Architectonical power to see that Clergy-men do their duties i. e. according to such Church-decrees Else had Princes in such matters a negative or destructive power this would be the right of Heathen Potentates also and the primitive Church guilty of Rebellion in disobeying in these things their strictest prohibitions Again p. 257. he saith Thus neither the Papal power which we have cashier'd nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by the ancient Canons and by consequence the separation is not Schismatical Therefore it seems it had been Schismatical had such power been given him by the Canons § 40 Now to view Dr. Hammond c. 3. p. 54. he saith It is manifest that as the several Bishops had Praefecture over their several Churches and over the Presbyters Deacons and People under them such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schism so the Bishops themselves of the ordinary inferior Cities were for the preserving of unity and many other good uses subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropolitans Nay we must yet ascend one degree higher from this of Archbishops or Metropolitans to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs the division of which is thus clear'd c. And p. 60. The uppermost of the standing powers in the Church are Archbishops Primates and Patriarchs to whom the Bishops themselves are appointed in many things to be subject and this power I add and the particular Sees to whom it shall belong and subjection defin'd and asserted by the ancient Canons and most ancient even immemorial Apostolical tradition and custom is avouch'd for it I add especially for the eminency of the Roman See as may appear Conc. Nicaen Can. 4 6. Conc. Antioch c. 9. c. 20. Conc. Chalc. c. 19. c. After all which p. 66. of the same Chapter the Title of which is Of the several sorts of Schism he concludes That there may be a disobedience and irregularity and so a Schism even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans and of the Authority which these have by Canon and primitive custom over them Which was therefore to be added to the several species of Schism set down in the former Chapters Where tho the Doctor is pleased not to name particularly Patriarchs yet the quotation p. 54. We must yet ascend c. and p. 60. shews you that he upon the same reason of Church-Canons and primitive Custom doth and must hold that there may be a Schism also in the Metropolitans and consequently in all those under the Metropolitans in respect of their Patriarch The uniting as of several Diocesses in one Metropolitan and of several Provinces and Metropolitans in one Primate so of many Nations and Primates in one Patriarch exceedingly conducing to the peaceable government and cohesion of the Church Catholick and suppression of Heresies and Schisms oft'ner National than Diocesan only or Provincial Quae vero est causa saith Grotius in his first Reply upon Rivet ad Art 7. cur qui opinionibus dissident inter Catholicos maneant in eodem corpore non rupta communione contra qui inter Protestantes dissident idem facere nequeant utcunque multa de dilectione fraterna loquantur Hoc qui recte expender it inveniet quanta sit vis Primatus Which Primacy St. Hierom observes even amongst the Apostles themselves adversus Jovinianum l. 1. c. 14. Super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regnorum Coeli accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatum tollatur occasio Capite that is not only in dignity but also in some authority else can such Head not remedy Schisms Patriarchs therefore as well as Metropolitans much conducing to the removing of Schisms and preserving the Church's unity I suppose whatever the Prince or Emperor should attempt against such Metropolitan or Patriarch either to oppose him in the managing of those spiritual matters and to deny him to exercise either by himself or his Ministers his jurisdiction in any Province which is by Church Canons subjected unto him or to depose him from his See or to transfer his authority and jurisdiction on some other whom he more approves of as if Valentinian much affected to the Arrians should have transferr'd St. Ambrose his Archiepiscopal jurisdiction upon Auxentius an Arrian Bishop whom he much affected as his Mother Justina I think actually did wanting only possession of the Church which Ambrose assisted also by the people stoutly resisted yet still according to Dr. Hammond's judgment as long as the Canons of the Church remain the same it would be Schism in any to disobey such Metropolitan or to side with the Prince and Schism in the Prince himself as well as in the rest Again S. W. replying thus upon these words of his Schis p. 125. the Canons of Councils have mostly been set out and receiv'd their authority by the Emperors That never was it heard that an Emperor claim'd a negative Voice in making a Canon of a Council valid which concern'd matters purely spiritual nay not disaccepted them decreed unanimously by the Fathers but all the world look'd upon him as an unjust and tyrannical Encroacher To this Dr. Hammond Ans to Schism Disarmed p. 203. speaks thus For the appendage c. I need not reply having never pretended or seem'd to pretend what he chargeth on me concerning the Emperor's negative Voice in the Council what I pretended I spake out in plain words that the Canons have bin mostly set out and receiv'd their authority by the Emperors and this receiving their authority is I suppose in order to their powerful reception in their Dominions and this he acknowledgeth and so we are Friends Thus Dr. Hammond Now all that which S. W. there acknowledgeth is That the supreme Secular power is oblig'd to see that the Church's Decrees be receiv'd and put in execution By Dr. Hammond's consent then a negative
and orthodox Bede 3. l. 7. c. Theodore the next Archbishop of Canterbury is said Ceaddam arguisse non fuisse eum rite consecratum Ordinationem ejus denue Catholica ratione consummasse And the same was observed also in the Ordination of Presbyters v. Bed 4. l. 2. c. 4. Lastly § 57. n. 4. It seemeth also clear enough that they followed not the practice of their Forefathers herein both from the presence of the former Britain Bishops in the Council of Arles which determined this matter of whom see what Sir H. Spelman saith above § 55. n. 3. and also from Constantine's letter Socrat. Hist 1. l. 6. c. to perswade the Asian Churches to uniformity with the rest of the world In which he writes thus Quoniam modus ille eximius decorusque esset servandus quem omnes Ecclesiae totius orbis partes vel ad occidentem vel ad meridiem vel ad septentriones incolentes servant ac nonnullae quoque quae in locis ad orientem spectantibus habitant But lest you may think omnes Ecclesiae c may admit some small exception of the Church of Pritanny afterwards he names it in particular which thing he might also experimentally know from some part of his education there In me recepi c ut quod in urbe Roma in Italia in Africa in toto Aegypto Hispania Gallia Britannia c una consentiente sententia conservatur unless we will say the Scotch and Welch Bishops anciently to have observed Easter in this fashion whilst the rest of the British Bishops viz. York London c kept it in the Roman manner Add to this what Bede saith of the origin of this Error in the Scotch Nation and the same may be presumed in the British Hist 2. l. 19. c. Nuperrime temporibus illis hanc apud eos haeresim exortam non totam eorum gentem sed quosdam ex iis hac fuisse implicitos Which Honorius and other Roman Bishops with their letters see Bede ib endeavoured as soon as might be to suppress And judge you by these things how justifiable those proceedings of the Britain Clergy or Councils of that time mentioned Bram. vind p. 104. were in opposition to Augustin the Monk who only required of them in this thing to follow the tradition of the Church and objected against them quod in multis Romanae consuetudini immo universalis Ecclesiae contraria gererent quod suas traditiones universis quae per orbem sibi invicem concordant Ecclesiis praeferrent All which was true and the proponent also confirmed this truth before them with a miracle restoring his sight to a blind man See Sr. H. Spelm. A.D. 601. § 58 Now if it be here wondred at see Bishop Bramhal's vindic p. 97. that in the Britains ancient subjection to the Roman Patriarch there should appear no more footsteps of any acknowledgment thereof no such intercourse of Epistles between him and British Prelats in a nation so anciently Christian as those of other Western Provinces The reason thereof seems to be because Christian Religion tho early planted here yet made little growth lighting in a soil then very rude and barbarous and being miserably oppressed and disturbed from its very first appearance with wars foreign and civil the lately subdued natives either taking up arms against the Romans to shake off their new yoke or when the more civilized part submitted thereto invaded by their Northern and Western neighbours the Picts and Scots and the Irish and their former conquerors the Romans by reason of civil divisions between the Emperors themselves and afterward of the frequent inroads into the Empire of barbarous Nations no way able to protect or succour them Lastly upon their calling in other foreign auxiliaries the potent Saxons forced to combat also with those whom they brought-in for their aid for almost two hundred years till at last they became their slaves Thus did this poor Nation live in much distress see Gildas and S. H. Spelman in his Apparat. p. 12. even from Constantine's time when Christianity elsewhere enjoyed some rest until the settlement of the Saxons and their conversion to Christ Which also may be the reason that for the first 600 years in those elsewhere so learned and nourishing times there are not extant or at least not divulged the works of any one Britain writer born and residing here in theological matters excepting Gildas nor so much as the names known to posterity of the chief British Bishops who lived in these times save of a very few see Spelm. apparat 22. p. who for the 300 years between Constantine's days and the coming of Austin mentions some three or four Bishops of York the prime Seat and as many of London and the first known Bishop of Caerleon after A.D. 500. § 59 5. But let these obligations aforesaid go for none at all and let not the Britain only but the Saxon also That the English nation is sufficiently tyed to such subjection by the Decrees of latter Councils wherein her Prelats have yeilded their consent be originally free from any subjection due to the Roman Patriarch both in and after the days of Archbishop Augustin Yet by the 3d. and 4th Propositions made before § 48. and 49. such liberty can be no way pretended see Hammond schis p. 65. 100. Bramh. vindic p. 96. if frequent canons of latter Councils especially wherein the English Bishops have bin present and given their suffrage have restrained it Now how many Councils are there since 600 or 700 years after Christ as the 8. General Council the Lateran Constance Basil Florentine c whereof the English Bishops were either members or at least in absence accepted their Acts which have confirmed to the Bishop of Rome those jurisdictions over the whole Church excepting the Question of his Superiority to General Councils or at least over the Western part thereof conformed-to likewise by the ordinary practice of the English Prelats which the present Reformation denies him See the 8th and 15th Session of Concil Constantiense much urged by Protestants as no flatterer of the Pope and wherein the Council voting by Nations the English were one of the four condemning against Wickliff and Huss such Propositions as these Sess 8. Papa non est immediatus Vicarius Christi Apostolorum Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Romanae non habet primatum super alias Ecclesias particulares Sess 15. Petrus non fuit neque est Caput Ecelesiae sanctae Catholicae Papae praefectio institutio a Casaris potentia emanavit Papa non est manifestus verus Successor Apostolorum Principis Petri si vivit moribus contrariis Petro. Non est scintilla apparentiae quod oporteat esse unum Caput in Spiritualibus regens Ecclesiam quod caput semper cum ipsa militanti Ecclesia conservetur conservatur Now these canons of a Council supposed not General but Patriarchal only are obligatory at least to the members
4.19 And he must give account to the same King of Kings for killing his Subjects in their obeying their Lords commands who sent them to all Nations without asking any man's leave as they could not in doing their duty possibly wrong any man's right § 66 And if any here argue That a Spiritual Supremacy thus describ'd cannot consist with another Temporal but that one will ruine the other and probably the Ecclesiastical denouncing eternal torments the Civil threatning death temporal experience is enough to confute him which hath long shew'd the contrary Those Kingdoms where these two Scepters are set up having flourish'd I mean for any occasion of disturbance or war arising from the opposition of these two powers in long peace and prosperity whilst others where one of them hath been beaten down have either ever since been miserably afflicted with Civil Wars I mean about Religion unsetled or quite over-turned 1. Partly by reason that every one gives not the spoils of the Church's ruin'd power I mean the judging and deciding spiritual matters to another the Civil Magistrate but takes them to himself And secondly partly because one main doctrine of the Spiritual power which hath most command over men's consciences Namely this that resistance in any things by Arms to the Temporal power is unlawfu is faln together with that power And thirdly perhaps partly I may add because that where the Church-Authority is crush'd Religion and Goodness in general withers and decays and consequently with these Allegiance and Fidelity That which makes good men making good Subjects 4ly And again because That where any takes away another's right both Divine Justice sentences him to loose his own and his Example teaches others to invade it § 67 Hence it is That these Substitutes of Christ as himself being under Herod's jurisdiction yet was hindred by no threats for exercising the commission of his Father in his Dominions Luke 13.31 32. did exercise their Authority as much as ever and that for some hundreds of years even when all the temporal Magistrates and their Sovereigns opposed it for then they were sustained unarmed against all force by the power of the King of Kings JESUS and so shall be till his second coming in which time we find they had their Publick Assemblies for God's Worship revenged by Excommunications and Penance all disobedience called Councils for enacting Ecclesiastical Canons and Laws which therefore it is not absolutely necessary very convenient I grant that the Secular power should either call or assist neither may he annull them or any part thereof if purely concerning Ecclesiastical affairs but as a member also himself of the Church ought to become subject unto them and as a Prince to maintain them And hence it seems to follow That no Prince can lawfully abrogate the Authority of Patriarchs supposing it only founded on Ecclesiastical Constitutions over those who are the Churches as well as His Subjects no more then he can any other Ecclesiastical Decrees Again in which times we also find that as fast as any suffer'd by persecutions in their places they ordained others multiplied by their slaughters and ordained them without any order or nomination from the civil power who for ever neither can himself neither can cause them to lay hands on any but whom they approve nor to be partakers by this of other mens sins or errors 1 Tim. 5.22 § 68 And all this they did without the Emperour's leave nay contrary many times to their Edicts Now what Authority they had before amidst the oppositions of Secular power they cannot lose it nor any part of it since by this Powers submitting it self unto Christ's Scepter and to the Church Greater then this Church-authority might be made many ways by Princes by granting the Church now some temporal priviledges by making the Acts of the Church their Law also and by enforcing it on all their Subjects as well Clergy as Laiety with corporal punishments and the temporal sword further than the other could singly with his Spiritual which yet experience shews was able alone both to preserve order and discipline amongst its Subjects With the temporal sword I say which tho the Clergy may not use in the behalf of Religion yet He that hath it committed to him Rom. 13.4 the Civil Magistrate as a Son of the Church and the Servant of Christ upon his own subjects may and ought to use that weapon in maintaining of Christ's Laws which he may in defence of his own as who also may make Christ's Laws his own Hence Calvin Instit 4 l. 11. c. 16. sect speaking of the Primitive Governours of the Church Non improbabant saith he si quando suam authoritatem interponerent Principes in rebus Ecclesiasticis modo conservando Ecclesiae ordini non turbando disciplinae stabiliendae non dissolvendae of which I suppose the Spiritual Governors not the Princes were to judge hoc fieret Nam cum Ecclesia cogendi non habet potestatem c Principum partes sunt legibus edictis judiciis religionem sustinere But these Princes may do only according to the Priests directions Therefore all the establishing and restoring of Religion by the Kings of Judah from whose having power in advancing Religion t is strange to see how some argue their having the sole power were only by and in assistance of the Priest never against him and they commanded often the Priests to perform what the Priests together with them consented to be their duty See 2 Chr. 29.4 11. c. 17.6 8. 24.6 26.17 19.8 10. 13.9 34.5 9 14. Ezra 1.5 3.2 1 Chr. 25.1 compared with 24.31 see Deodat 2 King 23.5 2 Chr. 35.10 18. And see Deut. 17.18 19. the end of the Kings having a copy of the Law allowed him but another end of the Priests having the custody of it Deut. 17.9 and 2 Chr. 19.8 But no where can we find that they decided controversies against the Priests or that the succession of Priests maintaining a false Religion the King against them vindicated the true or in their stead because erroneous appointed and made new Priests because indeed the Succession of Priests never apostatized from the whole body of true Religion nor ever shall but should they yet why not the Prince rather and whom then finally is it fit to rely on for Religion But for those parts of true Religion wherein the Clergy was defective as it happened under the later Kings of Judah and in the times of our Saviour they were reformeable only by extraordinary Prophets sent from God whom in all times the people lawfully consulted and repaired to for judgment as they did to the Priests fee before but neither people nor Princes reformed Priests upon this pretence and therefore those Texts wherein the Prophets blame the errors of the Priests do no way warrant the Laities reforming them lest so the errors of the second be worse than that of the first See this spoken of more at large before But
and ceaseth to be any longer Catholick If then the former or present differences between the Roman and Greek Churches are such as have been by former Church-Authority superior to both Canonically decided and determin'd as suppose by the Lateran Council under Innocent III. or of that of Lions under Gregory X. or that of Florence under Eugenius IV. and the Eastern Churches disobeying these Acts have separated from or thereupon been rejected by the Roman Communion observing them Or again If the Greek Church have made a discession and rent from the Prime Patriarch of the Church and the Chair of St. Peter in denying any of those Priviledges and that Authority which rightly belongs to him over the whole Church of Christ in order to the preserving the perpetual Peace and Unity thereof things which it concerns me not here to determine the Greek Churches by this Separation from the Roman must stand guilty of a Schism from the Catholick Church and cease to be any true Members thereof Neither indeed have these Churches since this Division like wither'd branches retain'd any Dignity Authority Growth or Extent equal to the Roman or such as they had formerly this indeed hap'ning to them from the opression of an open enemy to Christianity but yet perhaps the same also an Instrument of God's displeasure against them § 79 Lastly As for the latest Division of the Reforming Party in the West much-what the same may be said of it as was but now of the Arian It is known when that single person stood alone who began it and it spread afterward by the support of the Secular power against Church-authority and when in its greatest growth but an inconsiderable part in comparison of the Whole Which also hath cast it off from her Communion condemn'd it by her Councils and permits not any of her Members to have any external Communion with it And tho at first by reason both of foreign Invasions from the Turk and many Civil Wars in Christian States it made especially in climates more remote from the residence and superintendency of the chief Hierarchy of the Church a very great and speedy increase yet the vigour of its age may be thought already past and it is a long time that it seems to be in its Wane and decadency expecting still and prophesying to it self the fall of Antichrist till it self by little and little be sunk down into its grave So many parts therefore as fall off once from their union with the main Body can be accounted no longer any members of the Church-Catholick nor yet lawfully continue a Church-Communion or Succession of Clergy among themselves Because there can be but unum Corpus as unus Dominus Christus Eph. 4.5 from which Body any part separated strait withereth and separated from the Body is so also from the Head Christ Tho all among these are not really cut off from the Head or Body that the Church externally separates from it by her Censures Which proceed upon these according to the outward profession which only the Church sees but cannot discern the inward affection and disposition which secretly may still continue some of those to the Body whom her Censures removes from it Such are the invincibly ignorant or those that without malice are involv'd in such Schism especially where the fundamental Faith is not diminish'd by any Heresie added to Schism But tho this plea of Ignorance invincible do seem good and credible for many in the present Greek Churches if these Churches may be concluded Schismatical kept in so much slavery illiterature and darkness yet it is to be fear'd it will fail many in the Reform'd Churches where too much presumption of Knowledg seems to be the chief thing that hath destroy'd their Obedience and Conformity to the whole FINIS THE THIRD TREATISE OF THE FIRST PART OF ANCIENT Church-Government REFLECTING On the late writings of several Learned Protestants Bishop Bramhall Dr. Field Dr. Fern Dr. Hammond and others on this Subject OXFORD Printed in the year M.DC.LXXXVIII CONTENTS SVbordination of Glergy § 1. Three Patriarchs only at the first § 2. The first of these the Bishop of Rome § 3. The extent of his Patriarchate The 2d the Bishop of Alexandria § 4. The 3d. the Bishop of Antioch § 5. From whence their Superiority over other Bishops § 6. The See of Constantinople advanced to a Patriarchate in the next place to Rome § 7. The great extent of this Patriarchate in latter times The See of Jerusalem raised to a Patriarchate in the 5th place § 8. The authority of Patriarchs and other Ecclesiastical Governors for the ordinations or confirmations and for judging the causes upon appeal of their inferiors § 9. Where concerning the authority of the Council of Sardica § 11. A Digression concerning the controversy between the Bishops of Africk and Rome about Appeals § 12. Whether transmarine Appeals in some cases very necessary § 14. Those not subjected to any Patriarch for Ordination yet subjected for decision of controversies § 18. The Patriarchs also subjected to the judgment of a superior Patriarch § 20. The power of Jurisdiction not only Primacy of Dignity of the Bishop of Rome above the rest of the Patriarchs and Bishops ib. This power exemplified in the Primitive time to the end of the 6th age the days of Gregory the Great § 21 to 31. A Digression concerning the meaning of that ancient Canon Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum § 22. A Digression concerning the Title of Universalis Epipiscopus assumed by the Constantinopolitan and declined by the Roman Bishops § 26. A Digression concerning the Patriarchship of Ravenna and Justiniana prima urged by Dr. Hammond § 30. The authority of this See of Rome by Protestants allowed to be the more orthodox in all other divisions that have bin made from it save only their own § 31. n. 2. By the former clear allegations some other controverted sayings of the Fathers expounded § 32. c. The Protestants ordinary replies to the authorities above cited to me seeming not satisfactory § 36. That such power which was anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome was not exercised by him jointly only with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended § 37. That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power established by the Ecclesiastical Canons and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by any power secular § 38. The concessions of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Hammond in this matter § 39. Several pretences to weaken such Canons to me seeming invalid § 41. That obedience due may not be withdrawn upon Governors undue claimes § 47. That Ecclesiastical Councils may change their former Ecclesiastical Laws tho Lay-Magistrates may not change them § 48. That Prelats and others stand obliged to those Church-Canons which in a superior Council are made with the consent of their Predecessors till such Council shall reverse them § 49. Reflections upon what hath him said That the
Church of England seems obliged in as much observance to the Rome See as the former instances have shewed the Orientals to have yeilded to it § 51. That the Church of England seems obliged to yeild the same observance to the Roman See as other Western Provinces upon the 6th Nicene Canon § 52. That this Nation owes its Conversion chiefly if not only to the Roman See § 53. And hath in ancient Councils together with other Churches subjected it self to that See before the Saxon conversion § 55. The Britains observation of Easter different from Rome not agreeing with the Orientals and no argument that they received Christianity from thence § 57. That the English Nation is sufficiently tyed to such subjection by the Decrees of latter Councils wherein her Prelats have yeilded their consents § 59. Thus the Principle upon which some set the English Clergy and Nation free from such former obligations hath bin shewed to be unsound § 60. That some Rights once resigned and parted with cannot afterward be justly resumed § 61. Dr. Field of the Church Ep. Dedicat SEing the controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in matters so intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examin them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies in the world is that blessed company of Holy ones that Houshold of faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the Living God which is this pillar and ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment Grot. Animadv cont Rivet ad Art 7. Rogo eos qui. verum amant ut cum legent Dav. Blondelli viri diligentissimi Librum de Primatu non inpsius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed ipsas historias quarum veritatem Blondellus agnoscit animo a factionibus remoto expendant spondeo si id faciant inventuros in quo acquieescant S. Austin de util credendi 16. c. Authoritate decipi miserum est miserius non moveri si Dei providentia non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de religione satagendum Non est desperandum ab eodem iposo Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam qua velut gradu incerto innitentes attollamur in Deum Haec autem authoritas seposita ratione qua sincerum intelligere ut diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis partim sequentium multitudine 10. c. Sed inquis Nonne erat melius rationem mihi reddere ut quacunque ea me duceret sine ulla sequerer temeritate Erat fortasse sed cum res tanta sit ut Deus tibi ratione cognoseendus sit omnesque putas idonâ—os esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an paucos paucos ais existimo Quid caeteris ergo hominibus qui ingenio tam sereno praediti non sunt negandam religionem putas who therefore must receive this not from Reason but Authority 12. c. Quis mediocriter intelligens non plane viderit stultis utilius ac salubrius esse praeceptis obtemperare sapientum quam suo judicio vitam degere 13. c. Recte igitur Catholicae disciplinae majestate institutum est ut accedentibus ad religionem fides i.e. adhibenda authoritati Ecclesiae persuadeatur ante omnia 8. c. Si jam satis jactatus videris sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manaturaest 12. Quum de religione id est quum de colendo atque intelligendo Deo agitur ii minus sequendi sunt qui nos credere vetant rationem promptissime pollicentes Rivet Apol. Discussio p. 255. Nunc plane ita sentit Grotius multi cum ipso non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jungantur cum iis qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent sine qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen Ideo optat ut ea divulsio quae evenit cause divulsionis tollantur Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum Canones fatente Melancthone qui eum primatum etiam necessarium put at ad retinendam unitatem Neque enim hoc est Ecclesiam subjicere Pontificis libidini sed reponere ordinem sapienter insticutum Bishop Bilson in perpet governm of Christ's Church 16. c. Not Antichrist but ancient Councils and Christian Emperors perceiving the mighty trouble and intolerable charges that the Bishops of every Province were put-to by staying at Synods for the hearing and determining of all private matters and quarrels and seeing no cause to imploy the Bishops of the whole world twice every year to sit in judgment about petit and particular strifes and brabbles as well the Prince as the Bishops not to increase the pride of Arcbishops but to settle an indifferent course both for the parties and the Judges referred not the making of Laws and Canons but the execution of them already made to the credit and conscience of the Archbishop To the Fathers leave an Appeal either to the Councils or the Primate of every Nation Mr. Thorndike Epilogue 3. l. 20. c. p. 179. Of the Councils he meaneth those first Councils held in the East how many can be counted General by number of present votes The authority of them then must arise from the admitting of them by the Western Churches and this admission of them what can it be ascribed to but the authority of the Church of Rome eminently involved above all the Churches of the West in the summoning and holding of them and by consequence in their Decrees And indeed in the troubles that passed between the East and the West from the Council of Nice tho the Western Churches have acted by their Representatives upon eminent occasions in great Councils yet in other occasions they may justly seem to refer themselves to that Church as resolving to regulate themselves by the Acts of it and then he produceth several instances Whereby saith he it may appear how the Western Churches went always along with that of Rome Which necessarily argueth a singular preeminence in it in regard whereof He the Roman Bishop is stiled the Patriarch of the West during the regular government of the Church and being so acknowledged by K. James of Excellent memory to the Card. Perron may justly charge them to be the cause of dividing the Church who had rather stand divided than own him in that quality Afterward he saith p. 180. That it is unquestionable that all causes that concern the whole Church are to resort to the Church of Rome And p. 181. asks what pretence there could be to settle Appeals from other parts to Rome as such Appeals were setled in the Council of Sardica which Council he there allows and
Patriarchal authority or headship over only some part of the Church to have a limited jurisdiction over a certain Province and to have an unlimited jurisdiction over the whole world To challenge the same thing from divine and from humane institution as Patriarch to be subject to the Canons as Universal Head of the Church to be above them are contradictions And in Schis guarded 4. sect p. 304. t is again urged by him that Sovereign government and Subordinate government of the same person in the same Society is inconsistent where he hath also these words When I did first apply my thoughts to a sad meditation on this subject I confess ingeniously that which gave me the most trouble was to satisfy my self fully about the Pope's Patriarchate but in conclusion that which had bin a cause of my trouble proved a means of my final satisfaction For seeing it is generally confessed that the Bishop of Rome was a Patriarch I concluded that he could not be a Spiritual Monarch T is urged likewise by Dr. Hammond in Schis 6. c. 2. s. That he that supposed in gross to have by Succession to S. Peter that original title to all power over all Churches cannot be imagined to acquire it afterward by way of retail i.e. by any other ways and means over any particular Church He that claims a reward as of his own labour and travel must be supposed to disclaim donation which is antecedent to and exclusive of the other as the title of descent is to that of conquest Thus Dr. Hammond But to these it is easily answered 1. To Bishop Bramhal §. 3. n. 3. That nothing consists better together than contradictories if they be not understood secundum idem To have a headship Universal over the whole Church given him by God or by the Church if God hath left to it the disposal thereof for some things and to have a headship Patriarchal only over some part of the Church given by the same authority or the first given by God the second by the Church i. e. the first by divine the second by humane institution for some other things contradict not To have an unlimited power if he means for place for some things and limited for place for other things contradict not To hold the same power or authority both by divine and humane institution or title or laws which are all one contradicts not unless this term only be added One may hold the same thing both from the donation of our Saviour and from the donation of the Church too and from the donation of the Prince too quantum in illis est which is only a consenting to Christ's donation if they acknowledge it Neither will these latter donations be needless or useless ad homines tho the former donation be good if the former be at any time questioned as many good titles have bin Again it doth not contradict that one as Patriarch be subject to some thing to which in another consideration i.e. as head of the Church he is not subject for the respect is changed Christ the same person as Man was subject to laws to which as God he was not So Sovereign government and Subordinate government of the same person in the same Society are consistent The government of a city is subordinate to the office of a Prince in the same civil society yet may the Prince that rules over all the Kingdom be governor also of some particular city thereof if so he pleaseth for his more security and may execute in that city all those under-offices himself which his Substitutes do in the rest or also formerly did there by his authority A Rectorship of a Parish is subordinate to that of a Bishop in the same Ecclesiastical society and yet the Bishop may also be the Parson of some Parish within his Diocess and officiate therein as is usual in some poorer Bishopricks One may be made by the King governor of a whole Province in respect of some command which he hath over it all and may be made by the same King or by any other to whom the King hath given the bestowing of such a dignity governor also only of one city in that Province in respect of some other offices divers from the former which he may exercise over that town and not likewise over the Province Thus much to Bishop Bramhal Only I must tell you that he may put his propositions in such a sence as they shall point-blank contradict but then he will not be able to shew that in such a sence the Roman Church affirms them 2. To Dr. Hammond I answer That no man can acquire the possession of a thing anew which he already possesseth but he may acquire a new title or right to what he already rightly possesseth i. e. he may do something upon which another law which now doth not shall give him right to the same thing supposing that his present right faileth or is questioned Neither needeth he when such titles are questioned adhere to one and renounce the other but may successively plead both one after another Indeed when these two titles are in several persons one voids the other the former the latter because the same thing cannot at the same time be possessed by several persons as Dr. Hammond rightly argues in Rep. to Cath. Gent. 6. cap. 1. s. but seems to me to apply it amiss to two titles remaining in the same person that the one of these will spoil the plea of the other So one may receive a possession from a Prince by free donation and afterward fearing some cavil at this title may acquire another right to the same thing by purchase either from the same Prince or from any other person of his Subjects who pretends to have the just disposal thereof And this person may afterward plead as he seeth cause either of these titles the donation from the Prince or purchase from the Subject which Subject whether he had a right power to dispose of such a thing or no yet the purchaser's plea is good against him and against all those who are bound by his act so that they cannot resume such possession from him So to come nearer our business Suppose a donation by our Saviour of such a Supremacy for ever over the whole Church and so over Britain to S. Peter's Successor and suppose a donation quo jure I need no here enquire by the Church of the same Supremacy to the Patriarch of the West over all the West and so over Britain and suppose 3ly a donation or consent by the inhabitants of Great Britain of the same Supremacy over them to the first author of their conversion I say here the same person being S. Peter's Successor and Patriarch of the West and converter of England may challenge such Supremacy over it by which of these titles he pleaseth they being obliged to all to our Saviour's Act of whom they are subjects to the Act of the Church whereof
things streight The Doctors proofs for what he saith are these § 44 The Emperor Justinian's erecting Justiniana Prima into a Patriarchate with independency on Rome and afterward Carthage to the like priviledges And the Emperor Valentinian's constituting Ravenna an independant and Patriarchal Seat To which instances see what I have said before in this Discourse § 30. and what authority the Western Patriarch exercised over the Doctor 's Patriarchs both after Justinian's days and before which argues either them not made Patriarchs in such an independency on any superior as the Doctor imagines or the Emperor's act disobey'd by the Western Patriarch as contrary to the Canons As for the reason he gives to secure the lawfulness thereof Answ to Schism Disarm'd p. 112. because never check'd at nor noted as an intrenchment on the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome that we discern or is pretended either by any Council or by any Bishops of the Church then living It seems many ways insufficient because if there be a Canon prohibiting it hence it will become unlawful and many things may be unlawfully done and yet not actually question'd and condemn'd And again may be condemn'd and yet not this condemnation recorded Yet is there record enough of the condemning of any such Supremacy in those Bishopricks in the authority we find used over them still by the Roman Patriarch Next he urgeth the 12th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon as intimating that this Prince's making Patriarchs was a frequent I suppose he means and allow'd of by the Church usage in the East at that time And after this the 17th Canon Conc. Chalc. and Can. 38. Conc. Constant in Trullo Which Canons he saith Schis p. 119. do more expresly attribute this power to the Prince or yeild it to be a power belonging to the Prince But being a little exagitated for this by the Replier especially when Balsamon whose judgment the Doctor much followeth saith the Church by these Canons conferr'd this power on the Prince he in his Answer to him p. 174 saith thus Whether it were from God immediately conferr'd on them and independantly 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 take upon me to determine Now to see what may be deduced from them in this matter of no small moment I will transcribe you these three Canons Conc. Chalc. can 12. Pervenit ad nos quod quidam praeter Ecclesiasticos ordines affectantes potentiam per pragmaticam sacram i. e. by an Imperial Constitution unam Provinciam in duas dividant ita ut ex hoc inveniantur duo Metropolitani Episcopi in eadem una esse Provincia Statuit ergo sancta Synodus deinceps nihil tale attentari a quolibet Episeopo Eos vero qui tale aliquid attentaverint de proprio gradu cadere Si quae vero antea civitates per pragmaticum alias literis Imperialibus Imperialem Metropolitani nominis honore decoratae sunt nomine solo perfruantur qui Ecclesiam ejus Civitatis regit Episcopus i. e. nomine solo Metropolitani perfruatur Salvis scilicet verae Metropoli privilegiis suis Privilegio Metropolitano Episcopo jure proprio reservato Can. 17. Statutum est or decrevimus alias singularem Ecclesiasticarum rusticas Parochias Per singulas Ecclesias rusticanas Parochias sive possessiones manere immobiles apud eos Episcopos qui eas retinent c. Si vero quaelibet Civitas per authoritatem Imperialem renovata est aut si renovetur in posterum civilibus publicis ordinationibus etiam Ecclesiasticarum Parochianarum sequatur ordinatio In another Copy Si qua vero civitas potestate Imperiali novata est i. e. noviter constructa aut si protinus innovetur civiles dispositiones publicas Ecclesiarum quoque Parochiarum ordines subsequantur Conc. Constant in Trullo can 38. Canonem qui a Patribus factus est referring to this Canon Conc. Chalc. Nos quoque observamus qui sic edicit Si qua civitas a regia potestate innovata est vel innovabitur civilem ac publicam formam Ecclesiasticarum quoque rerum ordo consequatur In the first of these Conc. Chalc. c. 12. there is the Emperor by his Letters making another City upon the ambition and solicitation of the Bishop thereof Metropolitan in a Province wherein there was a Metropolitan already but this fact of the Emperors disallow'd by the Council as a thing against Canon which Canon was as the Doctor acknowledges That there should be but one Metropolitan of one Province and order'd that for the future whatever Bishop sought such a thing should be degraded and for what was already past that the City and Bishop should enjoy the Title of Metropolitan but none of the Priviledges but that these be still retain'd to the former Metropolitan When-as the Doctor pretends it was the Prince's right both to confer the Title and the Priviledges of Metropolitan on what City he pleased One would think then according to this the Doctor saith That the Council if the Bishop were faulty and offended against the Canon in soliciting such a thing should punish him only another person whom they approv'd being substituted in his place to enjoy the rights which the Prince had conferr'd upon it and not that they should by their authority as if these things were in their disposal not in the Prince's continue the Title only and reverse the Priviledges and fix them to their former possessors The Bishop might have been punish'd and yet not the Emperor's act rescinded by them as to the new Metropolitans power or priviledges as it is plain it was Yet Dr. Hammond makes use of this Canon by shewing such things were then done by Princes to prove that suppose the Bishop of Rome were Patriarch of France yet the King of France might lawfully make the Bishop of Paris Patriarch and confer the Pope's priviledges on him This S. W. replying upon his Treatise of Schism wonders at and the Doctor endeavours to clear all in following Balsamon's judgment and distinguishing between the Prince's erecting such a Metropolitanship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his own motion when he saith it stands good Or upon base solicitation when the Council it seems may reverse it But I ask when such a thing is done of his own inclination stands it good if against the Canon that there should be but one Metropolitan in one Province if so what means he to say Answ p. 164. A Prince's power to erect Metropoles if exercised so by him as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church this certainly is an abuse And again p. 165. ' Such power stands valid to all effects if duly exercis'd by him without wrong to any i. e. other Metropolitan As for that which is urged from the Canon of a Council held under Alexius Comnenus an Eastern