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
cum nullam in talibus Potestatem quenquam potestatum vel Caeterorum Laicorum habore conveniat Unless here perhaps the Concession of the particular Clergy of such a Prince be urged but none such can be valid against the Canons of their Superiors Dr. Hammond being asked this Question How Princes come by such a Right of Translating Patriarchs by S. W. Answers thus Answer to Schism Disarm'd p. 174. I that meant not to dispute of such Mysteries of State c. finding the same things assumed by Kings as their Right and yielded by the Church to be enjoyed by them both which Catholicks deny nor do his Instances prove it thought I might hence conclude this to be unquestionably their due but whether it were by God immediately conferred on them and independently from the Church or whether the Church in any Nation were the Medium that God used now under the Gospel to confer it on them truly I neither then was nor now am inclin'd either to enquire or to take upon me to determine Not knowing you see which way safely to take For if this Priviledge were conceded by the Church may not the Church according to their Principles resume it when abused But if this originally a Civil Right the Church hath usurped their Power in her making Constitutions concerning it § 63 3. Such Priviledge granted to Princes would utterly overthrow the Unity of Church-Government there seeming for preserving this as great a necessity of subjecting the Prelates of several Regions and Countries to one Patriarch as of several Bishops in the same Country to one Metropolitan or Primate or more In that Church-Divisions are apter to arise between States totally independent on one another than in the same State united at least in one Secular Head And that which is urged for a reason to induce the independency of National Primates viz. the Division of the Empire into so many absolute Principalities infers rather the contrary that the universal Government of the Church which is but one in all these Kingdomes should be now if possible closer linked together then formerly and the more likely that Sects and Distractions are to grow in the Church by reason of so many States some of which may be perverted by Heresy or Schisme the more need of an union in some one Ecclesiastical Head As the Roman Common-wealth in more dangerous Invasions of Enemies chose a Dictator and Armies are thought freest from Mutinies and Seditions when committed to one General § 64 Not can it be faid that it is a sufficient guard of this Unity that in a General Council all these Primates and other Members of the Church Catholick are collected and joined For 1st if it lye within a Prince's Power to free his National Clergy from a Patriarch and his Synods why not also from a General Council i. e. so far as that the Acts thereof shall not conclude such National Clergy without their consent And if the Church-Canons ordering the contrary bind them not for the one Submission to Patriarchs when the Prince orders otherwise why for the other Submission to General Councils But next were a General Council a standing Court or often or easily convened there might indeed be some remedy from thence but these hapning so seldome and that on the terms Protestants require them perhaps can be never the standing Superiority and Jurisdiction not moveable at pleasure of Patriarchs over Primates and so of Primates over inferior Bishops seems a means of Unity most necessary in the long intervals of the other highest Courts Else supposing That a Valentinian or a Constantius having the Power to translate and erect Primates and Patriarchs shall transfer Ambrose his Primacy or Siricius or Athonasins his Patriarchship to the Bishop of some other City so as Henry the Eighth is supposed to have translated Clement the Seventh's Patriarch-ship to the Bishop of Canterbury and what Heresy may not such Emperor advance as he pleaseth if he can find at least some Clergy on his side And what wrong did those Popes and Councils to the Emperor Constantius in their maintaining Athanasius still in his former Authority and Jurisdiction against him § 65 The Doctor 's Instances will not much trouble us Concerning α α the first and chiefest the Bishop of Justiniana Prima The Emperor Justinian's Novel 131. runs thus Sancimus per tempus beatissimum Primae Justinanae Archiepiscopum habere semper sub sua jurisdictione Episcopos Provinciarum Daciae c. Et in subjectis sibi Provinciis locum obtinere sedis Apostolicae Romae secundum ea quae definita sunt a sanctissimo Papa Vigilio Where it is said That this Bishop should locum obtinere Sedis Apostolicae Romae not that he should have the Place or Dignity of an Apostolical Seat As Dr. Hammond p. 103. would have it but the Place of the Apostolical See of Rome viz. as his standing Delegate for those parts subordinate to him the Phrase being frequently used in this but I think never in the other Sense which is acknowledged by Dr. Field who saith Of the Church p. 563. He was appointed the Bishop of Rome's Vice-gerent in those Parts to do things in his name and by his Authority Naming there many other Bishops in other places executing the like Vicar-ship for the Pope The Bishop of Sevil Arles Thessalonica and others and this also the words following in the Novel Secundum ea quae definita sunt a Sanctissimo Papa Vigilio do sufficiently declare To which may be added the Request of this Deputation of the Bishop of Justiniana made by the Emperor Justinian to Agapetus Vigilius his Predecessor who delaying his Grant of it returned him this Answer Epist. 4. De Justiniana Civitate gloriosi Natalis vestri conscia necnon de nostrae Sedis vicibus injungendis quid servato beati Petri quem diligitis Principatu vestrae Pietatis affectu plenius deliberari contigerit per cos quos ad vos dirigimus Legatos Deo Propitio celeriter intimamus If you would have yet more Evidence see the Pope's continued Confirmation of this Primate or Arch-Bishop tho consecrated by his own Bishops as usual by sending him the Pall and his deputing the judgment of Causes to him in his stead Greg. Ep. 4. l. Indic 13. Ep. 15. And 10. l. 5. Indic Ep. 34. And 2. l. Ep. 6. The same things may be said of the Primate of Carthage pretended only to be admitted to the like Priviledges with the Bishop of Justiniana Prima Concerning β the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Ravenna β As the Pallium is taken for an Archiepiscopal Ornament derived from the Emperors own habit to add the more Honour to such Prelates § 66 for which see Dr. Hammond in Schism disarmed p. 149. So it might be solely in the Emperors Donation but as it is a Ceremony used at the Instalment of a Bishop in the Archiepiscopal Jurisdictions so it belongs only to the Spiritual Superiors who
only can bestow such an Authority as before Constantine's time so after 2. Whatever Priviledge that was That John Bishop of Ravenna claimed who Dr. Hammond saith was the first that publickly contested his Right with the Bishop of Rome perhaps a Donation of this Pall at once for that Bishop and all his Successors not to be reiterated from the Pope's upon every new Election it appears clearly from St. Gregory 2. l. Ep. 54. that he claimed such Priviledge not singly from the Emperors Rescript but also from a Grant of the Roman Bishop St. Gregory there denying any such Grant And also the same Gregory in 5. l. Ep. 8. in his sending the Pall after this to Maximinianus Bishop of Ravenna and confirming his Priviledges Quae suae pridem concessa esse constat Ecclesiae mentions the Motive to be Provocatus not only antiquae consuetudinis or dine which Dr. Hammond takes notice of Ibid. p. 151. and applies to the Emperors Rescript but first Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia which Dr. Hammond omits Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia antiquae consuetudinis ordine provocatus are the Popes words But such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretended to be received from the Church Tho St. Gregory saith this Pretence was false no way fits Dr. Hammond's purpose of the Princes bestowing such a Priviledge when the Patriarch opposeth 3. As for the Subjection of the Provinces of Aemilia unto it by the Emperor if this be supposed done by him without the Churches consent it seems contrary to the 12th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon which permits not to Princes the dividing or changing the former Jurisdictions of Prelates Yet were this thing wholly permitted to the Prince so long as the Confirmation of such new-erected Primates is still to be received from their Canonical Superiors no Faction Division or Independency can be hereby introduced into the Church nor the Protestant Cause any whit hereby relieved To γ The three Canons To γ. In the first it appeareth that the Prince attempting to dispose of half the Jurisdictions of a certain Metropolitan to a new Prelate set up by himself the Council prohibits it and reserves still the whole Jurisdiction to the former therefore in this Councils judgment the Prince could do no such thing justly In the two last the Prince changing or erecting a new Metropole or Mother City for the Seat of Judicature the Church not the Prince and so this proves no Right of his to do it orders with very good reason the change of the Seat of the Metropolitan to this Place of greatest Concourse These Canons then which the Dr. urgeth for his Cause are they not to good purpose for the contrary I pray you view them But meanwhile concerning the Point so much driven at the Princes making new Patriarchs I must remind you here again of the Canon of the 8th General Council Can. 21. 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 praecipue quidem Sanctissimum Papam Senioris Romae c. To δ. The Kings of England transplanting Metropolitanships To δ. dividing Bishopricks erecting new ones exempting Ecclesiastical Persons from Episcopal Jurisdiction c. Such things are denyed to be justly transacted by the Prince's sole Authority without the consent of Church Governors general or particular of which see the 8th General Council Can. 22. about Election Nor doth the Negative Argument of the Church's consent to this not mentioned prove such Facts to have been without it especially as to the confirmation of Persons so promoted by the Prince in their Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Which thing being once taken from the Ecclesiastical Canonical Superiors and this power of Erecting Patriarchies and Primacies and by consequence of the bestowing and transferring the several Priviledges thereof solely cast into the hands of a Secular Prince and then this Prince supposed to be not Orthodox a supposition possible and what confusion and mischief must it needs produce in such a body as the Church strictly tyed in Canonical Obedience to such Superiors and subbmitting to their judgment and decisions in Spiritual matters By which means this seduced Prince may sway the Controversies in Religion within his own Dominions what way he pleaseth so long as there be some Ecclesiasticks of his own perswasion whom he may surrogate in the places of those others that gainsay Remember the times of Constantius Meanwhile if the Churches Rights of a Canonical Subordination of all the Clergy be strictly observed I know not what other Indulgment about Clergy Preferments may not with sufficient preservation of the Churches Catholick Unity be conceded to the Prince This from § 59. of their Ninth Plea the Prince's Power to erect new Patriarchs § 68 10. In the last place they say That a National Church hath within it self the whole Subordination of Ecclesiastical Power and Government 10. See Dr. Fern's Case between England and Rome p. 26. in which a Primate is the highest and thus far only ascends Dr. Hammond and so hath a supreme and independent Power in managing all Ecclesiastical Affairs within it self and delegating its Power to others To which I think there needs no further Answer the Subjection of these Primates or lower Patriarchs to higher sufficiently appearing from frequent ancient Church Canons and being conceded by other Learned Protestants For which not often to repeat the same things I must refer you to what is said before in γ. And in Consid on the Council of Trent § 9. c. as also their Subjection to Patriarchal or General Councils in that it hath been ordinary to execute their Censures upon such Primates or also Patriarchs when Heretical or otherwise faulty HEAD X. Concerning the Vnity of the Church Catholick in respect of Heresies and Schisms and other intestine Divisions Concerning the Unity of the Church Catholick in respect of Heresies and Schisms and other intestine Divisions 1. CAtholicks do hold That one holy Catholick and Apostolick Church mentioned in our Creed is not always a Body coextended to the Christian Profession or involving all Christian Churches if I may so call them or Congregations or Sects But that some Christian Churches or Societies there are or may be that are no part of it but do stand contradistinct to it 2. They willingly grant That not all differences or divisions in Spiritual matters between particular Persons or Churches where there is no Subordination between them do render one or both of them guilty of such Schism as to become thereby no Members of the Church Catholick But 3ly they maintain that all such Division wherein a particular person or Church departs from the whole or wherein a Subordinate Person or Church from all their Spiritual Superiors for such matters wherein Obedience is required from them by all these or by the whole is such Schisme as
THE PREFACE BEcause the Doctrines of the Church are as by some wittingly mis-related so by many others ignorantly mistaken the Author thought it might be useful for the informing of those who are withheld from professing Truth only because they do not know it not because they hate it or prefer some secular interest before it to draw up some brief Catholick Theses as well negative as affirmative extending to most of the principal Points of Controversy between the Roman and Reformed Churches In which Theses he Professeth 1 That there is not any thing wittingly denied that is affirmed by any allowed Council 2 Nor any thing affirmed that is in any such Council denied Nor 3 any thing affirmed or denied here but what if not in Council yet in some Catholick Writers uncensured by the Church may be shewed to be so and all to be bounded within such a Latitude of Opinion as the Church indulgeth For the more evidencing whereof such Propositions as he conjectured might be by some less read and experienced any way doubted of whether acknowledged and received by Roman-Catholicks He hath confirmed either with the Testimonies of approved Catholick Divines or which might have more weight with some Readers the Concessions of Learned Protestants leaving only so many of these Theses unguarded as he presumed their own Perspicuity would secure But here 1 The Author pretends not that all is comprehended in these Theses which hath been delivered by Councils in all these Points because this he thought both too tedious a Task and needless since the main Points are here comprised and the intelligent Reader will discern That many of those omitted may be readily inferred by necessary consequence from those here expressed and since he who in these concurs with the Church's Judgment must needs so much reverence it as easily in the rest to resign himself to it Nor 2 doth he pretend that no Catholick Author of good esteem delivers the contrary to any Proposition here set down i. e. such of them as have not been the Determinations of Councils For the Church herein allows a Latitude of Opinions and he thought it sufficient to his Purpose to shew that none to be esteemed true Sons of the Church Catholick and right Professors of her Faith need to be of any other Perswasion then this here delivered and not that all are or must be of it And strange it were for any on this account only to desert the Church because he can produce some persons in it that hold a thing he conceives false or unreasonable whilst the same Mother indulgeth him to hold only that which he thinks rational and true For any therefore to gather a Body of such Testimonies except those of Councils against any of these Theses is labour lost so long as he cannot produce some obligation laid upon all to conform to such Opinions or follow such a Party and so long as the Church equally spreads her lap to all those who think or say otherwise Nay further could he produce some Catholick Author of good repute affirming the contrary to something here said to be the Doctrine or Faith of the Church or something here said to be contrary to it yet neither is this conceived to the purpose unless his saying it is so proves it to be so For a learned Author possibly for the greater reputation of his Doctrine may be too facile to entitle the Church to it either as supposing it deducible by some necessary consequence from some Decree thereof or as contracting the words of such a Decree to a more particular sense than the Council intended them or indeed had light either from Scripture or Tradition Apostolical precisely to determine and sometimes so it hath hapned that contrary opinions have both of them urged the same Church Decree couched only in more general Expressions as deciding the Controversy their own way But it is here reasonably desired That such Conciliary Decree it self be produced and well examined and those Authors put in the other Scale who are here shewed to maintain that to be well consistent with or also to be the Church's Doctrine which some others perhaps may pronounce contrary to it It not being the Author's Design in this Collection to shew that Roman Catholicks agree in all things here said but that none to be true Roman Catholicks need to hold or say any thing otherwise By this to remove out of the way that great Scandal and Stumbling-block of well-inclined but mis-informed Protestants who apprehend that such gross Errors in Faith and Manners as no sober and rational Christian can with a good Conscience subscribe are not only held and tolerated in the Roman Church but also by it imposed The Author hath also endeavoured in these Theses to descend so far to several particulars and circumstantials as that the intelligent may easily discern them applicable to the solution of most doubts such as are material and to the explanation of his meaning where to some Readers seeming ambiguous or obscure and they may serve them for a Comment or Exposition on most he hath written wherein his principal Design hath ever been Truth always preserved Unity and the Peace of the Church of God a design which can never be compleated whilst new Writings still succeed the former till by the Divine Mercy these present Dissensions arrive unto their just period CATHOLICK THESES On several Chief HEADS of CONTROVERSY HEAD I. Concerning the Church Her being a Guide 1. More General Concerning the Church her being a Guide 1. CAtholicks do affirm That our Saviour's gracious Promises of Indefectibility Matt. 16.18 19 -28.19 20. Jo. 14 16.26.-16.13 comp Act. 15-28 -1 Jo. 5.20.27 Matt. 18.20 comp 17 18. 1. Tim. 3 15 -2 Tim. 2.19 comp 16 17. Eph. 4.11.13 made to his Church are so to be understood not only that his Church shall never fail or fall away as to Doctrine or Manners if she do her duty as some expound them But also that his Church shall never fail to do her duty for what is necessary to Salvation and that these his words are not an hypothetical but absolute Prediction that his Church shall never fail 2. That such Promises belong to the Church Catholick as a Guide 3. That this indefectibility of the Church as a Guide doth extend to an inerrability as in all Fundamentals in which if it errs it is no more a Church So in all other points the contrary Tenents to which are dangerous to Salvation For there seemeth to be no reasonable ground of a Restraint of our Saviour's Promises made indefinitely narrower then this 4. Amongst the several ways whereby the Church Catholick may deliver her Judgment as a Guide whether by Messengers Communicatory Letters or Councils that consent of judgment or those Councils which are the most universal as the times and places are capable thereof and which are the most dignified also with the presence of the most eminent Church Magistrates convening therein
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
Laodicea Council of Trent Sess 4. under Paul the Third ratified in full Council Sess ult under Pius and accepted by all the Western Churches save the Reformed Or according to St. Austine's Rule De Doctrina Christiana 2. l. 8. c. In Canonicis autem Scripturis Ecclesiarum Catholicarum quam plurimum authoritatem sequatur Inter quas sane illae sunt quae Apostolicas sedes habent Epistolas i. e. communicatorias ab illis Ecclesus Apostolicis accipere meruerunt or the more and more dignified Churches Catholick have received and used for such 5. There is no more assent or belief required upon Anathema by any Council concerning those Books of the Canon which the Reformed call in question than this Ut pro Sacris Canonicis suscipiantur So Council Trid. Sess 4. Si quis libros ipsos c. pro Sacris Canonicis non susceperit Anathema sit But these words by some imposed upon that Council See Bishop Consin § 81. p. 103. Si quis omnes libros pari Pietatis affectu reverentia veneratione pro Canonicis non susceperit Anathema sit are not found there Next Concerning the Sufficiency of this Canon of Scripture as a Rule or that which contains in it the matter of the Christian Faith Concerning the sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for the Rule of Faith 1. Catholicks concede the holy Scriptures to contain all those Points of Faith that are simply necessary by all persons to be believed for attaining Salvation α to contain them either in the conclusion it self or in the Principles from which it is necessarily deduced And contend that out of the Revelations made in the Scriptures as expounded by former Tradition the Church from time to time defines all such points except it be such Practicals wherein the question is only whether they be lawful for the deciding of which lawfulness it is enough if it can be shewed that nothing in Scripture as understood by Antiquity is repugnant to them 2. But 2dly The sense rather then the letter being God's word they affirm that all such Points are not so clearly contained in the words of Scripture as that none can mistake or wrest the true sense of those words 3. And therefore 3dly They affirm the Church's Tradition or traditive Exposition of these words of Scripture necessary for several Points to be made use of for the discerning and retaining the true sense which under those words is intended by the Holy Ghost and was in their teaching delivered by the Apostles to their Successors wherein yet they make not the Tradition or delivering of this Sense but the Sense delivered that is the Scripture still for these Points their Rule or that which contains the matter of their Faith the oral expression or exposition thereof being only the same thing with its meaning or sense and why are the Scriptures quoted by them but because the matter is there contained 4. They contend that there are many things especially in the governing of the Church in the Administration of the Sacraments and other sacred Ceremonies which ought to be believed and practised or conformed to that are not expresly set down in the Holy Scriptures but left in the Church by Apostolical Tradition and preserved in the Records of Antiquity and constant Church-custome in several of which Protestants also agree with them in the same Belief and Practice β And amongst these Credends extra Scripturas is to be numbred the Article concerning the Canon of Scripture γ α S. Thom. 22.1 q. art 9. primus ad primum Art 10. ad primum In Doctrina Christi Apostolorum he means scripta veritas fidei est sufficienter explicata Sed quia perversi homines Scripturas pervertunt ideo necessaria fuit temporibus procedentibus explicatio fidei contra insurgentes errores Bellarm. de verbo Dei non scripto 4. l. 11. c. Illa omnia scripta sunt ab Apostolis quae sunt omnibus simpliciter necessaria ad salutem The main and substantial points of our Faith saith F. Fisher in Bishop White p. 12. are believed to be Apostolical because they are written in Scripture γ See Dr. Feild 4. l. 20. c. Dr. Taylor Episcopacy asserted § 19. Reasons of the University of Oxford against the Covenant published 1647. p. 9. Where they speak on this manner Without the consentient judgment and practice of the Universal Church the best Interpreter of Scripture in things not clearly expressed for Lex currit cum Praxi We should be at a loss in sundry Points both of Faith and Manners at this day firmly believed and securely practised by us when by the Socinians Anabaptists and other Sectaries we should be called upon for our Proofs As namely sundry Orthodoxal Explications concerning the Trinity and Co-equality of the Persons in the God-head against the Arians and other Hereticks the number use and efficacy of Sacraments the Baptizing of Infants National Churches the Observation of the Lord's Day and even the Canon of Scripture it self γ Dr. Field 4. l. 20. c. We reject not all Tradition for first we receive the number and names of the Authors of Books Divine and Canonical as delivered by Tradition Mr. Chillingworth 1. l. 8. c. When Protestants affirm against Papists that Scripture is A Perfect Rule of Faith their meaning is not that by Scripture all things absolutely may be proved which are to be believed For it can never be proved by Scripture to a Gain-sayer That the Book called Scripture is the word of God HEAD V. Concerning the perpetual use and necessity in all Ages of New Determinations and Definitions in matter of Faith to be made by the Church Concerning the necessity of the Church in several Ages her making new Definitions in matter Faith 1. IT is granted by Catholicks That all Points of Faith necessary to be known explicitly by every one for attaining Salvation are delivered in the Scriptures or other evident Tradition Apostolical or also all those of speculative Faith so necessary delivered in the Apostles Creed 2. Granted also That the Church Governours since the time of our Saviour and his Apostles have no power to Decree or impose any new Doctrine as of Faith or to be believed as a Divine Truth which was not a Divine Truth formerly revealed either explicitly in the like terms as they propose it or implicitly at least in its necessary principles and premises out of which they collect it Nor have power to decree or impose any new thing as of necessary Faith or necessary to be believed to Salvation that is necessary absolutely to be by all persons whatever some of whom may be blamelesly ignorant of what the Church hath defined after such Decree known or believed explicitely with reference to attaining salvation which was not so necessarily formerly 3. Yet notwithstanding this Catholicks affirm that there are many divine truths which are not explicitely and in terminis delivered in the Scriptures Apostles Creed
Christian Faith Nor yet the Church entring into any State take away any of the Civil Rights or Authority thereof which is given to the Governours of this State by God and which it was justly possessed of before the Church entred into it Takes away I say none of these Rights where Persons or Things formerly Civil do not by their Dedication to God become Sacred Nor the Church callenge any Temporal Right or Authority as to the use of the Secular Sword which the State doth not first invest it with α And That therefore these two Bodies may always without any jealousy most peaceably consist together Because the Principles of Christianity do most entirely secure and preserve all the Secular Rights of Princes And because in leaving only to Princes the use of the Temporal Sword the Church can never in any difference that happens be the invading but only the suffering Party § 2 2. Therefore 2dly in consequence hereof They hold That the Subordinations of Ecclesiastical Government such as are necessary for the exclusion of Heresies and Schisms and conservation of the Churches Unity Uniformity and Peace throughout several Nations And these which are instituted by Christ or his Apostles or are afterward established in the Church Catholick by Ecclesiastical Canons made by the chief Representative thereof I mean such Canons as can no way be justly pretended to do any wrong to the Civil Government They hold That such Subordinations of Church-Government cannot justly be changed nor the observance of such Constitutions be abrogated or prohibited by any Secular Supreme Christian or Heathen within their own Dominions § 3 3. Since it is clear That Christ sent his Ministers to preach the Gospel and do other meerly Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Offices in all Nations and in those Nations too then as now under some Supreme Civil Governor which Offices also those Ministers did accordingly perform for three hundred years tho the said Governors prohibited and opposed them So for Example the Apostles and other Church-Governors in those times assembled themselves in a Council at Jerusalem to consult and give orders throughout the Churches concerning the Abrogation of former Legal Ceremonses So St. Paul in those times gave Commission to Timothy for the of the Christian Church in Ephesus to Titus for the governing those in Creet to ordain Clergy thro the Cities there and in these Provinces to receive Accusations hear Witnesses promulgate the Doctrines formerly received silence False-teachers excommunicate Offenders c. 1 Tim. 1.3 5.19 2. Tim. 2.2 Tit. 1.5.11 3.10 And so he gave order also to them to hold publick Assemblies 1. Cor. 5.4 Heb. 10.25 for the common Worship of God and for the exercising of the forenamed Acts. And so the Successors of these first Church Governors also used the same authority for those three first Centuries in all dominions distributed into several Provincial and Parochial or Diocesan Governments tho the Secular Powers frequently resisted imprisoned executed the Church Officers for it These things therefore thus granted and allowed hence they infer that as a Heathen Prince cannot justly prohibit all Christian Clergy so neither can a Christian Prince amongst this Clergy justly prohibit all those whom only these Ecclesiastical Magistrates do judge Orthodox and worthy from professing and publishing the Orthodox Faith and otherwise officiating in Divine matters within his Dominions Else as where the Prince is Heathen Christianity cannot be propagated in his Territories against Infidelity so where the Christian Prince happens to be Heretical suppose an Arian as the Emperour Constantius was the Truth of Christianity cannot be preserved in his dominions against Heresy or where he Schismatical the Unity of the Churches Communion cannot be preserved against the Sects in his dominion For Confirmation of these three preceedent Theses see at large the Protestant Concessions in letter δ. To which is annexed an Answer to all their Pleas and Defences made by them for a lawful Reformation of Ecclesiastical Persons and Matters by the Secular Power § 4 4 Consequently to the Precedents seeing that as there are many temporal Jurisdictions descending on the Church originally from the Secular Power so there are also other spiritual Jurisdictions primitively belonging to and exercised by the Church and held from the donation of our Lord such as the forementioned viz. To hold publick Religious Assemblies to promulgate the Doctrines formerly delivered to administer the Sacraments of the Church to receive Accusations hear Witnesses in point of Heresy and Schism to bind absolve to silence False-teachers excommunicate obstinate Offenders and that in all Nations and within any Princes Dominions whatever They accordingly affirm 1. That no Secular Power can bestow or derive their spiritual Jurisdictions on any person but that to be in such dominions by any person lawfully executed these must first be conferred on him by the Clergy 2dly That the act only of some inferior Clergy against their Canonical Superiors or of the minor part of Clergy against the major can be no legitimate act of the Clergy for conferring such spiritual Jurisdictions but the contrary to it is so § 5 And hence 5ly They gather That tho Princes for the greater security of their Civil Government and the many secular obligations which the Church hath to them may nominate and present to the Clergy and Ecclesiastical Magistrates such persons as they think most meet to receive from the Church these spiritual Jurisdictions within their dominions yet if any Secular Power should possess such person of these Jurisdictions in any Province either by his own sole authority or by the concurrence of some inferior Clergy or minor part of such Province whom the major part of the Clergy of such Province or the due Ecclesiastical Superiors to whom according to Church Canons the conferring of such Jurisdiction doth belong to judge uncapable or unfit and therefore refuse the collation of them on such a subject They affirm such an Act of the Prince or Clergy assisting him to be unlawful and that it must needs open a way to all Heresy and Schism and dissolve the Faith and Unity of the Church Catholick Neither can any such Person so introduced tho he be validly ordained justly exercise such spiritual Jurisdictions neither do all such people as know receive any salvifical benefit by his unlawful administration to them of the Church's Sacraments or at least of the Sacrament of Penance and Absolution by reason of a defect of a right disposition in the Suscipients and the great guilt they contract in applying themselves to such a Person unless this be done in a case of necessity when there is no Catholick Clergy to repair to for such Offices So had Novatianus ordained and adhered to by three or four Bishops been upon this setled by a Christian Emperor in the Apostolick Chair against Cornelius ordained and confirmed in these Jurisdictions by all the rest of the Body of the Roman Episcopal Clergy yet Novatianus would no less for this
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
to the Catholick Faith as Heretical Princes for the Church hath as well need of using these her Privileges against Heretical Princes as Heathen otherwise the later may do her as much mischief as the former Next what is said here of calling Councils without such Princes consent I apply to the exercise of all those particulars which are allowed to be the Churches Rights and to have been exercised by her under Heathen Princes as in this Council assembled the making Decrees in points of Doctrine controverted and Canons for her Government The publishing and requiring obedience thereto from all her Subjects in whatever Princes Dominions and punishing with the Church Censures the Refractory § 22 And with these Church-Privileges and Practices not only as to Heathen but Heretical Princes Bishop Andrews Tort. Tort. p. 377. also seems well content Who in answer to Bellarmin saying the Authority alledged out of the New Testament to be given to Princes was to the Heathen who yet had no Primacy in Ecclesiasticals and therefore these places served nothing for proving such a Primacy grants neither Infidel Princes nor yet Christian if Heretical to have an Ecclesiastical Primacy over God's Church Primatum ad Reges infideles pertinere non probant these Texts Non sanc magis ad hos in novo quam ad Ahasuerum vel Nabuchodonosor in veteri Interim sit vel Infidelis sit vel Haereticus oretur pro co c. And Non id agitur ut Ecclesiae Persecutores Tiberii Caii Ecclesiae Gubernatores habeantur Tum demum vero Ecclesiae Gubernacula capessant cum conversi ad fidem fuerint fidem i. e. Christianam if Heathen Catholicam if Hereticks After him Mason De Ministerio Anglicano 3. l. 5. c. In case not only of Infidelity but of Heresy or yet if I mistake him not in any other eminent Defect of Sanctity denies to Princes at least the Exercise whatever remote Power he placeth in them of some branches of their Primacy Regibus saith he qui vel non sunt Christiani vel si Christiani non tamen orthodoxi vel si orthodoxi non tamen Sancti Primatus competit quidem sed secundum quid id est quoad authoritatem non quoad rectum plenum usum authoritatis quoad officium non quoad illustrem executionem officii None such therefore may execute any Ecclesiastical Primateship so as by vertue of it to do any thing against the Acts of the Clergy in Spirituals unless this Author seek some refuge in the Epithetes rectus plenus and illustris § 23 After the former Passages of Bishop Andrews and Mason See Dr. Hammond in his Answer to S. W. Schisme disarm'd p. 203. who to the Drs words Schisme p. 125. that the Canons of the Councils have mostly been set out and received their Authority by the Emperors replied That never was it heard that an Emperor claimed a negative voice in making the Canon of a Council valid which concerned matters purely Spiritual To which Dr. Hammond returns this For the appendage c I need not reply having never pretended nor seemed to pretend what he chargeth on me concerning the Emperors negative Voice in the Council what I pretended I spake out in plain words That the Canons have been mostly set out and received their Authority by the Emperors and this receiving their Authority is I suppose in order to their powerful Reception in their Dominions and this he acknowledgeth and so we are friends By Dr. Hammond's consent then A negative Voice the Prince hath not to reverse or contrary the Church Canons in Spiritual matters only thus he may be said to give Authority to them by causing a powerful reception of them in his Dominions Powerful i.e. by assisting the Church in the Execution of them with this coactive Power And elsewhere Answer to Schism disarmed p. 164. he grants in the Controversy of Erecting Metropoles That if the Prince exerciseth this Power so as to thwart known Canons and Customes of the Church this certainly is an abuse And afterwards saith It is invalid as doing wrong to another in those Priviledges he enjoys by the Canon § 24 Thus also Grotius Rivet Apol. discuss p. 70. well seen in the Imperial Rights not long before his death Imperatorum Regum aliquod esse officium etiam circa res Ecclesiae in confesso est At non tale quale in Saeculi negotiis ad tutandos non ad violandos Canones jus hoc comparaturs est Nam cum Principes filii sunt Ecclesiae non debent vi in matrem uti omne corpus Sociale jus habet quaedam constituendi quibus membra obligenter hoc jus etiam Ecclesiae competere apparet Act. 15.28 Heb. 13.17 Where he quotes Facundus saying of Martianus Cognovit ille quibus in causis uteretur Principis potestate in quibus exhiberet obedientiam Christiani And obedite Praepositis saith he etiam Regibus dictum § 25 I will conclude with the Sentiments of our two last most Gracious Sovereigns King James and King Charles the First in his Defence of the Right of Kings against Cardinal Perron p. 427 428. It is granted saith he That if a King shall command any thing directly contrary to God's Word and tending to the Subversion of the Church that Clericks in this case ought not only to dispense with Subjects for their Obedience but also expresly to forbid their obedience for it is always better to obey God than Man Howbeit in all other matters whereby the Glory and Majesty of God is not impeached it is the duty of Clericks to ply the people with wholsome Exhortations to constant obedience c. Therefore the Clergy are the Judges for Christ's Flock whatever Princes Subjects they be when the Prince commands any such thing which how it consists with another judgment of the Prince concerning the Doctrines of the Clergy whether these command any thing against God's Word a judgment not only discretive for himself but prescriptive also to his Subjects in prohibiting that no such Doctrine be taught to them by the Clergy I cannot divine unless there can be two ultimate Law-givers in the same matters over the same persons both whom delivering contrary things they may be obliged to obey Again a little before I grant saith he That it is for Divinity Schools to Judge How far the Power of the Keys doth stretch I grant again That Clericks both may and ought also to display the Colours and Ensigns of their Censures against Princes who violating their publick and solemn Oath The King speaks of Christian Princes Do raise and make open War against Jesus Christ he means in maintaining some Heresy and opposing his Church I grant yet again that in this case they need not admit Laicks Doth he not here also include Princes to be of their Council nor allow them any scope or liberty of Judgment yet all this doth not hinder Prince nor People from taking care of the preservation of their own
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
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.
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
follow and do according to his own Judgment who judgeth it meet to follow Authority against his private Reason then he who judgeth it meet and so doth the contrary i. e. follow his own Reason and reject Authority or which is the same follow Authority meerly for the Reasons it giveth evidencing to him such a Truth Thus we without difficulty believe the Books of Scripture that are proposed us for such by sufficient Authority to be God's word when we find in them some seeming contradictions which perhaps our private Reason cannot reconcile And every one who believes that God hath commanded him an assent and submission of Judgment in Spiritual matters to his Ecclesiastical Superiors doth in yielding it follow his own Judgment even when in yielding it he goeth contrary to his own private Reason 4. It is freely conceded That supposing that one hath infallible certainty of a thing from private Reason or any other way whatever such person cannot possibly yield obedience of assent to any Authority whatever proposing the contrary to be believed by him 5. But notwithstanding 5ly It is affirmed by Catholicks That every one ought to yield assent and submit his Judgment even when by plausible arguments of private Reason otherways biass'd and sway'd in all Spiritual matters wherein such assent is required to the Authority of the Church and those Spiritual Superiors who are by Christ appointed in these matters the Guides of his Faith And also That none can ever have from private Reason an infallible certainty of the contrary of that which the Church enjoins him to believe 6. But supposing that such a certainty in some Points by some persons could be had yet 6ly If no more may plead freedome from obedience of assent to the Church's Authority than only those who pretend infallible certainty as nothing less than this seems sufficient to reject so great an Authority and so divinely assisted then the most part of Christians I mean all the unlearned at least unfit to read Fathers compare Texts of Scripture c. in matters controverted will always be obliged to follow this Authority tho against their private Reason And for the other since one may think himself infallibly certain who is not so for men of contrary opinions not unfrequently both plead it these seem to have as little humility so little security in relying thereon especially when so many others having the same Evidences and as these men ought to think better Judgments and having larger promises of Divine assistance and lastly appointed for their Guides shall apprehend so much certainty of as to decree the contrary 7. To one who as yet doubteth whether there be any Authority or amongst many pretending to it which of them it is to which God hath subjected him for the guidance of his Judgment in Spiritual matters to such a one the use of his private Reason in the Quest thereof is not denyed by Catholicks But 1st they affirm that such Guide being found here the use of his private Reason against such Authority ceaseth for those things wherein he is enjoined obedience to it which indeed are but few in comparison of those vast Volumes of Theological Controversies wherein private Judgment still enjoys its liberty 2ly That if by reason of a faulty search such Guide is not discovered by him none is therefore held excused from obedience to such Guide or licensed to use his liberty in both which he is culpably mistaken 3ly That as it is left to our reason to seek so that it is much easier for us by it to find out this Guide that is appointed to direct us than to find out the Truth of all those things wherein she is ready to direct us more easy to find out the Church than to understand all the Scriptures and that from the use of private Reason in some things none may therefore rationally claim it in all HEAD XIII Concerning the necessary Means or Motive of attaining Faith Divine and Salvifical Concerning the necessary means of attaining faith Divine and Salvifical 1. IT is certain that all Faith Divine or wrought in us by God's Spirit is infallible or that the Proposition which is so believed never is or can be false 2. Again Catholicks affirm that the Authority or proposal of the Church is a sufficiently infallible ground of the Christians belief for all necessary Points of Faith From which Infallibility in the Church which is clearly revealed in Scripture and by Tradition Apostolical delivering such Points unto them they also maintain a firm Faith is had among Catholicks of all those necessary Points which are not in Scripture or Tradition as to all men so clearly revealed Whilst others denying this Infallibility in the Church either miscarry in their Faith concerning some of these Points or can have no external firm ground of their believing them 3. Catholicks affirm also that a right Belief of some Articles of Faith profiteth not as to Salvation persons Heretical in some other But 4ly many learned Catholicks deny That a known Infallibility of the external Proponent or Motive of ones Faith or a certainty not from a firm adhesion of mind wrought by the Spirit whereby a man is without all doubt but from the Infallibility of the external means of his Faith that he cannot err is necessary that Faith may be truly Divine or Salvifical See Card. Lugo De Virtute fidei Dis 1. § 12. n. 247.251 252. Estius 3. Sent. 23. d. 13. § Layman Theol. Moral 2. l. 1. Tract 5. c. or consequently That such external motive or means for producing Divine Faith needeth to be to every man one and the same Or lastly That one cannot have Divine Faith in any one Article of Faith who culpably erreth in any other Next Concerning the necessity of an explicite or sufficiency of an implicite Faith Concerning explicit and implicite Faith 1. It is freely acknowledged by Catholicks that to some Articles of the Christian Faith an explicite or express Faith wherein the Article in its terms is particularly known and professed is necessary to all Christians that have the use of reason of what condition or calling soever But to how many Articles such Faith is necessary it is not easy punctually to determine 2. Catholicks teach that all Christians are obliged by what means soever afforded them to acquire an explicite Faith of all other Articles of Faith or Precepts of good Life which are any way either necessary or profitable to their Salvation so far as their capacities or callings do permit or also require them 3. That all Christians ought in general or implicitely to believe that whatever God hath revealed or the Church in her Definitions or Expositions of the Divine Revelations delivereth as matter of Faith and to be believed is to be believed and ought also to be ready explicitely to hold and profess whatever is at any time sufficiently proposed to them to be such And other implicite Faith than the
forementioned is not allowed nor other explicite Faith than the forementioned required Therefore that Proposition Haec est vera Catholica fides extra quam nemo Salvus esse potest as applied to the larger Creeds that of Athanasius or yet further to all the Decrees of all lawful Oecumenical Councils as in the Bull of Pius the Fourth ought either to be understood not distributively as if any Decree of any such Council unknown and so not believed or assented to excludeth from Salvation For how few among Christians do know or yield actual assent to all the Decrees of some one Council And how can the Doctors of that Church require such Belief to all the Decrees suppose of the Council of Trent a many of whom require it not to all the Articles of the Apostles Creed But collectively thus That all that Fides extra quam nemo Salvus is contained therein and that extra eam totaliter sumptam or si tota desit nemo Salvus esse potest As elsewhere in the same Council of Trent the Nicene Creed is called Fundamentum firmum unicum contra quod portae inferi nunquam praevalebunt Conc. Trid. Sess 3. or to be understood distributively but hypothetically thus That when any one knows any such Article to have been defined by the Church wherein a non-culpable ignorance of the Church's Definitions always excuseth he after this in non-believing or in dissenting from such Article doth by this his Pertinacy and Disobedience to the Church as by other greater sins persisted in and unrepented of incur the loss of Salvation HEAD XIV Concerning Obedience to Humane Laws made by the Ecclesiastical or Civil Magistrate Concerning Obedience required to Humane Laws 1. CAtholicks do not affirm from God's commanding Obedience to the Ecclesiastical and Civil Magistrate and to their Laws That therefore all Dis-obedience to them or their Laws is a mortal Sin For so all Dis-obedience to any of their Laws whatever tho never so light for their matter would be mortal Sin 2. It is manifest that many times the matter which these Magistrates command is antecedently our duty in obedience to some Divine Law under Penalty of Mortal Sin tho they had not commanded it As in matters of much consequence to the publick or our private good the Charity to our Neighbour or also to our selves that is commanded by God's Law requires that which the Magistrate also exacts of us In such cases therefore there may be a great and mortal Sin committed in dis-obeying the Ecclesiastical or Civil Laws but this by vertue of the Divine concurring with and corroborating them in these particular Injunctions 3. Catholicks affirm That the Breach of a humane Law made in a thing that is left indifferent by the Divine out of contempt may be a greater Sin than breaking one of the Divine Precepts out of Infirmity but this is also by vertue of our offending against another particular Divine Law prohibiting such contempt of the Magistrate But such contempt neglect c. set aside that a much greater guilt is ordinarily contracted from the breach of a Divine than only an humane command both from the greater necessity and benefit in general of the matter of the Laws Divine and from the supreme Dignity and Majesty of the immediate Legislator 4. Catholicks affirm That no humane Laws made in matters of what consequence soever do bind beyond the Law-Giver's intention so that such Laws tho given in matters of greatest moment bind not under pain of mortal Sin I mean as they are his Laws if he doth not intend them to do so In whose Power since it is to lay no obligation so not to lay the greatest 5. That whatever obligation to Sin such Laws may have from the Law-givers intention yet that in some Circumstances they may not bind at all as the Divine do as in Periculo mortis cum pergravi damno aut infamia for quod valde difficile moraliter impossibile and to Impossibles Laws bind not I say if the thing commanded appear not of a greater consequence than such private damage nor hath been expressed by the Magistrate to be esteemed so Otherwise it is presumed that the Law-Giver in that Charity which he oweth to his Subjects doth or ought to pass his Laws without any intention that they should bind under Sin in such cases 6. Most of the Church's Laws are passed without any express Declaration of her Subjects incurring mortal Sin in the Breach of them yet this rationally collected by her Doctors from the great consequence of the matter commanded the heavy punishment annexed c. And sometimes her Laws are so indulgent as to oblige to a Penalty only without any Guilt laid upon the Transgressor of them HEAD XV. Of Justification Of Justification COncerning Justification whereby man hath Right by vertue of the Evangelical Covenant to freedome from eternal Death and possession of eternal Life 1. Catholicks declare That by Justification they mean both God's pronouncing or reputing Man just or not unjust i. e. freed from his wrath and from punishment due to the unjust by God's free remission of all his former Sins And 2ly God's making and so reputing him just or holy by habitual Grace infused or by inherent righteousness Thus making God's Remission of the former Acts of Sin and our Sanctification and so by it the removal of former habits of Sin the two parts of our Justification or the two effects of God's mercy in justifying us α. α Conc. Trid. Sess 6.7 c. Hanc dispositionem Justificatio ipsa consequitur quae non est Sola peccatorum remissio sed Sanctificatio Renovatio interioris hominis c. Again In ipsa Justificatione cum Remissione peccatorum haec omnia simul infusa accipit homo per Jesum Christum cui inseritur fidem Spem Charitatem 6. Sess 11. Can. Si quis dixerit homines justificari Sola peccatorum remissione exclusa gratia charitate quae in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum infunditur Anathema sit Bellarm. de Justificationes l. 2. 6. c. Cum tam mors Christi quam resurrectio ad justificationem necessaria esset potuisset Beatus Paulus utramque partem justificationis i. e. Remissionem peccati donum renovationis tribuere morti Christi sed maluit resurrectioni tribuere renovationem Rom. 4.15 And § Deinde Justificatio non ideo Solum nobis confertur a Deo ut Gehennae paenas evadamus i. e per remissionem peccatorum sed etiam ut praemia vitae caelestis acquiramus i. e. per gratiae infusionem bona opera And see Ibid. c. 2. § Quod si Where he makes remissionem peccatorum infusionem gratiae duos effectus Dei hominem justificantis Where therefore renovatio interioris hominis per susceptionem gratiae is affirmed to be the formal cause of Justification and deletion of Sin to be the effect of it It is spoken of the only formal
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