Magistrate to whom the Civil in honour to the Clergy hath remitted it till in case of hainous Crimes after degradation from the Sacerdotal Dignity they are returned to the Secular Justice β. β See Canon Apostol 35. Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos primus habeatur quem velut caput existiment § 11 nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant quam illa sola singuli quae parochiae propriae villis quae sub ea sunt competunt Sed nec ille praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aiiquid in eorum parochiis Sic enim unanimitas erit Concil Nicen. Can. 4. Episcopum convenit maxime quidem ab omnibus qui sunt in Provincia Episcopis ordinari Si autem hoc difficile fuerit aut propter instantem necessitatem aut propter itineris longitudinem tribus tamen omnimodis in idipsum convenientibus absentibus quoque pari modo decernentibus per scripta consentientibus tunc ordinatio celebretur Firmitas autem corum quae geruntur per unamquamque Provinciam Metropolitano tribuatur Episcopo Can. 5. De his qui. Communione privantur seu ex clero seu ex laico ordine ab Episcopis per unamquamque Provinciam sententia regularis obtineat ut hi qui abjiciuntur ab aliis non recipiantur Can. 6. Antiqua consuetudo servetur per Aegyptum Lybiam Pentapolim ita ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem quia urbis Romae Episcopo parilis mos est Similiter autem apud Antiochiam ceterasque Provincias suis privilegia serventur Ecclesiis illud autem generaliter clarum est quod si quis praeter sententiam Metropolitani fuerit factus Episcopus hunc magna Synodus definivit Episcopum esse non oportere Sin autem communi cunctorum Decreto rationabili secundum Ecclesiasticam Regulam comprobato duo aut tres propter contentiones proprias contradicant obtineat sententia plurimorum I may spare the recital of any more tho the same is frequently iterated in the following Councils See Conc. Laodic c. 12. 2. Conc. Arelat c. 5. 2. Carth. c. 12. Rhegiense c. 1. Cabilon c. 10. Epist Synodal Conc. Romani sub Siricio Papa c. 1. and see what is said of this matter in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 10. c. See likewise the Cautions used by the Council of Trent Sess 24. De Reform c. 1. And Sess 22. De Reform c. 2. concerning the approbation of such persons as are nominated for Bishopricks by other Ecclesiastical Superiors and so the Collation of these Preferments upon them by the Pope § 12 This Confirmation of all Ordinations by their Ecclesiastical Superiors for preserving the Churches Unity is freely acknowledged by Mr. Thorndike in his Book of the Rights of the Church 5. c. p. 248. Where he mentions also some of the former Canons The fourth Canon saith he of the Council of Nice requireth that all Bishops be ordained by a Council of the Bishops of the Province si fieri potest which Council because it cannot always be had therefore it is Provided there That two or three may do the work the rest consenting and authorizing the Proceeding And this is that which the ordinance of the Apostles hath provided to keep the visible Communion of the whole Church in Unity But when among the Bishops of any Province part consent to Ordination part not the Unity of the Church cannot be preserved unless the consent of the whole follow the consent of the greater part And therefore It seemeth that there can no valid Ordination be made where the greater number of the Bishops of the Province dissent which is confirmed by the Ordination of Novatianus for Bishop of Rome which tho done by three Bishops yet was the foundation of that great Schisme because Cornelius was ordained on the other side by sixteen After which in Application of these things to the Ordinations made in the Church England at the Reformation he hath this Reflection Ibid. p. 250. Now it is manifest saith he that the Ordinations by which that Order of Bishops is propagated in England at and since the Reformation were not made by consent of the greater part of the Bishops of each Province but against their mind tho they made no contrary Ordinations And by the same means it is manifest that all those Ecclesiastical Laws by which the Reformation was established in England i. e. by these new Bishops were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church if we set aside the Secular Power that gave force unto that which was done by the Bishops contrary to that Rule wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth But in other parts the Reformation was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters or any consent which was able to conclude the Church by the constitution of the Church that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot if not worse i. e. detested among them Upon which precedent it sounds plausibly with the greatest part among us that the Unity of the whole being thus dissolved by the Reformation i. e. by the Reformers either being against Bishops or being Bishops made against the consent of the former Bishops the Unity of the Reformation cannot be preserved but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us The like he saith before p. 248. If the Clergy of that time i. e. in the beginning of Qu. Elizabeth's Reformation had been supported in that Power which by the Premises set down and justified in his Book is challenged on behalf of the Clergy this Reformation could not have been brought to pass Yet notwithstanding this Learned man thinks himself still secure in that Communion by imagining first that the Apostolical Succession of the governing Clergy which Canonically concludes the whole hath in several things violated Christ's Laws but quo Judice will any such thing be cleared See below § 37. And 2dly that in any such case the Secular Power may oppose their Authority the this established by the Apostles viz. So often as either the Apostles Ordinance or Christ's Laws must necessarily one of them be infringed γ γ See Conc. Nicen. c. 6. Conc. Chalced. c. 28. And Act. 16. 8. Gen. Conc. c. 10.17.21 Where in c. 17. is mentioned the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council § 13 and thus explained Qua pro causa haec magna sancta Synodus tam in seniori nova Roma Constantinopoli quam in sede Antiochiae Hierosolymorum priscam consuetudinem decernit in omnibus conservari ita ut earum Praesules universorum Metrapolitanorum qui ab ipsis promoventur sive per manus impositionem sive per Pallii dationem Episcopalis dignitatis firmitatem accipiant habeant potestatem viz. ad convocandum eos urgente necessitate ad Synodalem Conventum vel etiam ad coercendunt illos corrigendum cum fama eos super quibusdam delictis-forsitan
have been still a Schismatick and an Usurper § 6 6. Hence also should a Christian Secular Power suppose Arian refuse to nominate and present any person to the Clergy to be admitted to such Office and Jurisdictions within his dominions save such as are Arians here the Church-Governors authorized by the Canons ought to take the same care for these Christian Provinces in such dominions in the times of Christian as they did in times of Heathen Princes in appointing such other Pastors over the Flocks of Christ there as will still preserve the Faith and Unity of the Catholick Church And should the Church-Governors de facto appoint none because they see the possession of such place is by violence hindred yet will he who in the manner aforesaid invades such office be as much an Usurper as if he entred upon a Chair already possessed when it is only by reason of him and such like that those men are kept out who might rightly possess it and it is to be reckoned the same delinquency as if such Chair had actually two Bishops § 7 7. They hold That to the Exercise of the Episcopal Function in any Province so that it may continue undevided from the Unity of the Church-Catholick and so that the Subjects of such Province may receive any benefit thereby two things are required according to the ancient Laws of the Church made for preserving Unity for ever 1. Three Bishops to confer the Order or in some dispensable cases one at least 2. The Consent at least non-opposition of the major part of the Bishops of the same Province to such Ordination and the Licence or Confirmation of the Metropolitan or yet higher of the Patriarch himself β it mattering little as to preserving the Church's Unity so long as the Metropolitans and their actions are subjected to their Patriarch whether one or both or the higher without the lower do ratify the Election of the Bishops So that any Ordination made by three or four Bishops of a Person wanting the foresaid Consent and Confirmation from Superiors tho it be valid the Order is frustrate from any Jurisdiction or lawful exercise thereof in the same manner as that of a true Bishop is frustrate when afterwards he is justly excommunicated as being given and received out of the Unity of the Church Catholick and as exposing the Church to all the divisions and factions which the Lust of two or three Ecclesiasticks assisted with a Secular Power seduced may please to set up § 8 8. It seems evident from Antiquity as likewise confessed by learned Protestants that as the Bishops could not exercise in any Diocess a lawful Spiritual Jurisdiction without the Metropolitans Licence and Confirmation so neither could the Metropolitan in any Province without that of the Patriarch γ. There seeming as great reason and necessity of this for preserving the Unity of the Church Catholick amongst the Metropolitans and Primates in the several Provinces thereof as amongst Bishops in the several Diocesses And therefore anciently these Metropolitans obtained also the consent of their Co-Metropolitans in other Provinces by the Literae Communicatoriae or formatae of those Bishops upon the sending to them a Copy of their Faith according as it was setled and professed in the several Articles thereof exclusively to Heresies in those present times and a Testimonial of their legitimate Election Which also may be said of the Patriarchs themselves who upon their sending the like Confessions and Informations received a Confirmation from the Primate of them the Roman Bishop and the other Co-Patriarchs § 9 9. As for the Supreme Bishop of the Catholick Church who therefore could not receive this his Authority and Jurisdiction from any Superior yet anciently neither was he conceived to have any lawful Jurisdiction unless possessed thereof by the designation and suffrage of the major part at least of the Clergy and Bishops of the Roman Province in later times for peace sake tranferred upon the Cardinals To which was usually added also the Communicatory Letters of other Patriarchs and Primates upon his professing to them if need were the Catholick Faith of his Ancestors and the legalness of his Election And if in latter times the manner of his Investiture with this Supreme Authority and Jurisdiction be not altogether the same yet since we find in all ages a major part of Christian Churches such as are guilty of no ancient condemned Heresy adhering to the Roman Bishop and Faith when as meanwhile several of the other Patriarchs have been condemned for Hereticks we may presume also that not only the Clergy of the Roman Province but all or at least a major part of the Governors of these Churches are and have been from age to age ready to afford the same Testimony to his just and Canonical Authority And these seem to be the necessary Foundations and Pillars that support the Unity of the Church Catholick α. α Bellarm de Rom. Pontif. 5. l. 3. c. Ex Scripturis nihil habemus nisi data Pontifici claves regni caelorum § 10 de clavibus regni terrarum nulla mentio fit Traditio Apostolica nulla Quando Rex fit Christianus non perdit regnum terrarum quod jam obtinebat Suitable to the Church Hymn Crudelis Herodes Deum Regem venire quid times Non eripit Mortalia c. And the same Cardinal quoting a Passage out of an Epistle of Pope Nicholaus Quicquid saith he Imperatores habent dicet Nicholaus a Christo eos habere Peto igitur vel potest summus Pontifex auferre a Regibus Imperatoribus hoc tanquam Summus ipse Rex Imperator aut non potest Si potest ergo est major Christo si non potest ergo non habet vere potestatem regiam Neither is any such power in Temporals absolutely necessary to the Church in order to Spirituals without the exercise of which power the primitive Church tho most grievously oppressed by Secular States yet enjoyed this Government in Spirituals perfect and entire And concerning the Obligation of the Clergy also tho sequestred to God's Service to the obedience of the Civil Laws of Princes together with their other Fellow Subjects Thus the same Cardinal De Clericis 1. l. 28. c. Clerici praeterquam quod Clerici sunt sunt etiam Cives Partes quaedam Reipublicae politicae igitur ut tales vivere debent civilibus legibus non sunt autem aliae ut nunc ponimus nisi quae a Politico Magistratu sunt latae igitur illas Clerici servare dehent alioqui magna perturbatio confusio in Republica oriretur c. quoting St. Chrysostome in 13. ad Rom. Christi Evangelio non tolli politicas leges ideo debere etiam Sacerdotes Monachos eis parere and parere not only in a directive but coactive way not only to be guided in their duty by the laws but forced to obedience of it But this Coaction to proceed not from the Civil but Ecclesiastical
Controversies of Faith to a General Council and the supreme Power of Spiritual Censures which are coactive only in the Court of Conscience and suitably in the interval of General Councils he must allow to National Synods the same Judicature and Censures abstracting from the Prince Ibid. p. 92. he saith We see the Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors And then may not they do the same still Both assemble Synods as the Apostles did at Jerusalem Act. 15. And make Canons and then also publish them made as the Apostles did when an Heretical Prince concurreth not with or also opposeth them Provided that there be no apparent danger to the Prince or State of any Sedition by such meeting But they had no coactive Power to compel any man against his will This therefore is the Power which Emperors when become Christian and her Subjects bring in and add to the Church without taking away from it any of that Power which before from Christ's time it was possessed of under Heathen Princes The Summe is He challengeth for the Prince only a double coactive Power with his temporal Sword which is either executed by himself or committed to the Church Governors one for constraining of the Laity to the obedience of the Church the other of the inferior Clergy to the obedience of their Superiors in all Spiritual matters § 18 The same saith Dr. Fern Answer to Champny 9. c. p. 284. It is a mistake that the Prince by his supreme Power in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical things is made supreme Judge of Faith and Decider of all Controversies thereunto belonging and may ordain what he thinks fit in matters of Religion Who also in his Discourse of Presbytery and Episcopacy p. 19. Grants That no Secular Prince can justly prohibit within his Dominions the exercise of Ordination and of Judicature so far as the Keys left by Christ in his Church do extend nor prohibiting is to be obeyed and Christ's Substitutes herein being denied the assistance of the Civil Power are to proceed without it And Exam. Champny p. 290. saith That the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church are the immediate proper and ordinary Judges in defining and declaring what the Laws of Christ be for Doctrine and Discipline That they have a coercive Power in a spiritual restraint of those that obstinately gain-say So Dr. Fern. § 19 Mason de Ministerio Anglicano 3. l. 3. c. asketh the Question Quis enim nostrum unquam affirmavit Principes in causes Fidei Religionis supremos esse Cognitores Judices De hac a Cardinale Bellarmino aliis Pontificiis Ecclesiae Anglicanae illata injuria sic olim conquestus est Doctissimus Whitakerus c. § 20 Dr. Field Of the Church p 667. The State of the Christian Church the good things it enjoyeth and the felicity it promiseth being Spiritual is such that it may stand tho not only forsaken but greatly oppressed by the great men of the world And therefore it is by all resolved on That the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that bear the Sword and that there is in the Church a Power of convocating these her Spiritual Pastors to consult of things concerning her welfare tho none of the Princes of the world do favour her And p. 81. Touching Errors of Faith or Oberrations in the performance of God's worship and service saith he There is no question but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church to whom it pertaineth to teach the Truth are the ordinary and fittest Judges and that ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof unto them And below We do not attribute to our Princes with their Civil Estates power newly to adjudge any thing to be Heresy without the concurrence of the State of their Clergy but only to judge in those matters of Faith that are resolved on i. e. in former Councils according to former resolutions And the same much what is said by Dr. Heylin Reformation Justified p. 80 81. in affirming That if the Reformation be in such Points of Doctrine as have not been before defined in such manner i. e. in a General Council or in a particular Council universally received The King only with a few of his Bishops and learned Clergy tho never so well studied in the Point disputed can do nothing in it That belongs only to the whole Body of the Clergy in their Convocation rightly called and constituted By these Expressions the Reformation allowed to Christian Princes seems only of Errors first declared such either by the Resolutions of former lawful Councils or of a new lawful Council of Clergy first had which will easily be granted them Provided that Councils be understood in their due Subordinations and according to their due votes not the Decree of some inferior Synod preferred by such Prince to the Decree of a Superior nor the vote of a Minor part in a Synod or of some Clergy out of it before that of a Major part But if they mean the Princes taking the Guidance of some Council against a Superior or of some part of the Clergy opposed by a Major this is only deluding the Reader and in effect granting nothing § 21 Again thus Dr. Field of the entring of any person into or his Deposition from the Ecclesiastical Ministry Ibid. p. 681. It is resolved that none may ordain I add or force the Clergy to ordain any to serve in the work of Ministry but the Spiritual Pastors and Guides of the Church 2dly That none may judicially degrade or put any one lawfully admitted from his Degree and Order but they alone else had the Secular Magistrate no other Power yet if he may place and displace Clergy at his pleasure within his Dominions he may hereby advance or depress what Sect of Religion what Doctrines what Discipline he pleaseth Next of the Power of the Prelates of the Church to call Councils independently on Princes p. 668. It is evident saith he that there is a Power in Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs to all Episcopal Provincial National and Patriarchal Synods and that neither so depending on nor subject to the Power of Princes but that when they are Enemies to the Faith they may exercise the same without their consent and privity and subject them that refuse to obey their Summons to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence To which may be added that of Bishop Bilson Government of Christ's Church 16. c. When the Magistrate doth not regard but rather afflict the Church as in times of Infidelity and Heresy who shall then assemble the Pastors of any Province to determine matters of doubt or danger To which Question he Answers The Metropolitan When they are Enemies to the Faith saith Dr. Field I understand him either when Enemies to the Christian Faith as Heathen Princes or if Christian
132. Upon that one ground the Power of Kings in General and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchates whatsoever can be pretended against the lawfulness of the Reformation in these Kingdomes will easily be answered By these places you see he makes this the Regal Power to remove Patriarchates the main Bulwark for defending the Reformation from Schisme And for proof of such a Power in Kings he instanceth α. α In the Emperor Justinian § 60 his erecting the Bishoprick of Justiniana prima and afterward of Carthage β. β And the Emperor Valentinian before him his erecting Ravenna into a Patriarchship independent in Jurisdiction on that of Rome γ. γ Next he urgeth the 12th and 17th Canons of the Council of Chalcedon 38th of the Council in Trullo mentioning the Emperors Authority to erect new Mother Cities for places of Justice and the Councils ordering the Churches Metropolitan Dignity to follow it Ibid. 6. c. § 14. δ. δ And lastly he instanceth in the Kings of England anciently transferring or dividing Bishopricks and erecting new Ibid. § 15. See in the Author how he prosecutes these They labouring thus by such pretended Power of the Civil Magistrate to free a National Church from any Ecclesiastical Dependency abroad § 61 In Answer to which 1. Let it be conceded That Sovereign Princes may present such persons as they approve for discharging Ecclesiastical Functions within their Kingdomes may join divide Bishopricks transfer Metropolitan-ships or erect new ones c. Provided that the Canonical Ecclesiastical Superiors consent to the introduction of the Persons they present into such places and confer the Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction such persons shall exercise in them and that nothing herein be done contrary to the things established by former Ecclesiastical Canons which Canons if lawfully made by the Church can be dissolved by none save the same Authority The Question therefore here is whether there being already a Subordination of Metropolitans and Primates and their Synods to the higher Patriarchs and their Synods established by the Church Canons concerning which see Consid on the Council of Trent § 9. And The Guide Second Discourse § 24. c. A Prince hath Authority to dissolve this as to its obliging the Clergy that is within his Dominions by setling this Patriarchal Authority on one of his own Metropolitans or Primates which is setled formerly by the Church on another For Example whether a Sovereign Prince of Pentapolis or Lybia can release the Bishops of Pentapolis from their Canonical Obedience to the Patriarch of Alexandria and his Synods and subject them to another Bishop of his own nomination within Pentapolis § 62 And herein 1. Their own Concessions seem against it For Bishop Bramhal thus frees the Church of England from Schisme Vindic. p. 257. Num. 1. Neither the Papal Power which we have cashiered nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by the ancient Canons and by consequence the Separation is not Schismatical And A Power saith Dr. Hammond in Answer to S. W. Answer to Schism disarmed p. 164. Princes have had to erect Metropoles but if it be exercised so as to thwart known Canons and Customes of the Church this certainly is an Abuse And Schism p. 60. The uppermost of the standing Powers in the Church are Arch-Bishops Primates and Patriarchs to whom the Bishops themselves are in many things appointed to be subject and this Power and Subjection is defined and asserted by the ancient Canons and the most ancient even im-memorial Apostolical Tradition and Custome is avouched for it as may appear Conc. Nicen. 1. Can. 4.6 Concil Antioch c. 9.20 Concil Chalced. c. 19. concluding afterward p. 66. That there may be a Disobedience and Irregularity and so a Schisme even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans and of the Authority which they have by Canon and Primitive Custome over them From which All I observe here is That he chargeth Schisme upon the Disobedience of an Ecclesiastical Authority when formerly established by Church Canon § 62 2. If this be the Prince's Right to erect new Patriarchs and null former Ecclesiastical Subordinations 1. Num. 2. Either they must claim it as a Civil Right and then the Councils have been guilty of violating it in meeting and establishing such Subordinations without asking them leave For Example The 6th Canon of Nice the first General Council and 5th of the 2d and 9th and 16th of the 4th would have been an usurpation of an unjust Authority if the Subordination of Episcopal Sees and erecting of Patriarchs had belonged to the Prince or Emperor as a Civil Right Nor could the Bishop of Rome have justly expostulated with the Oriental Bishops in the last of these Councils for passing such a Canon for advancing the Bishoprick of Constantinople into a Patriarchate next to that of Rome without his consent if this thing belonged to the Emperors Civil Power who much desired such an Exaltation of the Constantinopolitan Bishop Nor would the Oriental Bishops have forborn to have pleaded this Title especially this Council being called after the precedent that is urg'd of Valentinian touching Ravenna and in his days yet such Right of the Emperor the Eastern Bishops do not pretend to at all But in their Epistle to Leo earnestly request his consent using this as one argument to obtain it Sic enim pii Principes the two Emperors Valentinian and Theodosius complacebunt quae tanquam legem tuae Sanctitatis Judicium firmaverunt And the Emperors Presidents in the Council do Act. 16th leave the disposal thereof wholly in the Councils hands and to be directed by the former Church Canons Where Conc. Nic. 6. Mos antiquus obtineat is strongly pleaded by the Roman Legates and also afterward by Leo which voids both Justinjan's and Valentinian's or any other Emperors Innovations against the Roman Bishops former Jurisdictions further then his consent is obtained therein Again Since Heathen Princes have the same Title with Christian to all Civil Rights neither could the Church when under them have lawfully practiced such a Jurisdiction 2. Or else Princes must claim it as a thing conceded to them by the Church to change and alter such Subordinations Now any such Concession from the Church we find not but this we find in the 8th General Council 21. c. Definimus neminem prorsus mundi potentium quenquam eorum qui Patriarchalibus sedibus praesunt in-honorare aut movere a proprio Throno tentare sed omni reverentia honore dignos judicare And yet further Si vero quis aliqua seculari potestate fruens pellere tentaverit praefatum Apostolicae Papam aut aliorum Patriarcharum quenquam Anathema sit And 22. Canon Definit neminem Laicorum Principam vel Potentum semet inserere electioni vel Promotioni Patriarchae vel Metropolitae aut cujuslibet Episcopi ne videlicet inordinata hinc incongrua fiat confusio vel contentio praesertim
or express Tradition Apostolical but only educible de novo by most necessary and certain consequence from those which are so delivered which are necessary to be determined and delivered by the Church of later Ages when contrary Errors happen to appear 4. Accordingly they affirm That upon the appearance of several such dangerous Errors the Church did lawfully in the four first General Councils make and deliver some new Definitions in matters of Faith new taken in the sense expressed above Num. 2. did lawfully enlarge the former Creed and require assent or belief in the sense explained above Num. 3. unto these new Definitions under pain of Anathema 5. They maintain that all such dangerous Errors have not appeared within the times of the four first General Councils nor those Councils defined all divine Truths contrary to such Errors and therefore that the Church in later Ages may use against these her Authority to do the same things in her following Councils as in the four first 6. And consequently that it is not reasonable to require of the Church that her Definitions be shewed I say not in their necessary Principles on which she grounds them but in their formal Terms either in the Scriptures or her four first Councils or in the now extant Writings of the first Ages 7. Nor necessary that every explicite Tradition Apostolical and Principle that hath descended to the Church of later Ages most certainly thro all the former must therefore be shewed to be asserted or mentioned in the Writers of the former especially where these very few HEAD VI. Concerning Subordination of Ecclesiastical Authorities Concerning Subordination of Ecclesiastical Authorities 1. CAtholicks maintain a due Subordination both of Ecclesiastical Persons among themselves viz. Of Presbyters to Bishops Bishops to Metropolitans Metropolitans to Primates Primates to Patriarchs And of Ecclesiastical Synods viz. Diocesan to Provincial Provincial to Patriarchal Patriarchal to General 2. They willingly grant That any particular Church or Provincial or National Synod may lawfully make Definitions in matters of Faith Reformations of Errors and Manners and other Ecclesiastical Constitutions for it self without the concurrence or conjuncture at the same time of any other Church or Synod therewith But 3ly They deny that any particular Church or Provincial or National Synod may make such Determinations or Constitutions contrary to those of any present or former Authority or Synod or maintain them made contrary to such Synod present or future reversing them to which Authority either Divine or Ecclesiastical Constitution hath made them Subordinate For without destroying Government no Ecclesiastical Law can be dissolved but by the same or an equal Power to that which made it nor can a part suppose a Church Arian or Donatist as it thinketh meet from time to time free it self from the Acts of the whole especially in such things wherein it can shew in it self no particular difference or disparity from the rest of the whole And therefore 4ly They affirm that when Ecclesiastical Persons or Synods happen to oppose one another Christian Obedience is still due only to the Superiour HEAD VII Concerning Ecclesiastical Supremacy Concerning Ecclesiastical Supremacy 1. THE Catholick Church here on Earth is but one united State and Body which all seem to confess in that when any separation is made every side endeavours to remove the cause thereof from themselves And it cannot reasonably be denyed that All the Christian Churches in the world are capable of a Monarchical Government under one Bishop as well as several Nations under one Emperor or Secular Prince and that such Government much conduceth to the Church's Peace and to the preventing and suppression of Heresies and Schisms 2. Catholicks perswaded therein both by the Scriptures and Tradition do acknowledge 1. That St. Peter was made by Christ President and Head of the College of the Apostles Matt. 16.19 Jo. 21.15 being compared with Gal. 2.7 And 2dly That the Bishop of Rome is his Successor in such Supremacy as likewise Successor to St. Paul the Great Apostle of the Gentiles in that See wherein the two great Apostles last resided anciently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sedes Apostolica And 3dly That this Bishop hath by Divine Right or if it were only by Ecclesiastical Constitution and by ancient Tradition and Custome it were sufficient committed to him a Supreme Authority over the Universal Church of Christ here on Earth in the calling of Councils and in the approving and confirming their Definitions before they can be universally obligatory and in taking care in the Intervals of such Councils of the due execution and observance of their Decrees and in receiving Appeals from all parts of the Church in some matters of greater concernment And 4ly That as no temporal Power may lawfully change or annul any Ecclesiastical Constitutions or Decrees made concerning the Government of the Church or other matters meerly Spiritual so neither may such temporal Power in particular abrogate this Ecclesiastical Authority tho it were only conferred on the Bishop of Rome by the Church so far as using a Jurisdiction meerly Spiritual in Matters that are so 3dly They willingly confess That the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority cannot dispense with any Divine Law now without such Dispensation obliging but only with Ecclesiastical Laws Nor hath any Power over Princes or their Subjects in Temporal matters but only in Spiritual over all those whether Princes or Subjects who are Members of the Church 4ly That there is no Decree of the Church or Council obliging any to maintain this Supreme Magistrate of the Church to be infallible in his Decrees nor on the other side just cause for any therefore to withdraw their obedience to his Decrees because they hold him not infallible HEAD VIII Lastly Concerning the necessary Amplitude of a lawful General Council Concerning the necessary Amplitude of a lawful General Council IN which the Supreme Judgment of this united Body is placed 1. It is not necessary to the composition of a lawful General Council that all the Clergy of the Christian world be assembled therein or all the Bishops of this Clergy or amongst the Bishops some sent thither the Delegates by the rest from all particular Churches professing Christianity For 1 upon these terms the four first Councils cannot be allowed General 2 Again Thus it would be in the power of any particular Church in detaining its Bishops to hinder the Being and the Benefit of a General Council 3 Again Heretical or Schismatical Churches being no part of the Church Catholick the absence of their Bishops hinders not but that the representative of the Church Catholick in such Council may be still compleat 2. The Presence of the Delegated Bishops of all particular Catholick Churches or Provinces is not necessary in such Council to denominate it lawfully General it being provided that all are called to it and none that come excluded because this Absence of some may either be necessitated from
Poverty distance of Place Le ts of temporal Magistrate or voluntary also out of some unlawful respect Which Absence of some few in comparison of the whole if it can hinder the necessary Generality of the Council it is probable that there will never want within the Confines also of the Church Catholick now spread thro the Dominions of several Princes of contrary interests some either Bishops or Secular Governours that are averse from the meeting of such Council in respect of some Circumstances belonging to it at least those of time place c. 3. For these reasons therefore 3 such Council seems to be unquestionably General not to say here that none less their such can justly be so where are present in person or by his Legates the Bishop of the Prime Apostolick See without whom no such Council can be held and by their Lieutenants at least all or most of the other Patriarchs such as are in Being and have some considerable part of the Church Catholick subjected unto them It is said most of them for the presence and concurrence of all of them was not thought necessary neither in the third nor fourth of the allowed General Councils And the Representatives of a considerably major part of the Catholick Provinces and more especially the Representatives of the largest and most dignified of these Provinces 4. In the Absence of some Patriarchs or chief Churches in such Council or in the presence there only of a smaller number of Delegates from the greater and more numerous Provinces and of a greater number from other less as five or six Bishops only delegated from the Western Churches were present in the Council of Nice or in any other deficiency of the representment of the greatest part of the Church Catholick in this Assembly yet when the Decrees and Acts of such smaller part being sent and made known to the Absent are both confirmed by the Bishop of Rome the Primate of the Patriarchs and of the universal Church and accepted also by the much major part of the Catholick Provinces tho these be not accepted by some others of them such Council ought either to be received as General or as equivalent thereto and the Acts thereof are obligatory to the whole Church Catholick For seeing that if all the Provinces had convened in one Place and Body the disagreeing votes of some Provinces in such Councils being fewer and lesser could not have justly hindred but that the contrary votes of the other much major part would have stood in force and obliged all to obedience then neither can their dissent out of the Council be rationally pretended to hinder the same And what engagement the several Provinces of the present Age have to such Council the same also all future seem to have for the same reason till an equal Authority to that which established such Ecclesiastical laws reverse them which in matters of necessary Faith will never happen So the Arian Churches of the fifth Age are as much obliged to the Definitions of the Nicene Council as those of the fourth And in any Age what means can there be of Preservation of Unity for matter of Faith in the Church Catholick if a few in comparison will neither be regulated by any one Person or Head Nor yet concluded by the much major part Here by acceptation of the much major part of Catholick Provinces is understood none other necessary then only a peaceful acquiescence in and conformity to the Decrees of such Councils and a not declaring against them tho such Acceptation proceed not so farr as to the passing of an Act to this effect in Provincial or National Synods For this last hath not been done to those Acts of Councils universally held General 5. To go yet a little further Considering the present Condition both of the Eastern Churches and of such Patriarchs as are yet left besides the Roman such now rather in name than in power the paucity poverty and illiterature necessitated by their great oppressions of their Clergy their incapacity to assemble themselves even in lesser Synods for consultation to say nothing here whether any of these Churches have declined from the former Definitions of the Church Catholick and so are become Heretical and so uncapable of sitting in Ecclesiastical Synods in these times a General Council such as ought to oblige may be well apprehended to receive narrower bounds than formerly And such a Council where those who are Catholick in Eastern Churches are wished for invited and if any come not excluded and to which all the Western Provinces yet flourishing in Religion and not obstructed from meeting are called and in which the Representatives of the greatest part of them joined with the Prime Patriarch are assembled such Council I say ought either to receive the denomination of General especially as to these Doctrines wherein the Eastern Churches consent or of the most General that the present times will afford or at least of a Patriarchal and lawful Superiour Council and so in the same measure accepted obligeth all the Provinces of the West to yield obedience thereto and therefore in such an Age for any Person or Church that is a Member of this Western Body to call for a larger Council than can be had is only an Artifice to decline Judgment and for any to Appeal to a future Council which can be no larger than that past to whose sentence they deny Submission what is this but to renounce the Authority they appeal to To which may be added that any Appeal to a future Council concerning such Controversies wherein one knoweth the unanimous Doctrine of the much major part of the present Christian Churches as well Eastern as Western to be against him seems bootless and affording no relief Because such Council can consist only of the Governours and so of the judgments of such particular Churches put to together and therefore such as the present Doctrine is of the major part of these Christian Churches and of the several Bishops presiding in them especially now after the cause reasons pretended demonstrations of the dissenting Party for so many years divulged pleaded considered such we may presume will be that of the Council For what can effect a Mutation of opinion in these Persons joined which altereth nothing now in them severed HEAD IX Concerning the Vnity of the Church and of its Government and Succession in respect of Seculars § 1 1. CAtholicks affirm That the Church and Civil Societies are two distinct Bodies Concerning the Unity of the Church and of its Government and Succession in respect of Seculars subject to their distinct Superiors and that the Church Catholick is but one in many States Again That the Civil State entring into the Body of the Church cannot thereby justly take from it any of its former Rights which are instated upon it by our Lord and which it did or might justly exercise in such Civil State before this State submitted it self to the
accusaverit Of which Canon thus Dr. Field p. 518. Patriarchs were by the Order of the 8th General Council Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them either by the imposition of hands or giving the Pall. And l. 5. c. 37. p. 551. ' Without the Patriarchs consent none of the Metropolitans subject unto them might be ordained And what they bring saith he proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome hath the right of confirming the Metropolitans within the Precincts of his own Patriarchship as likewise every other Patriarch had And thus Bishop Bramhal Vindic. c. 9. p. 259. 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 consisteth Patiarchal Authority In ordaining their Metropolitans or confirming them δ. δ Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal 4. c. p. 42. § 14 External Jurisdiction is either definitive or mulctative Authority definitive in matters of Faith and Religion belongeth to the Church Mulctative power is understood either as it is with coaction i. e. using Secular force or as it is referred to Spiritual Censures As it standeth in Spiritual Censures it is the right of the Church and was practised by the Church when without Christian Magistrate and since But coactive Jurisdiction was always understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate whether Christian or Heathen Ibid. 1. c. p. 9. As for Spiritual Jurisdiction standing in Examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks Excommunications of notorious and stubborn offenders Ordination of Priests and Deacons Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures this we reserve entire to the Church which Princes cannot give to nor take from the Church And by this Power saith he 4. c. p. 39. without Coaction the Church was called Faith was planted Devils were subdued the Nations were taken out of the power of darkness the world reduced to the obedience of Christ by this Power without coactive Jurisdiction the Church was governed for 300 years together But if it be enquired what was done when the Emperors were Christian and when their coactive Power came in The Emperors saith he p. 178. never took upon them by their Authority to define matters of Faith and Religion that they left to the Church But when the Church had defined such Truths against Hereticks and had deposed such Hereticks then the Emperors concurring with the Church by their Imperial Constitutions did by their coactive Power give strength to the Canons of the Church § 15 Mr. Thorndike Rights of the Church 4. c. p. 234. The Power of the Church is so absolute and depending on God alone that if a Sovereign professing Christianity should forbid the profession of that Faith or the Exercise of those Ordinances which God hath required to be served with The judgment of which Faith and Ordinances what they are Protestants also affirm to belong to the Clergy or even the Exercise of that Ecclesiastical Power which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church it must needs be necessary for those that are trusted with the Power of the Church not only to disobey the Commands of the Sovereign but to use that Power which their Quality in the Society of the Church gives them to provide for the subsistence thereof without the assistance of Secular Powers A thing manifestly supposed by all the Bishops of the ancient Church in all those actions wherein they refused to obey their Emperors seduced by Hereticks refused to obey them in forbearing to teach still and publish the Catholick Doctrine when prohibited by them and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them to the prejudice of Christianity Which actions whosoever justifies not he will lay the Church open to ruine whensoever the Soveraign Power is seduced by Hereticks And such a difference falling out i. e. between Prince and Clergy in Church matters as that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the right It will be requisite saith he for Christians in a doubtful case at their utmost perils to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereign tho to no other effect than to suffer if the Prince impose it for the Exercise of their Christianity and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity See the same Author Epilog 1. l. 19. c. The contents whereof touching this subject he hath briefly expressed thus That that Power which was in the Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Sovereign That the interest of Secular Power in determining matters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church and the Act of it And there he giveth reasons why the Church is to decide matters of Faith rather than the State supposing neither to be infallible Ibid. c. 20. p. 158. he saith That he who disturbs the Communion of the Church remains punishable by the Secular power to inflict temporal penalties not absolutely because it is Christian but upon supposition that this temporal power maintaineth the true Church And afterward That the Secular Power is not able of it self to do any of those Acts which the Church i.e. those who are qualified by and for the Church are qualified by vertue of their Commission from Christ to do without committing the sin of Sacrilege in seizing into its own hands the Powers which by God's Act are constituted and therefore consecrated and dedicated to his own service not supposing the free Act of the Church without fraud and violence concurring to the doing of it Now among the Acts and Powers belonging to the Church which he calls a Corporation by divine right and appointment he names these 1. l. 16. c. p. 116. The Power of making Laws within themselves and then I suppose of publishing them made among all the Subjects of the Church in whatever Princes Dominions else why make them of electing Church Governors of which see 3. l. 32. c. p. 398. and of Excommunicating and 3. l. 32. c. p. 385. The Power to determine all matters the determination whereof is requisite to maintain the Communion of Christians in the service of God and the Power to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that Communion The Power of holding Assemblies which must be by meeting together in some place or other and by some Church Authority calling them Of which he speaks thus 1. l. 8. c. p. 53. I must not omit to alledge the Authority of Councils and to maintain the Right and Power of holding them and the obligation which the Decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same Authority of the Apostles And afterward I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation founded by God upon a Priviledge of holding visible Assemblies for the common Service
of God notwithstanding any secular force prohibiting the same must needs maintain by consequence that the Church hath Power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common Service of God and the Unity in it and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it Thus Mr. Thorndike § 16 Dr. Taylor in Episcopacy asserted published by the Kings Authority after that p. 236. he hath laid this ground for the security of Secular Princes That since that Christ hath professed that his Kingdome is not of this world that Government which he hath constituted de novo doth no way make any Entrenchment on the Royalty hath these Passages p. 237. he saith That those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the Republick hath introduced all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals Subordination of inferiour Clergy to their Superiours Rites Liturgies c. As for the Rights of the Secular Power he layeth down this Rule p. 236. Whatsoever the Secular Tribunal did take Cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all Actions civil all publick Visitations of Justice all breach of municipal Laws These the Church saith he hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes these be indulged to it these by their favour then indulged but not so the former Accordingly p. 239. he saith Both Prince and Bishops have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigente of several occasions and have several Powers for the engagements of clerical obedience and attendance upon such Solemnities That the Bishops Jurisdiction hath a Compulsory derived from Christ only viz. Inflictions of Censures by Excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it And that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external Compulsory i. e. as he saith before to superadd a temporal penalty upon Contumacy or some other way abet the Censures of the Church P. 243. he saith That in those cases in which by the law of Christ Bishops may or in which they must use Excommunication no Power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away And p. 244. That the Church may inflict her Censures upon her Delinquent Children without asking leave that Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security And p 245. That the King 's supreme Regal Power in causes of the Church consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by God's law employed for regiment and care of Souls I suppose those he named before p. 237. and in these also that all the external Compulsory and Jurisdiction as he expoundeth 〈◊〉 before p. 239. is the King 's And lastly p. 241. he saith That the Catholick Bishops in time of Arian Emperors made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction that as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray the right which Christ had concredited to them to the encroachment of an exterior Jurisdiction and Power i. e. the Royal. § 17 Bishop Bramhal frequently stateth the Primacy or Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters thus Schisme Guarded p. 61. he saith All that our Kings assume to themselves is the external Regiment of the Church by coactive Power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective branches of it And p. 63. quoting the 37 Article of the Church of England where the King's Supremacy is expressed thus To preserve or contain all Estates and Orders committed to their trust whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in their duties and restrain contumacious offenders with the Civil Sword in which restraining offenders and containing all in their duty with the Civil Sword the Prince is willingly acknowledged by Catholicks the and the only Supreme he comments thus upon it You see the Power is Political the Sword is Political all is Political our Kings leave the Power of the Keys and Jurisdiction Spiritual purely to those to whom Christ hath left them And in answer to another Passage in the 37th Article and also in the Oath of Supremacy wherein the Bishop of Rome is denied to have any Jurisdiction in the Kingdome of England he distinguisheth between a Jurisdiction suppose to excommunicate absolve degrade purely Spiritual governing Christians in the interior Court of Conscience and extending no further and an exterior coactive Jurisdiction exercised in the exterior Ecclesiastical Courts the exterior Coaction of which he saith is originally Political and so belonging only to and held from the Prince His words are Schisme Guarded p. 160. Our Ancestors in denying any Jurisdiction that is Patriarchal to the Pope meant the very same thing that we do our only difference is in the use of the words Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction which we understand properly of Jurisdiction purely Spiritual which extends no further then the Court of Conscience But by Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the exterior Court which in truth is partly Spiritual partly Political The interior habit which enableth an Ecclesiastical Judge to excommunicate or absolve or degrade is meerly Spiritual but the exterior Coaction is originally Political So our Ancestors cast out external Ecclesiastical coactive Jurisdiction the same do we They did not take away from the Pope the power of the Keys or Jurisdiction purely Spiritual no more do we And Ibid. p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and executing of them but with this caution that to make them Laws he means such laws for observance of which secular coaction might be used the confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a coactive Power to execute them the Prince's Grant or Concession was needful So that Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the Kings Dominions and use the Ecclesiastical Censures by their own Authority without the Prince only they can use no Coaction by pecuniary or corporal punishments c. in the Execution of them without his which is granted to him Again Vindic. of the Church of England p. 269. he saith That 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 Sovereign Princes have and have only an Architectonical Power to see that Clergy-men do their Duties i. e. not what he but what their Superiors in Spiritual matters judge to be so And Schisme Guarded p. 136. We have nothing concerning any Jurisdiction meerly Spiritual in all the Statutes of Henry the Eighth They do all intend coactive Jurisdiction in the exterior Court of the Church We give the supreme Judicature of
Rights and Estates That the Clergy pass nothing prejudicial to these Rights for which there is all good reason Again The Emperors saith he in making use of their Authority in Councils took not upon them to be infallible Judges of Doctrine but only that they might see and judge whether Bishops did propound nothing in their Convocations and Consultations but most of all in their Determinations to undermine the Emperors Authority to disturb the tranquility of the Common-wealth i. e. in their medling in civil affairs and to cross the Determinations of precedent Councils Thus King James § 26 King Charles in his last Paper in the Isle of Wight p. 3. Speaking of the several Branches of Episcopal Authority practised under Heathen Princes Tho the Bishops saith he in the times of Pagan Princes had no outward coercive Power over mens Persons or Estates as also no more have they now except from and during the Princes pleasure yet in as much as every Christian man when he became a Member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government So Christian men do still Princes and all They then exercised a very large Power of Jurisdiction in Spiritualibus In making Ecclesiastical Canons receiving Accusations conventing the accused examining Witnesses judging of Crimes against the Evangelical Law excluding such men as they found guilty of scandalous offences from the Lord's Supper enjoining Penances upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. I subsume the same making of Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons the same Examinations Excommunications and casting out of the Church c. are and must be allowed still in Christian States also being things which as Bishop Carleton Princes can neither give to nor take from the Church And therefore they must also be allowed all those means absolutely without which no such things can be done As convening keeping intelligence one with another Promulgation of their Acts and Decrees c. And when the Christian Prince or State becomes to them such as the Heathen were in his with-holding or prohibiting these necessary things then may they resume that behaviour as was practised formerly in Heathenisme i. e. do these things without the States leave or against its Prohibitions § 27 After this copious Account given you of learned and judicious Protestants touching so weighty a matter let us now look back upon them and see in what Posture things are left The Ecclesiastical Supremacy that is commonly attributed to the Civil Power seems to consist chiefly in all or in some one of these three 1. His strengthning and promoting the Acts of the Church and its Governors with the assistance of the Secular Sword and his making their laws the Laws also of the State One Branch of which power consequently is The opposing and suppressing by the hand of Civil Justice any such Ecclsiastical Acts of Inferior and Uncanonical and illegal Persons or Synods as go against the Superior and legal the Church being always the Judge in this matter what Acts are against and disowned by her which is indeed the Princes not opposing but defending the Church § 28 2. Or 2dly His opposing and abrogating some of the Churches Canons and Laws of Government in purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs for in Civil all Princes Heathen also and Heretical may rescind any such Ecclesiastical Acts as do any prejudice to the temporal Power which God hath committed immediately into their hands as pretended contrary to the Law of Christ or to Christian liberty c. 3. Or 3dly His declaring and reforming against their Decrees in matters of Faith and Manners as some way contrary to God's Truth and the Doctrine of the Scriptures § 29 For the first of these It is an Ecclesiastical Supremacy or a Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters which the Church hath never denied to belong to Secular Princes but as obliged to them for it and many Acts thereof may be and sometimes have been performed even by Princes Heathen or Heretical Many Instances thereof are collected by Mason De Ministerio Anglicano p. 313. in Nabuchadonosor Cyrus Darius under the Old Testament Tiberius Adrian Antoninus Pius c. And afterward of several of the Gothick Kings under the New For the other two These Protestant Authors forecited grant That so often as any Prince falls into Heresy or in general opposeth the Christian Faith the exercise of such Supremacy concerning matters of Faith and Church Government returns to the Church alone as it was in the Church alone before Constantine Again the judgment of Heresy and consequently when Princes are Heretical and so fallen from the exercise of any such Supremacy is by several of the former quotations See before § 21 22. c. granted to belong to the Church But suppose the Christian Prince to be also Catholick yet the limitations of several of the forecited Authors seem hardly to allow him any such Branches of Supremacy For touching Errors of Faith or Aberrations in the performance of God's worship and service Dr. Field before § 20. saith That ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof to the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and in these things to judge according to their former resolutions or in any new matter whereof no former Definition hath been made the Prince saith Dr. Heylin before § 20. is to follow the new Resolutions that shall be made not of some few tho never so learned but of the whole body of his Clergy and by consequence to follow also not that but the Resolution of a higher Body of Clergy if this oppose that of his Clergy the one being necessarily subordinate to and conclusive by the other for preservation of the Unity and Peace of the Catholick Church So Bishop Bramhal grants That the Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons i. e. such as related only to Ecclesiastical not Civil matters both for the composing and executing of them Only to make these Canons Laws i. e. accompanied with a politick and coactive Power the Prince's Confirmation was required And Mr. Thorndike saith before § 15. That should the Prince forbid it yet the Church still ought to use that Ecclesiastical Power therein that shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church of which necessity also they not the Prince are by our Lord constituted the Judges The like saith Dr. Taylor of the Subordination of inferior Clergy to their Superiors and Bishop Bishop Carleton before § 14. of the Ordinations of the Clergy and Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures that they are proper Laws and Rights of the Church not to be changed or taken away by Princes § 30 It seems too late therefore now or in Henry the Eighth's days to project a Repeal of any of those forementioned ancient Ecclesiastical Customes and Canons which we find made or practiced by the Church under the
Heathen Emperors even against their frequent Edicts yet which could not then have been lawfully so used if any of these had encorached on Civil Rights in any of which Civil Rights the Heathen Prince might claim as much lawful Power as the Christian can And also which we find still continued by the Church under Christian Emperors without asking their leave to Decree such things or substituting their Decrees to their Authority or depending on their consent only with humbly desiring their assistance yet so as without it resolved to proceed in the Execution thereof as under Heathen of which we have many Experiments under the Christian Emperors when these Arian yet which things the Church could not lawfully have done were any of these entrenching upon the Princes Right now at least when Christian For Example the 6th Canon of Nice and 5th Canon of Constantinopolitan Council and 3d 4th 7th 17th Canon of Concil Sardic concerning the Subordinations and Appeals of Clergy would have been an usurpation of an unjust Authority if the Subordination of Episcopal Sees and Erecting of Patriarchs had belonged to the Prince When also we find them excluding Princes tho Christian and Catholick either from the judging in matters of Faith and from prohibiting here that any such Spiritual Food to use Bishop Andrews Expression Resp ad Apol. p. 332. should be set before their Subjects of which themselves first did not like the tast which surely is judging of the good or evil of such food or judging in meerly Ecclesiastical causes in any way of opposition or review of the Churches Decrees I mean the most supreme that may be had in it § 31 For these review the Canons mentioned but now and see that much noted Expostulation of St. Ambrose 2. l. Epist. 13. ad Valentin with the Emperor Valentinian presuming to examine Church Controversies and calling them before his Tribunal Quando audisti Clementissime Imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicasse Not Quando audisti imberbem necdum baptizatum ex matris arbitrio pendentem as Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. c. 1. p. 29. and others explain it but Quando auaisti Laicum applicable to any Secular Prince de Episcopo judicasse or if Bishop Andrews will dedisse idoneos cognitores i. e. if they such as Valentinian shall choose for idoneos if these chosen be not Bishops or Bishops of Valentinian's appointment and not his Canonical Superiors but then these Canonical Superiors are given for the Bishops Judges not by Vulentinian but by the Church But else who cannot see clearly that dare idoneos cognitores i. e. such as the Emperor thinks fit which Bishop Andrews pleads for as the Emperors right and ipse Imperator judicare which St. Ambrose denies comes all to one The same Father goes on Quis est qui abnuat in causa fidei in causa in-quam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare Pater tuus vir Deo favente maturioris aevi dicebat Non est meum judicare inter Episcopos c. And thus St. Athanasius Ep. and Solitar vitam agent Expostulates with Constantius interposing as to the Churches Definitions about Arianisme and her Canons about judging and censuring of Bishops opposing such Bishops as he took for Enemies of the Divine Truth and countenancing those inferior Ecclesiastical Synods which he fancied to be in the right against the Superior and against the Canons Quando a condito aevo auditum est quod judicium Ecclesiae authoritatem suam ab Imperatore accepit aut quando unquam hoc a small number of Bishops joined with Constantius pro judicio agnitum est Plurimae ante-hac Synodi fuere multa judicia Ecclesiae habita sunt Sed neque Patres â—istiusmodi res Principi persuadere conati sunt nec Princeps se in rebus Ecclesiasticis curicsum praehuit And see his complaints following That he did abrogare Canones in decernendo Principem facere Episcoporum praesidere judiciis Ecclesiasticis which he calls there Abominatio Desolationis And the Reverend Hosius President in the Council of Nice writes to this Prince on the same manner Ibid. p. 456. Reformida diem Judicit ne te misceas Ecclesiasticis neque nobis in hoc genere praecipe sed potius ea a nobis disce Tibi Deus imperium commisit nobis quae sunt Ecclesiae concredidit neque igitur fas est nobis in terris imperium tenere neque tu thymiamatum sacrorum potestatem habes Imperator Nefas est enim as Theodosius see Conc. Ephesin writ to the 3d General Council when he sent Candidianus thither for the Preservation of Peace and Order but not ut cum quaestionibus controversiis quae circa fidei dogmata incidunt quicquam commune haberet qui Sanctissimorum Episcoporum Catalogo ascriptus non est illum Ecclesiastieis negotiis consultationibus sese immiscere § 32 Where note that the Contest of these Bishops with these Emperors is for their judging these Ecclesiastical matters where they had no power to judge not for judging them when having a lawful power not rightly for this later these Princes would easily have denyed as all secular Princes that oppose the Church do but could not so the former And who doth not see which is safer to trust the Bishop or Princes with the last Cognizance of Divine things And how much it concerns Christianity that Princes be not made as Bishop Andrews would have them Resp ad Bell. Apol. p. 332 the Discussers of the Clergy's Definitions whether contra legem Christi and the last Tasters of the Food prepared by the Pastors for Christ's Sheep that as this appears to them sweet or bitter good or bad so they may allow or forbid it to be ministred to their Subjects Constantius was the first of the Christian Emperors that assumed this pregustation and that he took for sweet and good proved very Poison to his Subjects and at last ended in Mahometanisme Mean-while no doubt but Princes may assist all the Churches Consults with their secular power may call them preside in them for keeping of Order restraining the Tumultuous and Refractory and seeing that particulars perform what the whole declares to be their duty as the only Supreme's there and elsewhere of all coactive Power This Right none can deny them Hitherto from § 14. I have collected and considered the Protestant Concessions in Confirmation of the Church's Rights in her Ecclesiastical judgments and other proceedings in pure Spirituals which are declared to be independent on and unrepeable by the secular power and I have given you greater store of them than at first I intended § 33 Now by these their Concessions one would think the door were shut fast enough against any pretended Reformation at any time entring into the Church by the secular Authority opposed to the Ecclesiastical Yet seeing that after this several pretentions are made and that not only
by others but the same Authors as it were unhappily distracted and divided between two powerful Leaders Interest and Truth to bring in Alterations in Religion against the standing Church Authority chiefly by this way namely a Superintendency or Supremacy therein of the secular power either proceeding against all or at most joined with some inferior against the superior Clergy or some lesser against a much major part the judgment of which superior's and major part do canonically conclude the whole I think it necessary in this a matter of so great consequence to gather all those Pleas and Defences of any weight which I have met with in these Writers whereon they build the lawfulness of their Reformation by the secular Arm and to shew the invalidity of them § 34 To this purpose then I find them to alledge on the other side as if they had forgot all they had already conceded See Dr. Fern Answer to Champny p. 300. That the secular Sovereign Power is to be satisfied or as it is there § 21. to have it by Demonstration of Truth evidenced to him that what is propounded as Faith and Worship is according to the Law of Christ before he use or apply his Authority to the publick establishment of it Ibid. p. 294. And this in respect of his duty to God whose Laws and Worship he is bound to establish by his own Laws within his Dominions and is accountable for it if he do it amiss Thus Dr. Fern. Well But may the Clergy at least publish that Faith and Worship which they judge to be according to the Law of Christ in his Dominions without him Or may not the Prince also establish something as the Law of Christ when it is as he conceives evidenced to him to be so by some other without or against the Clergy or only with some minor or inferior part of them when opposed by the superior and major i. e. by the Canonical Ecclesiastical Judge The first of these is denied by him the later affirmed For saith he Ibid. p. 308. General Councils being the greatest and highest means of direction which Kings can have in matters of Religion but still with the limitation quatenus docent legem Christi of which I suppose the Prince must judge it being possible that the major part should be swayed by Factions or worldly Interest Therefore Kings and Emperors saith he may have cause given them upon Evidence of things unduly carried to use their supreme power for forbidding of their Decrees And Ibid. 2. c. p. 73. The Sovereign Prince is not bound in the way of Prudence always to receive his directions from a vote in Synod especially when there is just cause of fear that the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious to factious Interests And p. 72. If the Prince by the law of God stands bound to establish within his own Dominions whatsoever is evidenced to him by faithful Bishops and Learned Men of the Church to be the Law of Christ shall he not perform his known duty till the Vote of a major part of a Synod give him leave to do it Where also p. 295. he approves the Concession of the Clergy under King Henry the Eighth In binding themselves by Promise in Convocation in verbo Sacerdotis not to exact or promulge or execute any new Canons or Constitutions without the King's assent Here you see the Clergy's power so tied up that they can publish no Christian Doctrine to the People that is to Christ's Flock which they do not first evidence to the Prince and have for such publication his consent but on the other side whatever is any way evidenced to the Prince he may publish without and against their consent and yet they not he are made by these men the ordinary Judges in Spiritual matters § 35 Now here suppose the Prince receives the Directions of some Clergy men in any thing he doth yet since the Clergy is a subordinate and well regulated Government and these his Spiritual Directors oppose the main Body he is not here directed by that Clergy that ought to be his Judge but those that are against it Yet still some reason were there in this if the Prince could always be certain in his Evidence so as not to mistake i. e. to think something evidenced to him when indeed it is not and again to think other things not sufficiently evidenced when they are so there were less hazard in leaving Church matters thus to his disposal But since things are much otherwise and evidencing Truths to any one by reason of different Understandings Education Passions and Interest is a thing very casual so that what is easily evidenceable to another may happen not to be so to the Sovereign Power when not patient enough to be informed when misled and prepossessed by a Faction when not so capable as some others by defect of nature or learning and facile to be perswaded by the last Speaker c. to what an uncertain and mutable Condition are Church Affairs reduced when the Function of the Clergy depends on such Evidences made to the Prince 2. § 36 Next they urge That in regard that the Clergy may many ways fail and miscarry in delivering Christ's Laws and the Truth of the Gospel If in matters already determined by our Lord and his Apostles or Laws given to the Church by injury of time the Practice become contrary to the Law the Sovereign Power being bound to protect Christianity is bound to employ it self in giving strength first to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles By consequence if those with whom the Power of the Church is trusted i.e. that Body of the Clergy whose Acts conclude the whole else if only some other Clergy miscarry this Body serves the Prince for their correction shall hinder the restoring of such Laws the Sovereign Power may and ought by way of penalty to such persons to suppress their power that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the superior Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles Thus Mr. Thorndike Rights of the Church p. 273. § 37 Now here to omit that such suppositions and fears that the Clergy taken in the largest capacity and supremest judgments to which the Prince is to repair when lower are suspected shall fail at any time in the delivering to Christians all necessary Truths are groundless of which see what hath been said in the first Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies § 6. c. And Second Discourse § 12. c. what reasonable man is there hearing this that will not presently ask Who shall judge whether that be indeed a Law ordained by our Lord or his Apostles which the Prince would introduce or restore and which the Succession of the Clergy opposeth Which Clergy surely will never confess such to be a Law of our Lord but always will profess the contrary Nay will say That the Succession of the Clergy
By the Acts of some pious Emperors cassating the Decrees of some Ecclesiastical Synods as particularly Theodosius the Decrees of the second Ephesine Council 3. ε. ε By many precedents of later Christian Princes and amongst them the Kings of England before Henry the Eighth vindicating such Rights of Princes against the Pope But indeed none of these well examined will bear the weight they charge on them To α. The first Instance which is the main To α. Habuerunt Reges § 43 saith Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort. p. 379. in vetere Testamento primatum suum atque inde Nervi lacerti causae nostrae in novo autem deteriore jure non sunt It is willingly granted 1. That Princes may reform and that as Supremes in the exercise of their Civil Power in matters of Faith and Religion 2. May reform as Bishop Andrews would have it Ibid. p. 365. Citra Declarationem Ecclesiae without any Declaration of the Church at that time in Doctrines of the Church known and undisputed and formerly declared as those things the Kings of Judah reformed in were and justly are Princes blamed for any their neglect in this the duty of their Place and wherein their Secular Power is much more effective of a thorow Reformation than the Priest's 3. May reform the Clergy too such as sound in the Faith neglect their Duty or also are fallen from that Faith which is taught by that Church that is the Canonical Judge of such Controversies and Princes in punishing such Clergy are to be accounted Assistants to the Church 4. May reform this Clergy tho these a greater number than those professing the Catholick Faith because the legislative Church-power remains not in these separated and excluded tho the more but only in the whole or in the major part of the Catholick party easily discernable from the Apostates as were those deserting Moses's Laws and changing the former Divine Service and but a few at the first Only it is contended that never may Princes so reform against that Body of the Clergy which is the Canonical Judge of Controversies in matters of Faith nor can it beproved that the Godly Kings of Judah did so either that they reformed all the Priests or the High-Priest who was always their Guide in matters of Religion or reformed the People against them or reformed the People at least without them § 44 The chief Reformations were made by David Jehosophat Hezekiah and Josiah And in all these we find an Orthodox Clergy Co-adjutors and Con-reformers and the Prince rectifying nothing in them but with them and if the King's Actions appear in the Book of Kings or Chronicles more set forth than their's it is because it is an History of the Acts of the Kings not of the Priests When after the flourishing times of the Church under David and Solomon in Jeroboam's Reign Israel fell away yet the Priests and Levites revolted not with the People but leaving their Cities and Possessions went over to Judah See 2. Chron. 11.13 14. 13.9 15.9 and new Priests were made by Jeroboam for his new Worship Afterward we find these Priests and Levites assisting Jehosaphat in his Reformation 2. Chron. 17.7 8. and 19.8 9 10. In the times of Ahaz's Apostacy these Aaronical Priests were excluded the Doors of the house of our Lord shut up 2. Chron. 28.24 and new Priests not descended from Aaron called Chemarim consecrated with many Sacrifices and ordained for the new idolatrous Worship of whom see 2. King 23.5 Zeph. 1.4 Hos 10.5 Ezech. 44.8 To whom I will not deny but that some also of Aaron's race joined themselves But after this we find Hezekiah's Reformation in the very beginning of his Reign assisted with the Orthodox Clergy 2. Chron. 29.11 12. c. He opened the doors of the Lord saith the Text 2. Chron. 22.3 4 c. and brought in the Priests and the Levites viz. whom Ahaz had excluded not long before Afterwards these Priests of the Lord being excluded again from officiating in a greater persecution of Manasses Yet by him at last repenting we find them also restored and officiating in the Temple before Josiah's time 2. Chron. 33.16 And in the next Chapter 2. Chron. 34. Josiah perfected the Reformation which his Grand-father had begun by their Assistance and particularly by that of the High-Priest Hilkiah who also found in the Temple the Book of the Law this in those times at least entire being very rare and communicated it to the pious Prince who had neither seen it nor heard it read before this Eighteenth Year of his Reign and therefore must formerly have learnt God's Service and the true Religion to which he now so zealously reformed the People not from the Scriptures but from the Priests Neither were any of those Priests and Levites that assisted King Josiah such as had before Apostatiz'd under Manasses in that Josiah would permit none of those Levitical Priests who had formerly offered Sacrifices in the High-Places tho these to the God of Israel afterward to officiate at the Lord's Altar in Jerusalem but only indulged them their Diet with the rest of the Priests See 2. King 23.7.9 This Good King Josiah was the last Reformer And if the Clergy after this fell away in a much greater number so did the Princes too much more irrecoverably But in those times also when it is said 2. Chron. 36.14 That all i.e. very many as it is not unusual in Scripture of the chief of the Priests and of the People transgressed very much after all the abominations of the Heathen yet a remnant still there was that remained Catholick whom the rest now being Extra Ecclesiam King and People were obliged to obey in Spiritual matters a remnant I say Catholick as appears out of Ezekiel who began his Prophecy some few years before the Captivity where Ch. 44.15 The Lord having condemned the lapsed Priests or Levites to lower service saith of these But the Priests the Levites the Sons of Zadoc either of Zadoc mentioned 1. King 2.35 c. And 1. Chron. 6.8 or of Sadoc mentioned 1. Chron. 6.12 Grand-father to Hilkiah the High Priest in Josiah's time that kept the charge of my Sanctuary when the Children of Israel went astray from me they shall come near to me to minister unto me c. Some Priests therefore there were thro all those evil times whom God accepted and owned and who stood firm as to the Faith tho many of these guilty of great neglect of their Duty of Covetousness and several other Vices and particularly of undertaking to foretel Good things to a Wicked people instead of exhorting them to Repentance and of persecuting the true Prophets who foretold things bad which rendred them the frequent subject of the Prophet's complaints See Jer. 23. c. § 45 This that all the Princes Reformations in the State of Judah that are instanced-in were done with the Priest's consent and assistance none against them And if instead
of proving that these Kings did reform against the Clergy it be urged that at least they might have done it because no way subjected in matters of Religion to the judgment of the Priest many Texts may be produced evincing the contrary as particularly that Deut. 17.8 9. c. where the Judge named beside the Priest may either respect those extraordinarily sent by God and sanctified in a special manner with his Spirit as Samuel and some others or also in general the supreme Civil Power joined for the Execution with the Ecclesiastical or as for the Decision the one judging for the Civil and Regal the other for God's Laws but however it be the Judge in such a Conjunction is no way authoriz'd to give Sentence in a matter of God's Law without or against the judgment of the Priest Which appears more clearly if this Text in Deut. be compared with those other relating to it 2. Chron. 19.8 9 10. Ezek. 44.24 Haggai 2.11 Mal. 2.7 8. Hos 4.4 or if these Texts will not evince such an Ecclesiastical Supremacy belonging to the Priest in the Old Testament at least other Texts do in the new From which Texts the former Protestant Concessions grant such a Power as to the judging of Controversies of Faith and of Heresy and that without the Civil Power 's having herein a Negative Voice This to the Kings of Judah To β. That urged concerning Aaron To β. I answer That this Sin of his was before his being enstalled High-Priest § 46 and at such time as Moses was appointed by God the supreme Judge in Ecclesiastical Affairs Yet that the Tribe of Levi following Moses remained then not only constant but valiant and zealous Professors of the true Religion for which God afterward chose this Tribe for the sacred Ministery See Exod. 32 27. Deut. 33.8 9. That the High-Priest should be suspected or accused of Idolatry the judgment of this as also of Heresy and the expelling of him found guilty out of the Church by Excommunication belongs to the Clergy united in their supreme Council and the punishing him by other temporal Censures to the Prince To γ. St. Panl's Act To γ. I answer that the supreme Court for deciding Ecclesiastical Controversies in St. Paul's time § 47 was that newly established by our Lord the Council of the Apostles not the Sanedrim of the Jews That St. Paul's Appeal to Caesar was in no such Ecclesiastical Cause but in an accusation of raising Sedition of which he was charged as well as of being a Sectary Act. 24.5.12.18 wherein brought hefore Festus's Tribunal he pleaded Not-guilty and upon his Adversaries seeking to kill him before judgment given appealed to Caesar's i.e. from one Civil Tribunal to another higher To. δ. The Acts of the Emperors To δ. and that especially of Thedosius § 48 I answer That these being mentioned before for Branches of the Royal Primacy in Ecclesiasticals as to confirm those Acts in Spiritual matters which the Church owneth as legal and canonical so to suppress and annul the illegal and uncanonical Acts of any Ecclesiasticks contrary to those of the Church in both which the temporal Powers equally assist the Church those Acting of the Emperors in Church matters that are here urged are only in these two kinds and so are allowed and such in particular was that Act of Theodosius in dis-avowing the Decree of the second Ephesine Council which Decree being opposed by the Bishop of Rome's Legates in the Council and by himself and all the Western Churches and divers of the Eastern Bishops out of it and several of those who voted for it in the Council being with threats forced thereto as appears by their complaint made hereof in the following Council of Chalcedon Contil Chalced. Act. 1. was illegal and not obliging and upon this ground or motive the Emperor's assistance requested by Leo for the nulling of its Acts as may be seen in the beginning of the Epistle he writ to him wherein upon such reasons given he desires the Emperors favour Epist 43. To ε. The Practice of later Christian Princes preceding the times of Henry the Eighth much pressed by Bishop Brambal in Vindication of the Church of England To ε. 5th and 7th Chapters I answer § 49 that all oppositions whatever of Civil States to the Ecclesiastical Power are not denyed to be just or lawful but only those which oppose his Decrees Canons or Government relating to matters purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical that the most of those which the Bishop instanceth in are not so not about matters of Faith and Manners or Church Discipline or the Sub-ordinations of the Churches Judicatures and Execution of her Laws and Censures as to these but Contests either about those things which the Church possessed not by her own right but Princes former Donations or in matters apprehended by Princes some way hurtful or prejudicial to their Civil Rights and Liberties As for Example About the Patronage of Bishopricks and Investiture of Bishops several Revenues and Pensions given to or exacted by the Church and Exemption of Lands and Estates from Tribute Exemption of the Clergy from Secular Courts in Civil or also Criminal matters Appeals made to or Bulls brought from Rome relating to matters the Cognizance whereof belongs to the King's Court and therefore these matters to be considered by the Prince whether not such before that his Subject may submit to them Of which may be used the Bishops forecited § 17. Observation on the 37th Article of the Church of England You see that all here is Political But then granting that some other instances are such as offend against the Churches native Rights as some Contests here in England did for opposing which some holy Bishops here suffered much Persecution yet the proving such Facts to have been done even before the times of Henry the Eighth proves not their lawfulness to be done and next how far soever such Acts may be shewed to have passed in restraining some claims of the Church yet the Bishop confesseth that for Henry the Eighth's abolishing the usurped Jurisdiction as he calls it of the Bishop of Rome or Western Patriarch he finds no Pattern in these former Acts of Christian Princes His words are Vindication of the Church of England p. 184. Lastly Henry the Eighth abolished the usurped Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his it Dominions The Emperors did not so Whether saith he conjecturing at the reasons of that they thought it not fit I add or lawful to leave an old Patriarch or because they did not sufficiently consider the right bounds of imperial power especially being seconded with the Authority of an Occidental Council but no such Council would second them or did Henry the Eighth in this business or because they did not so clearly distinguish between a beginning of Unity and an universality of Jurisdiction for if they had they had wronged this Patriarch or because they had other remedies wherewith
to help themselves I cannot determine By what is said it may appear how improper the foresaid Instances are to prove in Christian Princes a Power to reform the supposed Errors of the Clergy in their Doctrines of Faith or Manners the second thing they have urged § 50 3. Again They urge That it is not fit nor safe that the Clergy should be able by their Constitutions and Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters until the Stamp of Royal Authority be imprinted on them Dr. Heylin Reformation Justified p. 86. Dr. Fern Exam of Champ. p. 295. Where were the Princes knowledge and assent required only on this account relating to the State that so nothing be passed in these Synods prejudecial to his Civil Rights it is willingly allowed but if required on another account relating to Religion that so he may prohibit and suppress so much of them as is not evidenced to him to be juxta legem Christi or as he apprehends is also against it of which thing he is not the Judge yet which hath been the Pretence of reforming Princes medling with the most speculative points in Divinity it seems not reasonable And thus an Heretical Prince will strangle as he pleaseth within his Dominions the Catholick Verities § 51 4. They urge the case of the Act of a National Clergy passing away their Spiritual Authority to a Sccular Prince 4. and investing him or whom he shall nominate and elect with that Power which formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity After which they say the Princes Act or their's he nominates have virtually the power of the Clergy or their Synod and do oblige as much as if they in terminis had agreed upon it To give you it in Dr. Heylin's words Reform Justified p. 89. The Kings of England saith he had a further Right as to this particular which is a Power conferred upon them by the Clergy whether by way of Recognition or Concession I regard not here by which the Clergy did invest the King with a supreme Authority not only of confirming their Synodical Acts not to be put in Execution without his consent but in effect to devolve on him all that Power which formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity amongst which Powers p. 85. he nameth this to reform such Errors and Corruptions as are expresly contrary to the word of God And to this we have a parallel Case in the Roman Empire in which the Supreme Majesty of the State was vested in the Senate and People of Rome till by the Law which they call Lex Regis they transferred all their Power on Caesar and the following Emperors which Law being past the Edicts of the Emperors were as binding as the Senatus-Consulta had been before The like may be affirmed of the Church of England The Clergy had self Authority in all matters which concerned Religion and by their Canons and Determinations did bind all the Subjects till by acknowledging King Henry the Eighth for their supreme Head and by the Act of Submission not long after follwing they transferred that Power upon the King and his Successors After which time whatsoever the King or his Successors did in the Reformation as it had virtually the Power of the Convocation so was it as good in Law as if the Clergy in their Convocation particularly and in terminis had agreed upon it Thus Dr. Heylin And upon this ground and title it was that the XLII Articles since reduced to XXXIX were first introduced into the Church of England being composed by certain Persons appointed by the Prince and then without any review or Confirmation of the Synod published as the Act thereof as appears by Philpot's Plea and arguing in the Synod 10. Mariae when the Clergy questioned these Articles and subscribed that they were wrongfully entitled to the Synod which had never passed them See for this matter Fox Act p. 1282. And Ib. p. 1704 Arch-bishop Cranmer's Tryal And Fuller's Hist Ecclesiast 7. l. p. 420. And Dr. Fern Exam. Champny p. 74. § 52 To all which may be answered That the Canons of the Church permit no such Translation of the Clergy's Authority to the Secular Power neither yet is the supreme Power of composing or changing Articles of Faith and Religion or making other Ecclesiastical Laws as to any Nation vested in the National Synod thereof as appears at length from the Sub-ordinations of Clergy both Persons and Synods in the Catholick Church which in several States is only one for preserving of the Churches Faith and Government for every in unity of which see more Head 6. Thes 1. c. 2 Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies § 24. c. Consid on Council of Trent § 9. c. And so such National Synods cannot give away what they have not Nor were it so have they any Power of Alienating this Authority for which they are personally set a part from the rest of the world by our Lord with a successive solemn Ordination and of which well or ill managed they themselves must give account to our Lord No such Power of Alienation being contained in the original Grant thereof But if without such express Licence they can give away some Part to the Laity where also no necessity is pretended then why not any part of their office and so depute Laicks to ordain Ministers also and consecrate the holy Encharist To which may be added That no part of the Clergy Duty depends more on their personal Abilities and long preparation by study then this we speak of The composing of Articles and Canons the reforming of Errors c. Least of all therefore seems this committable to the Prince either that he himself should perform it whose Regal imployments require a far different Education or that he should delegate it to others by which the Clergy authorizeth they know not whom perhaps some persons heretical if such happen to be Favourites of the Prince to establish in Religion the Clergy knows not what for this Concession is made by the English Clergy without any Reservation of a Revisal § 53 5. They urge to give you it in Bishop Bramhal's words Vindic. of the Church of England 5. p. 257. ' That since the Division ' of Britain from the Empire i. e. since Brittain's being governed by Princes of its own who therefore in their Territories have the same Authority that the Roman Emperors formerly had in the Empire See Dr. Hammond Schism p. 124. No Canons are or ever were of force with us further then they were received and by their incorporation became Brittannick Laws Which as they cannot or ever could be imposed upon the King and Kingdome by a forreign Patriarch by constraint so when they are found by experience prejudicial to the publick Good they may as freely by the same King and Kingdome be rejected And so Dr. Hammond Of Schism p. 125. The Canons of Councils have mostly been set out and received
their Authority by the Emperors I answer All this is true 1. That the Church Canons are not of force as to any Coactive Power to he used in the Execution of them by Clergy or Laity before made the Emperor's or other Princes Laws For which take the same Bishop Bramhal's Exposition when I believe he had better considered it Schism Guarded p. 92. We see the Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors but that was by Authority meerly Spiritual They had no Coactive Power to compel any man against his will And p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and for executing of them but with this caution That to make them Laws the Confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a Coactive Power to execute them The Prince's Grant or Concession was needful 2. That the Church Canons are not of force at all when these Canons relate to any civil Right without the secular Magistrate's precedent admission of them of whose proper Cognizance such Rights are But meanwhile all Ecclesiastical Canons whether concerning the Faith or Government and Discipline of the Church so far as they do not encroach on any such civil Rights as I presume all those made by the Church when under Heathen Governors will be granted to be are in force in whatever Princes Dominions so as to render all the disobedient liable to the Church's Censures tho the Christian Prince never so much oppose and reject them And this granted more is not desired for thus no Members of the Church at any time can be free from the strict observance of such Canons by any secular Authority or Patronage § 54 6. They urge That in any Princes Dominions the Clergy's liberty to exercise actually their Function 6. and the application of the matter on which it worketh viz. of the Subjects of such a Dominion are held from the Crown so that a Christian Prince by denying this lawfully voids the other as he thinks fit We draw saith Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 268. or derive from the Crown Liberty or Power to exercise actually and lawfully upon the Subjects of the Crown that habitual Jurisdiction which we receive at our Ordination And in his Reply to Chalced. p. 291. he makes Ecclesiastical Persons in their excommunicating and absolving the King's Substitutes i. e. as he expounds himself afterward by the King's Application of the matter namely of his Subjects to receive their Absolution from such Ecclesiastical Persons I answer This again if meant of the liberty of the Clergy's exercising their Functions with a Coactive Power or of some persons among that Clergy which the Church owns as Catholick being admitted to exercise their Function absolutely in such Dominions and not others is very true but little to their Purpose that urge it But if understood absolutely as to the liberty of any such Clergy at all to exercise their Function at all in any Christian Prince's Dominions upon his Subjects without his leave in which sense only it besteads them is most false Neither may a Christian Prince be thought to have any priviledge herein which a Heathen hath not And as such Priviledge is most pernicious to the propagation of the Christian Religion where the Prince is Heathen So to the Conservation of the Catholick Religion where the Christian Prince happens to be Heretical or Schismatical § 55 7. They urge For the abrogating Church Canons That Ecclesiastical are only humane Institutions 7. that Authority given by the men and abused may be again suppressed by them So Rivet Grot. Discuss Dialys p. 173. in Answer to Grotius Discussio Rivet Apol. p. 69. who alledged a Jus Ecclesiasticum for the Pope's Primacy to be conceded by Protestants And ' Tho Inferiors are not competent Judges of their Superiors yet as to subordinate Superiors in matters already defined by the Church the Sentence of the Judge is not necessary the Sentence of the Law and Notoriety of the Fact are sufficient So Bishop Bramhal Vindic. of the Church of England p. 253. from whence seems to be inferred the lawfulness for a Prince within his Dominions or for a Church National totally to abrogate the forementioned Canonical Sub-ordination of such Kingdome or Church to the Patriarchal Authority when this abused § 56 To which 1st it is willingly granted That both Ecclesiastical Offices and Canons may be abrogated for abuses happening by them only that this may not be done by Inferiors or by every Authority but by the same Authority that made or set them up 2. Next for Abuses and the Notoriety of them that no Practices may be stiled so where neither Church-Definitions are found against them much less where these found for them nor where a major part of those subject to them acknowledge them as Abuses but continue their obedience therein as their Duty 3ly For such things as are notorious Abuses or most generally agreed on for such and so Obedience withdrawn herein yet none may therefore substract his obedience absolutely from such an Authority for such other matters where their Obedience is due and due it is still that was formerly so till such Power reverse that Authority and its Injunctions as set it up But whilst Obedience in the one is denyed in the other it ought still to be yielded Therefore should the Patriarch make a breach upon the Civil Rights of Princes or their Subjects these may not justly hence invade his Ecclesiastical And if the Priest Patriarch or Bishop would in some things act the Prince therefore may not the Prince justly take upon him to act the Priest or to alter any thing of that Spiritual Hierarchy established by Christ or by the Church much to the good but nothing at all to the damage of temporal States If any thing happen to be unjustly demanded it excuseth not from paying just debts The Office must not be violated for the fault of the Person And herein may the Example of other Nations be a good Pattern to ours who having made resistance to their Patriarch in some Injunctions conceived by them not Canonical yet continue still their Obedience in the rest as appears in the late Contest of the State of Venice and those Opposals both of France and Spain and England before the times of Henry the Eighth of which Bishop Bramhal In Vindic. 3d. Book 7th Chap. hath been a sufficiently diligent Collector but at last found them all to come short of Henry the Eighth's Proceedings See before § 49. Neither indeed need any Prince to fear any Ecclesiastical Tyranny so far as to pluck up the Office by the roots who holding the Temporal Sword still in his own hands can therewith divide and moderate it as he pleaseth § 57 8. The endeavour to void the Pope's Patriarchal Authority and the Canonical Priviledges belonging to it 8. by his claiming an Universal Headship by
Succession to St. Peter whereby they say that the Western Provinces do now become released from their Obedience due to him as Patriarch and then that they never owed any Obedience to him as the Universal Head to which purpose thus Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 250. They the Popes quitted their pretended Patriarchal Right when they assumed and usurped to themselves the name and thing of Universal Bishops Spiritual Sovereigns and Sole Monarchs of the Church To be a Patriarch and to be an Universal Bishop in that sense are inconsistent and imply a contradiction in adjecto the one professeth humane the other challengeth divine Institution The one hath a limited Jurisdiction over a certain Province the other pretendeth to an unlimited Jurisdiction over the whole world And so Reply to S. W. p. 69. To claim a Power paramount a Sovereign Monarchical Regality over the Church is implicitly and in effect to disclaim a Patriarchal After the same manner argues Dr. Hammond concerning the Pope claiming a Jurisdiction over England as Patriarch upon the supposed Conversion thereof I add or claiming such Jurisdiction upon Ecclesiastical Constitution and claiming it from his Universal Pastorship that these two are incompatible Because saith he Answer to Catholick Gent. p. 101. compared with Schism p. 107. the one supersedes the other and the same Right cannot be held by two Tenures In all which I see no true arguing § 58 To Bishop Bramhal I say The Pope may have an universal Head-ship by divine Institution as to certain Superintendencies over all the Church and a Patriarchal by humane Institution as to some other extending only to a part of the Church and thus may have limited Jurisdiction as to Place for the one unlimited for the other without any Contradiction As also the same Person hath the subordinate Jurisdictions of a Bishop and also in some poor Bishopricks of the Rector of a Parish too of a Metropolitan and of a Primate all well consisting So one may be by a Prince made Governour 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 Governour also of one City in that Province in respect of some other Offices diverse from the former which Offices he may exercise over that Town only and not likewise over the Province Next suppose the Popes claim of the universal Pastor-ship unjust he cannot cease thereby to be what he is because he claimeth something more than he is no more to be Patriarch still than to be Metropolitan or Primate still nor can the Obedience Canonically due to him as such be with-held because on a wrong Title he claims somewhat more not due or some other way abuseth his Office No more then a Prince's Oppressions or other misdemeanors discharge their Subjects Allegiance To Dr. Hammond The universal Pastor-ship and Patriarch-ship are not one but two Rights and something held by the Patriarch-ship over the West which is not by the other over the whole Church But were it otherwise the same Right may be held by many Tenures A Kingdome by Inheritance and by Conquest supposing Conquest a Good Title against an Heir when these two are in several persons A parcel of Land by Donation and by Purchase By many Tenures I say so that as long as these are inherent in the same person when one is judged to fail the right may be challenged by another and so that no other can dispossess such person unless he prove not one but all his titles faulty § 59 9. If they cannot quit or make forfeit the Roman Patriarchship by one of these two last Allegations 9. Next they seek to dissolve themselves from it by transferring it or erecting a new Patriarch-ship instead thereof which thing they say is in the Power of any Prince at any time to do within his own Dominions and so after this that a National Church is freed from their Obedience to the former Of which thus Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 256. Tho the Roman Bishops had sometimes a just Patriarchal Power and had forfeited it neither by Rebellion nor abuse yet the King and the whole Body of the Kingdome by their legislative Power substracting their Obedience from them and erecting a new Patriarchate within their own Dominions it is a sufficient warrant for all Englishmen to suspend their Obedience to the one and apply themselves to the other for the welfare and tranquility of the whole Body Politick And Reply to Chalced. p. 238. Suppose saith he that the Brittanick Churches have been subjected to the Bishop of Rome by General Councils yet upon the great Mutation of the State of the Empire and the great variation of Affairs since that time it had been very lawful for the King and the Church of England to substract their Obedience from the Bishops of Rome tho they i. e. the Bishops of Rome by claiming the Title of universal Pastor had not quitted their Patriarchate and to have erected a new Primate at home among themselves So He. But much more copiously Dr. Hammond Who relies very much on and frequently recurrs to this Relief for rendring the Church of England's departure from this their former Patriarch free from Schism Schism p. 115. To put this whole matter saith he out of Controversy i. e. concerning the Pope's Supremacy upon the title of Conversion of England it is and it hath always been in the Power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchates or to translate them from one City to another and therefore whatever Title is supposable to be acquired by the Pope in this Island upon the first planting of the Gospel here this cannot so oblige the Kings of England ever since but that they may freely remove that Power from Rome to Canterbury and subject all the Christians of this Island to the Spiritual Power of this Arch-Bishop or Primate independently from any Forreign Bishop And p. 142. Thus certainly the King being the Fountain of all Power and Authority A Supposition unproved and denyed as to Ecclesiastical Authority and so what he builds on it unsound as he is free to communicate this Power to one so he is equally free to recall and communicate it to another And therefore may as freely bestow the Power of Primate and chief Metropolitan of England or which is all one of a Patriarch on the Bishop of Canterbury having formerly thought fit to grant it to the Bishop of Rome as he or any of his Ancestors can be deemed to have granted it to the Bishop of Rome And this takes off all obligation of Obediencs in the Bishops to the Pope at the first minute that he is by the King divested of that Power Which freedome from that Obedience immediately clears the whole business of Schism as that is a departure from the Obedience of a lawful Superior Again p.
There is in all good Works a dignity of Grace Divine similitude goodness and honour Phil. 4.8 4ly Affirm also this worth of the actions of the Regenerate after Justification much different from and transcendent to that worth which is in the former dispositions precedent to Justification done indeed by the external help of God's Grace but before the transfusion into us of his Spirit But this always to be remembred that no worth of the one or the other is from our selves as of our selves but the worth of them is from God They affirm accordingly that there is in these Works of the justified proceeding in us from this Divine Principle a worth and similitude some way proportionable and corresponding to the reward promised to them in respect of which worth Life eternal and the beatifical Vision of God and all the consequences thereof are called the Wages and Stipend Reward Prize and Crown of these Works Matt. 5.12 Apoc. 22.12 Matt. 20.8 2. Tim. 4.8 Apoc. 2.10 1. Cor. 9.24 25. And they said truly to merit such reward according to the sense of the word Merit used by the Fathers and the word Dignity used in the Scriptures a chief portion of which reward as a greater measure of God's Spirit and Charity and Sanctification in the most intense degree received in the next world and the augmentations of Grace daily received in this are only higher degrees of the same kind and nature with that of which they are the reward And God also is said to give such rewards to these ex justitia quia digni sunt Apoc. 3 4. 2. Thess 1.5 Heb. 6.10 2. Tim. 4.8 not only in this respect that God is just and faithful in keeping his promise once made tho to a Service of little or no worth at all but in respect of some valuable goodness and worth tho this from God also in the condition it self to which he makes the promise of such reward They rationally affirm also that whatever benefit any ones Sanctity or good Works may be said by way of impetration to procure from God for others they may be said also to have the same power with God for themselves when by relapse into sin or falling into any necessity or misery themselves are in the same condition as such others and when their ingratitude and affront and contempt of former Grace c. doth not aggravate their offence and fall beyond that of others See 2. Chron. 9.3 Nehem. 13 14.22.31 5ly Yet this worth of the Righteousness or works of the justified whatever it it be as it hath its original not from us but from God and is also without any purchase thereof wholly due to him from us his Creatures and Vassals so is it not affirmed to ascend so high as any way to equal those rewards promised to it but to be far inferior and God ever to reward beyond any such Merit Matt. 25.22 2. Cor. 4.17 For whereas our good Works momentary are not only said to merit Life eternal but also to merit those higher measures of the Holy Spirit and degrees of Sanctification that shall be conferred on us there as also the the increase of Grace in this life here it is manifest that the lesser degree the Merit and the greater the reward cannot be equalled in their worth Some proportion some similitude there is between this Seed the justified sow here and the Fruits thereof they reap hereafter sufficient to support the Phrase especially after the intervening of a Pact of the one meriting or being worthy of the other but not to maintain in commutative justice one of equal value or worth to the other α. This we have title to by Christ's Merits only not our Works to the which Merits also we owe that we have these Works therefore the Council of Trent that admits meritum bonorum operum ex pacto and so ex justitia c yet waves the expression ex condigno as liable to Mistakes ε. ε. Bellarm. de Justificat 5. l. 16. c. Catholici omnes agnoscunt opera bona justorum esse meritoria vitae aeternae sed tamen aliqui censent non esse utendum his vocibus de condigno de congruo sed absolute dicendum opera bona justorum esse meritoria vitae aeternae ex gratia Dei Bishop White Answer to Fisher p. 172. and the same p. 512. The Opinion of Modern Papists saith he concerning the Merit of Condignity was always opposed by Pontificians themselves Scotus Durand Marsilius Dionysius Cisterciensis Gregory Ariminen Thomas Walden Paulus Burgensis Joh. Ferus Eckius Pighius c. and see many more later added by Bishop Forbes de Justificat 5. l. 4. c. which I mention here to shew a liberty of Opinion herein left to her Subjects by the Roman Church and many who propugne ' the Doctrine of Merit of Condignity speak improperly Thus Bishop White Mr. Thorndike Epilog 2. l. 33. c. p. 308. As it cannot be denied that the Church of Rome allows this Doctrine of Merit he means of Condignity to be taught yet can it not be said to enjoyn it Because there have not wanted to this day Doctors of esteem that have always held otherwise Again They who only acknowledge Meritum congrui in Works done in the state of Grace i. e. that it is fit for God to reward them with his Kingdome say no more than that it was fit for God to promise such a reward which who so denieth must say that God hath promised that which was unfit for him to promise And if the Dignity of our Works in respect of the reward may have this tolerable sense because God daigns and vouchsafes it such reward the Council of Trent which hath enacted no reason why they are to be counted Merits can neither bear out these high Opinions he means maintained by some of the Roman Authors nor be said to prejudice the Faith in this point Again That which necessarily comes in consideration with God in the bestowing the reward which the condition he contracted for must necessarily do tho it cannot have the nature of Merit i. e. taken in a Protestant sense because the Covenant it self is granted meerly of Grace in consideration of Christ's death yet it is of necessity to be reduced to the nature and kind of the Meritorious Cause Nor can the Glory of God or the Merit of Christ be obscured by any consideration of our Works that is grounded upon the Merit of our Lord Christ and expresseth the tincture of his Blood as all the Roman Merit professedly doth And so do many Roman Authors both before and since the Council And also most of those other that use this Phrase to signify some true worth in these Works as before explained Thes 3 4. yet so qualify it as that it can offend no rational Protestant 6ly That therefore first he who conceits any good works of the justified are or may be such as may challenge from God's justice life
not only to satisfy for their own Sins but also to do more than so help towards the raising of a bank or treasure for others also Reiterated also in his Answer to Cawdry p. 225. That they be such works as are satisfactory for our own or also other mens Sins and Disobedience and that are also laid up in the Church's Treasure for this purpose Catholicks freely granting 1st That none can perfectly fulfil the Law not only without the mixture of some imperfection but also without the intervening of several venial or lesser sins frequently happening See Head Justifica ξ. γ. But yet these sins or deficiencies not such as cast us out of God's friendship or the state of Grace or as can hinder us from the greater reward in our observing of Counsels any more than they do from that lesser reward in our observing Precepts From which Venial Sins also David when yet he is said to have loved God toto corde was not free 2ly Granting also That none can perform any work at all that is not by many titles a due debt to the Divine Majesty of which see before Head XVI γ. 1. yet not a debt exacted by him under pain of sin or loss of heaven to those who do not pay it 3ly Granting that these works are no way satisfactory for any ones Sin or the eternal punishment thereof nor yet of the temporal but by application of Christ's Satisfactions nor again these Works of Supererogation and observance of the Counsels satisfactory in any other manner than other works that are observances of the Precepts are also affirmed to be nor is this that there is any Treasure of the Church partly at least made up of these maintained to be any part of the Roman Faith Concerning all which peruse the ensuing Head concerning Satisfaction But notwithstanding these Concessions 1st Catholicks wherein Learned Protestants joyn with them δ. δ. Mountague in his Appeal Licensed by Bishop White p. 214. I know no Doctrine of our English Church against Evangelical Counsels I do believe there are and ever were Evangelical Counsels such as St. Paul mentioneth in his Consilium autem do such as our Saviour pointed at and directed unto in his Qui potest capere capiat such as a man may do or not do without guilt of sin or breach of Law therefore are these no particular Precepts obligatory to some which have received from God such a particular gift for then all that are so gifted would sin in omitting them all not so gifted in doing them and they would be Counsels to none at all Nor would there be any place in them for St. Paul's doing well in the one but better in the other Again p. 216. out of St. Nazianzen We have Laws that do bind of necessity others that be left to our free choice to keep them or not so as if we keep them we shall be rewarded if we keep them not no fear of punishment And out of St. Chrysostome A man may do more than is commanded i. e. not as to fulfilling the whole Law with freedome from all Venial Sin but as to some particular Precept thereof with freedome from transgressing it either by Mortal Sin at all or Venial Sin for some time Again p. 215. and p. 218. The Doctrine of Antiquity with universal consent held Evangelical Counsels Name but one Writer in all Antiquity of a contrary mind to this There are Evangelical Counsels Bishop White Answer to Fisher p. 522. ' God Almighty doth not rigorously or as simply necessary to Salvation therefore not under pain of sinning or such sinning at least as excludes any from Salvation exact of his Saints and Servants that in every particular work in his service they do the uttermost of their force c. Again p. 527. He grants men may do more than God hath commanded by his Law as simply necessary to Salvation to wit ' They who give all their Goods to the Poor c. Again p. 527. He allows Counsels i. e. free-will offerings or spontaneous actions exceeding that which the ordinary bond of necessary duty obligeth men unto and which are acceptable unto God in respect of their end Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Will Worship § 41. Every man is not bound under pain of Sin to be prudent or pious or merciful in such a degree I may give so much as will denominate me merciful and pray so often as to denominate me pious and yet be capable of growing in each of these Graces And § 47. That ordinary saying ' That every one is bound to do that which is best it is most discernably false and that which a world of falsities are builton which to prove I shall need no further testimony than that of the Apostle 1. Cor. 7.38 He that giveth in Marriage doth well and he that giveth not doth better If all were bound to do that which is best that which were only good were evil for so is that whatever it is which comes short of what we are bound to do Ibid. in his Answer to Cawdry p. 192. The Macedonians saith he are an instance of doing more in this kind than either all men at all times or they at this time were obliged to have done And see before p. 184. His instancing in St. Paul's taking no hire from the Corinthians for his preaching Ibid. p. 195. He that observes the duty in any degree of the Latitude doth well and he that goes yet further but not beyond the Latitude doth better Why better but because he doth more than the other and more than the command requires under sin Again p. 224. If every regular act of Obedience which comes short of the highest degree of perfection is a sin than every act of Virtue in this life is a sin for the fullest perfection which cannot be increased is not to be found in any man in this life And p. 229. he saith That such persons may expect from our great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more and greater acceptance I shall add reward also than the same person could in reason expect for doing only what is commanded And of two men which have been equal in obedience one exceeding the other in acts of uncommanded perfection the more perfect shall have the richest reward In all which he saith plainly enough that a man may do more than is commanded as to some particular commands praying giving Alms and that without sinning in such act or simning either Mortally or Venially against such Precept at another time tho he denies this not sinning § 51. in respect of all commands whatsoever i. e. our never sinning against any of them where if he mean venially so saith the Roman Church with him Mr. Thorndike in Epilog 2. l. 32. c. p. 296. c. Justifies the Counsels of Continency of abandoning riches to which one hath just title and St. Austin's Comment upon St. Paul's forbearing his dues for Preaching Potuit S. Paulus ex