renders them no longer any part of the Church Catholick nor Members of the Body of Christ 1. From whence they conclude 1. That a particular Person or Church differing or dividing from the whole in any one Point of Faith which is defined by the whole and their assent or belief required thereto cannot plead it self any more to be one Church with or a part of the Church Catholick because that it agreeth with it still in many or in all other Points of Faith As the Arian Churches agreeing in all other Credends save Consubstantiallity of God the Son with the Father became by this no longer a part of the Church Catholick 2. And likewise from hence they conclude that those who in their separation 1. first deny not the Church or Churches they separate from to be true Churches 2. Who profess themselves not to renounce an inward Communion with those departed from 3. Who renounce not external Communion neither if they may be admitted thereto on terms they can approve 4. Who exclude not those from whom they separate from their own external Communion that is if others will conform to them 5. Who do not set up any new external Communion at all 6. Lastly Who do not publickly contradict the tenents or customes of those Churches from which they separate Those I say who can plead all these things or themselves are not thereby cleared from Schisme because their Separation may be tho in none of these things yet otherwise faulty mentioned above and tho some Churches heretofore noted for Schisme have offended in some of these yet it hence follows not that those who offend in none of these are free from Schisme 3. Again they conclude from hence that those who refuse to conform to something which the Church Catholick requires of them that they may be Partakers of her external Communion and for this are by her thrust out of her Communion are guilty of Schism as well as those who before any Ejection voluntarily desert it Else Arians and many other Hereticks would have been no Schismaticks 4. Lastly That those who never were in the external Communion of the Church Catholick yet stand guilty of Schisme so long as upon the same reason upon which the others left it they do not return to it or cannot be admitted by it 4. They maintain That any particular person or multitude joined together dividing from the external Communion of all other particular visible Churches of the present Age and even from those of their own Church as well as from the rest viz. from so many of it as continue what they were and what the Separatists also were formerly must needs in this separate from the external Communion of the Church Catholick of the present Age for either all or some of these Churches which they separate from is so and do separate from their lawful Superiors for such is the Church Catholick in respect of any part and so is guilty of that sort of Schisme which cuts off from the whole 5. They affirm that the exercise of any sacred Function is to all Heretical or Schismatical Clergy tho never so truly or validly ordaioned utterly unlawful and the Sacraments and other Ordinances of the Church to the Receivers in such Church unbeneficial i. e. to so many as are conscious of the Schism or only thro a culpable ignorance nescient HEAD XI Concerning the Judgment and Discovery of Heresy and Schism Concerning the Judgment and Discovery of Heresy and Schism 1. CAtholicks affirm That all maintaining of any Tenent contrary to the known Determination of the supremest judgment of the Church in matters which she declares of necessary Faith is guilty of obstinacy and so is Heresy Likewise that all voluntary departure from the external Communion of the Church Catholick upon what pretences soever of its erring in faith or manners is truly causeless the Catholick Church being our Guide in Spiritual matters as to both what is true and what is lawful to whom we ought to assent and submit and so Schisme But 2ly taking the Protestant Description of them viz. That Heresy is an obstinate Defence of Error contrary to a necessary Article of Faith and Schism a causless Departure or Separation from the external Catholick Communion and so also being causless from the internal Yet Catholicks urge this as necessary that there must be some certain Judge upon Earth authorized to decide whether such Error be against necessary Faith and whether the Defence thereof be to be interpreted obstinacy and whether such Departure be causless So that all the Subjects of the Church are to receive that to be Heresy or Schism which this Judge pronounceth to be so Else what none can know and judge of none can punish or separate from nor the true extent of the Church Catholick and its Distinction from the Heretical and Schismatical ever be discovered 3. It is most reasonable that in any differences of judgment concerning these amongst Ecclesiastical Magistrates or Courts of Judicature the most supreme for the time being must be the Judge to whom all ought to acquiesce Else if a particular Person or Church may undertake to judge these against Superiors Heresy and Schisme will remain equally undiscovered between these two contrary Judges as if there were none And Heretical and Schismatical Churches will still free themselves of it by their own Judgment and that Person or Church which contends for such Priviledge at any time gives great suspition that they are in such manner faulty 4. It seems clear that all separation of a particular Person or Church from the external Communion of all the rest will always by such Judge either be pronounced causless or the cause thereof be rectified and so the Division cease if these Churches that are departed from be the Judges of it For doubtless these if they should condemn themselves will also correct in themselves what they do condemn HEAD XII Concerning Submission of Private Judgments to this Church-Authority indicated in the former Heads Concerning Submission of Private Judgments 1. IT is conceded by Catholicks That no man can believe any thing at all or do any thing lawfully against his own judgment or conscience as Judgment is taken here for the final Determination upon reviewing the former Acts of the Intellect and upon considering all reasons as well those taken from Authority as those taken from the things themselves of what we ought to do 2. But notwithstanding this 2ly It is taken for granted That one following his own judgment in believing or acting is not thereby secure from believing amiss or acting unlawfully and therefore that every one is much obliged to take care of rectifying his Judgment or directing aright his Conscience 3. That the same Judgment may be swayed contrary ways by several Arguments viz. One way from the Argument drawn from Authority and another way from his private Reason and that when this happens he is no less truly said to
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
must needs be also the most supreme Guide of Christians 5. That therefore no inferior or subordinate Person or Synod when they are known to oppose this Supreme may be taken by particular Persons for their Guide in Spiritual matters 6. Nor yet a minor part of the Fathers in these supreme Councils differing from the rest or out of these Councils a minor part of Christian Churches opposing the rest may be followed as our Guide For so notwithstanding these Guides appointed us we are left in the same uncertainty for our way as if we had none except only when all of them unanimously agree and if of two parties opposite it is left to us to choose which we will to guide us it is all one for those points wherein these differ as if we were left to guide our selves HEAD II. Concerning the Church Catholick of several Ages her being equally this Guide Concerning the Church Catholick of several Ages her being equally this Guide 1. IT is affirmed That the Church Catholick of every Age since the Apostles and consequently the Church Catholick of this present Age hath the same indefectibility in Truth and authority in Goverment as that of any other Both these Indefectibility and Authority being as necessary for the preserving of Christianity in one Age as in another and that our Saviour's Promise of Indefectibility is made good to the Church Catholick of every Age taken distinctly Else his Promise that the Church of all Ages should not fail would sufficiently be verified if that of any one Age hath not failed 2. From hence it is gathered That the present Catholick Church of any Age can never deliver any thing contrary to the Church of former Ages in necessary matters of Faith or Manners 3. Supposing that in matters not so necessary the Catholick Church of several Ages should differ yet that the former having no more Promise of not erring herein then the later therefore a Christian hath no greater security of the not erring of the one then of the other and therefore ought to acquiesce in the Judgment of the present under whose regency and guidance God hath actually placed him 4. If for the performance of Christian Obedience there be any necessity to have such Points as these first decided viz. What former Councils have been lawful and obliging and what unlawful What are fundamental and necessary Points of Faith and what not necessary What is the Doctrine of the Ancient Church in such and such Controversies And what is the true sense of the Fathers Writings or of a Councils Decree If these I say or so far as these are necessary to be known by him it follows that in these a Christian ought also to submit to the Resolutions of the present Church Catholick so far as it hath or shall decide them unto him i. e. to the Resolution of the supremest Authority thereof that he can arrive to and herein to acquiesce For thus far he is secure that in things necessary she cannot misguide him And it seems unreasonable That when she is appointed his unfailable Guide in all Points necessary See Num. 1. Head 1. He not she should undertake to judge what Points are necessary and what not for this is in effect to choose himself in what particular Points she shall guide him and in what not Unreasonable when he is obliged to obey her Councils that He not she should decide of those Councils which are lawful and ought to be owned by her for this is in effect to choose what Councils he pleaseth to command his obedience and exclude the rest Unreasonable when he is to learn of her what is the Doctrine and true Sense of the Holy Scriptures that He not she should judge what is the Doctrine of Antiquity or the true sense of former Fathers or Councils and wherein the present Church accords with or departs from them i. e. that she that is his Judge in greater Matters may not be so in the less HEAD III. Concerning the necessary Tradition of the former Ages of the Church for all the Points of Faith that are taught in the present Concerning the necessary Tradition of the former Ages of the Church for all the points of Faith that are taught in the present 1. CAtholicks grant That every Article of Faith is to all later Ages derived either in express terms or in its necessary Principles from the times of the Apostles 2. And consequently That no Article of Faith can be justly received in any later Age which was not acknowledged as such in all the former i. e. either in express terms or in its Principles 3. But 3 it is not hence necessary that every Article of Faith professed in a later Age be professed also in express Terms in the former 4. Nor 4 that all those Articles that are professed by a former Age must needs be found in those Writers we have of the same Age For all their Writings are not now extant nor all that they professed necessarily written but only such things of which the Suppression of Sects instruction of the times or the Author 's particular design ministred occasion 5. As that Rule of Vincentius Lerinensis is allowed most true Illud tenendum quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est So this Nihil tenendum nisi quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus creditum est especially as it is restrained to and required to be shewed and verified in the Writers of former Ages and in these not in respect of Principles of Faith but all the deductions too is affirmed most erroneous and such as if the omnibus and semper be not confined to the Members only of the Catholick Communion one particular Church or Person in any Age Heretical will void the Catholick Faith HEAD IV. So also concerning the Canonical Scriptures Concerning the Canon of Scripture 1. CAtholicks do profess That as the Church Governors or General Councils can make no new Article of Faith See H. 5. Num. 2. So neither new Canon of Holy Scripture and that no Book can be part of these Holy Scriptures now which hath not been so always since the Apostles days But notwithstanding this 2. It must be granted 1 That in some former Ages and Churches fewer Books have been acknowledged and received as the Canon of Scripture than in some other later Churches and Ages and some Books by some in some Ages doubted of which now all accept 3. That where any such doubt ariseth the Governours of the Church have Power and Authority and that not more in one Age than in another to decide and declare what particular Books are to be esteemed and received as Canonical and descending to Posterity as such from the Apostles times and what not 4. All those Books are received by Catholicks as Canonical which the most or more General Councils See the Council in Trullo Can. 2. accepting the Council of Carthage as well as of
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
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
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