because a Synod was not specially summon'd for the purpose especially seeing he was Bishop of the Princely City see Gelasius the successor to Felix A. D. 494. his vindication of this act of the Apostolick See without a Council at least an Oecumenial one in his Epistle ad Episcopos Dardaniae an Eastern Province not far from Constantinople which Epistle is worth the reading over the rather because some places being urg'd out of it by Bellarmin Dr. Field in his answer to them hath these words Truly there cannot be any better proof against the pretended Supremacy of the Popes than this Epistle In this Epistle then Gelasius pleads thus Sabellium damnavit Synodus nec fuit necesse ut ejus sectatores postea damnarentur singulas viritim Synodos celebrari sed pro tenore constitutionis antiquae cunctos qui vel pravitatis illius vel communionis extitere participes universalis Ecclesia i e. in a Council dixit esse refutandos Considimus quod nullus jam veraciter Christianus ignoret uniuscujusque Synodi constitutum quod universalis Ecclesiae probavit assensus nullam magis exequi sedem prae ceteris oportere quam primam quae unamquamque Synodum sua authoritate confirmat continuata moderatione custodit pro suo scil Principatu quem Beatus Petrus Apostolus Domini voce perceptum I suppose it should be percepit Ecclesia nihilominus subsequens tenuit semper tenebit Haec i. e. Sedes Apostolica dum Acacium certis comperisset indiciis a veritate Apostolica deviasse diutius ista non credens quippe quem noverat executorem saepe necessariae dispensationis suae i. e. Sedis Apostolicae per triennium fere monere non destitit c. cur tanto tempore dum ista gererentur non ad sedem Apostolicam a qua sibi curam illarum regionum noverat delegatum referre curavit i. e. Acatius Tandem aliquando missis literis profitetur Acatius se Alexandrino Petro quem expetita Apostolicae sedis authoritate executor ipse quoque damnaverat absque sedis Apostolicae notitia communione permixtum Beati autem Petri sedes ne per Acacium in Petri consortiurn duceretur ipsum quoque a sua communione submovit multis modis transgressorum a sua societate fecit alienum Quo tenore Timotheus etiam atque ipse Alexandrinus Petrus qui secundam sedem tenuisse videbuntur non repetita Synodo tantummodo sedis Apostolicae ipso quoque Acacio postulante vel exequente probantur esse damnati Nec plane tacemus quod euncta per mundum novit Ecclesia quoniam quorumlibet sententiis ligata Pontificum sedes B. Petri Apostoli jus habeat resolvendi utpote quae de omni Ecclesia fas habeat judicandi neque cuiquam de ejus liceat judicare judicio siquidem ad Illam de qualibet mundi parte canones appellare aliquem voluerunt ab illa autem nemo sit appellare permissus Sed nec illa praeterimus quod Apostolicae sedi frequenter datum or dictum est ut more majorum etiam sine ulla Synodo precedente solvendi quod Synodus inique damnaverat damnandi nulla existente Synodo quos oportuit habuerit potestatem Sanctae memoriae nihilo minus Johannem Constantinopolitanum i. e. Chrysostomum Synodus etiam Catholicorum Praesulum certe damnaverat quem simili modo sedes Apostolica etiam sola quia non consensit absolvit Itemque S. Flavianum Pontificem Graecorum congregatione damnatum pari tenore quoniam sola Apostolica sedes non consensit absolvit potius quam qui illic receptus fuerat Dioscorum secundae Sedis praesulem sua authoritate damnavit impiam Synodum i.e. sec Ephes non consentiendo summovit sola authoritate ut Synodus Chalcedonensis fieret sola decrevit Ponamus tamen etiam si nulla Synodus praecessisset cujus Apost sedes recte fieret exequutrix cum quibus erat de Acacio Synodus ineunda Nunquid cum his qui jam participes tenebantur Acacii per Orientem totum Catholicis sacerdotibus such he calls those who adher'd to the Council of Chalcedon violenter exclusis per exilia diversa relegatis socii evidenter existentes communionis externae i. e. extra Ecclesiam Catholicam prius se ad haec consortia transferrent quam sedis Apostolicae scita consulerent Concilio nec opus erat post primam Synodum nec talibus habere licebat Quae congregatio facta Pontificum i.e. in Italia Occidentalium non contra Chalcedonensem non tanquam nova Synodus contra veterem primamque convenit sed potius secundum tenorem veteris constituti particeps Apostolica exequutionis effecta est ut satis appareat Ecclesiam Catholicam sedemque Apostolicam quia alibi jam omnino non posset ubi potuit cum quibus potuit nihil penitus omisisse quod ad fraternum pertineret pro intemerata fide sincera communione tractatum In this Epistle amongst others two things must not be passed by unobserv'd 1. One That he contends he ought not to call to a Council Bishops condemn'd by and professedly opposing a former General Council which being granted Councils may be rightly call'd General when they consist not of all but only of all Catholick Churches 2. The other That in the final sentencing and determining of greater persons and causes in the Eastern Church the Bishop of Constantinople was employ'd only from him and as his Delegate See the Epistle of Pelagius the 2d Bishop of Rome A.D. 580. Vniversis Episcopis qui illicita vocatione Johannis Constantinopolitani Episcopi ad Constantinopolim convenerunt Wherein he vindicates the authority of the Roman See against John assembling a Council there without his consent and leave and calling himself Universal Bishop seeking to exalt himself above Rome probably from the supreme dignity and great flourishing of that Imperial City in those time in which times also the poor City of Rome laboured under great afflictions and desolations by the Goths Longobards c. whereof Gregory writing to the Empress 4. l. Ep. 34. saith Viginti autem jam septem annos ducimus quod in hac urbe inter Longobardorum gladios vivimus and from the Emperour Mauritius his countenancing him in it Out of which Epistle some words are quoted by S. Gregory his Successor 4. l. Ep. 36. § 26 Now in the forenamed Epistle of Pelagius as he hath these passages Vniversalitatis quoque nomen A Digression concerning the title of Universalis Episcopus assumed by the Constantinopolitan and declined by the Roman Bishops quod sibi illicite usurpavit i.e. Joannes Constant nolite attendere c. Nullus enim Patriarcharum hoc tam profano vocabulo unquam utatur quia si summus Patriarcha tho it were the Patriarch of Rome Vniversalis dicitur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur Sed absit hoc absit c. Jactantiam tantam sumpsit i. e. Jonannes Constant ita ut universa
Catholick is of which declared Hereticks are no part And thus the Church shall still be to the end of the world a City upon a Hill and united within it self even in its greatest persecutions conspicuous to those who sincerely bend their course to it Again it seems that near the time of the worlds dissolution from this total Apostacy through great persecutions from the faith in some and from the sound doctrines of the Orthodox faith in others because both false Religions and such Heretical doctrines as the Apostles speak do all tend some way or other to vitiousness of life to libertinism and inducements of the flesh See 2 Pet. 2.3 10 18 19. Phil. 3.18 19. 1 Tim. 6.5 2 Tim. 3.2 7. c. see Trial of Doctrines § 32. there shall abound very great wickedness and much security amongst the then heavy oppressors of God's Church much what like to the days of Noah and of Lot when God shall come upon them unexpectedly to judgment But this is no failing of the Church which shall then remain an Holy City at unity in it self see Rev. 20.9 And if also within the Church it self the vitious shall out-number the pious neither is this any prejudice to the truth of the Churches doctrines since the same thing happens less or more in all ages that the wicked here-in are more than the good as St. Austin hath taken notice and much pains to prove to the Donatists urging some of the former texts De unitate Ecclesiae 12. 13. c. § 64 Thus much of the first head proposed before § 1. viz. The Clergies being delegated by our Lord departing hence the infallible preservers of all Truth and Necessary faith and supreme Judges in all controversies arising therein Now to proceed to the 2d Next this Authority to secure it for ever from any decay or interruption thereof is given them to the end of the world without dependance on any save the Lord Jesus they being Embassadors of salvation from the King of Kings to all Nations and so to be every where free from all violation For which there is the greatest reason since their constitutions are such as cannot do the least wrong or hurt to any secular dominion nay brings great security to it and since this their Ministery because without a Sword can be no Government or Discipline comes armed only with a Spiritual sword and not a Temporal and lastly since Christianity the Doctrine they plant gives no man any priviledge interest or advantage by it in this world or for Secular matters but maintains every Kingdom and State in the same condition wherein it finds it and only obligeth men to pray always for such State 1 Tim. 2.2 and to yeild all strict obedience to it Rom. 13.1 1 Pet. 2.13 and upon no pretence of maintaining Religion to use or to advise to use the material Sword or any otherwise to defend the truth than 1. by confessing it 1. in practising its Precepts at all times among which yet one necessary-one is publick assembling together to worship God c. Ecclesiacticos coetus humanis legibus interdictos ob divinum praeceptum Christiani intermittere non possunt Grot. sum Imp. circa sacra and 2ly by suffering for it The Christian profession therefore never troubles the Civil peace which cannot be broken but by Arms and therefore whatsoever disturbs the civil peace may be lawfully punished on any person whatsoever by the temporal Sovereign power for it is not the Christian profession I say lawfully purished unless in respect of some persons such temporal Magistrate make over this power to another which thing doubtless may be lawfully done if for example the Prince shall not think it so decent c that he should sit in Judgment and inflict corporal punishment upon a Bishop his Spiritual Father by whom he is to be guided and corrected and if need be censured and Spiritually punished concerning greater matters see 1 Cor. 6.3 Or That the Priest one day should summon the Civil Magistrate to his Tribunal the next the Magistrate Him or upon other reasons And perhaps This remitting of the Trial of Clergy-men even in Civil matters to their Spiritual Superiors so that the Secular power only useth the Temporal sword upon them when the other deliver them up to it as it may preserve more reverence in the people toward the Ministry so may it conduce to a more severe animadversion from such Judges supposing the Fathers of the Church to be of that sanctity and integrity which they do profess upon such Malefactors than any other way could And whether it was upon these or some other motives t is plain that such Concessions by several Emperors and Princes have bin made to the Church § 65 And the Judgment also when such disturbance is shall belong to his not to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal So Solomon confin'd Ahiathar the High-Priest 1 Kin. 2.26 27 compar'd with ch 4 v. 4. whom had he pleas'd he might also have put to death see 1 King 2.26 27. not for Error but for Rebellion not that the King may meddle or hath any power or Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical affairs over or in opposition to the Priest to do any thing save the assisting the Spiritual Sword with his Temporal and the using his Civil power for the service of the Church See Calv. Instit l. 4. c. 11. s 15. For the Priest having lawful power to excommunicate the Civil Magistrate for Heretical Opinions How can again the Civil Magistrate have a lawful power for the same cause to depose the Priest But over Ecclesiastical persons medling without his leave and beyond their Lord's Commission in affairs Temporal But then if the Secular power in his taking care of the Commonwealth's safety is pleas'd to Decree the Church's Religious Assemblies either for worshipping God or composing Laws for the Church to be Conspiracy or make their Preaching or coming within his Territories Treason only because they possibly may for how can any be sent by Christ to whom this may not be objected not because it is proved that they do any hurt to it or provoked by some particular persons who transgressing their Commission from Christ do some acts or hold some opinions prejudicial to the safety thereof should therefore condemn and execute all others of the same Order against whom the same fault cannot be prov'd and who abjure such horrid Tenents should he interpret any their medling with his Subjects whom our Saviour sends unarm'd like Lambs among Wolves to be subverting of his State and their Spiritual Sword inconsistent with or frustrating his Temporal he now usurps upon our Saviour's Authority and they must go on through all his Torments by way of the Cross which shall certainly conquer at last not of the Sword with which those Ministers shall perish that take it up Mat. 26.52 against those powers to which only it is committed Rom 13.14 to do their Office with that answer to him Act.
Emperor after 1080 what is establish'd by such a Synod not General is too weak to overthrow any former rights of the Church Neither is Balsamon's a later Greek Writer's authority much to be stood upon in this controversie Neither speaks he home in this point whether the Patriarch is to admit what the Emperor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after he hath represented to the Emperor that it is against the Canons Thus much of the 12th Canon In the 17th Canon and the 38th in Trullo Here is only upon the Emperor's building a new City or perhaps upon his transferring the Civil right and priviledges of having the seats of Judicature c. from one City in a Province unto another and upon this subjecting some other inferior Cities or Towns call'd Parochia's when being the jurisdiction of an ordinary Bishop see Hammond Schism p. 57. unto it the subjecting also of the Bishops of those Parochiae under that City to the Bishop of that City Where note First that these Canons speak only of the subjecting of Parochial Bishops to new Metropolitans where new Cities are builded and not of altering any thing in the jurisdiction of old which the 12th Canon of the same Council so expresly opposeth Secondly Only of subjecting Parochial Bishops to new Metropolitans not of subjecting Metropolitans to new Patriarchs nor yet to new Primates For 't is most clear that this very Council that made this Canon never dreamt of any power the Emperor had to erect a new Patriarch as I have shew'd before § 43. and much less Leo the Bishop of Rome who confirm'd these Canons yet vehemently opposed the Council seeking to erect Constantinople into a Patriarchy much more would he have opposed the Emperor Thirdly Whatever priviledge the Emperor here receives methinks their ordering that such a thing should be done subsequatur is far from sounding that they yeilded such a thing to belong to the Emperor by right as Dr. Hammond expounds it Schis p. 119. But then if the Emperor hold such priviledge from the Church the Church when they please may resume this power for so himself argues concerning any priviledges which Secular Princes have formerly conceded to the Bishop of Rome and then hear what the 21th Canon of the 8th General Council saith if we will trust later Councils not far distant in time better to understand the concessions of former Definimus neminem prorsus mundi potentium quenquam eorum qui Patriarchalibus sedibus praesunt inhonorare aut movere a proprio throno tentare Sed omni reverentia honore dignos judicare praecipue quidem sanctissimum Papam senioris Romae c. § 45 As for the things mention'd afterward by the Doctor p. 120 c. the power of changing the seat of a Bishop or dividing one Province into many as likewise the presenting of particular persons to several Dignities in the Church which also private Patrons do without claiming any superiority in Church-matters some of which seem of small consequence as to Ecclesiastical affairs Yet are not these things justly transacted by the Prince's sole Authority without the approbation first of Church-Governors But the same things may be acted by the Church alone the Prince gain-saying if he be either Heathen or Heretick which also shews his power when orthodox in the regiment of the Church to be only executive and dependent on the Ecclesiastical Magistrate's No persons are or at least ought to be put into any Church-dignities without the authoritative consent and concurrence of the Clergy who if they reject such persons tho presented by Princes as unorthodox or otherwise unfit they cannot be invested in such Offices Hear what the 8th General Council saith of this matter Can. 22. Sancta universalis Synodus definit neminem Laicorum principum vel potentum semet inserere electioni vel promotioni Patriarchae vel Metropolitae aut cujuslibet Episcopi ne videlicet c. Praesertim cum nullam in talibus potestatem quenquam potestativorum vel caeterorum Laicorum habere conveniat Quisquis autem saecularium principum potentum vel alterius dignitatis Laicae adversus communionem ac consentaneam atque Canonicam electionem Ecclesiastici ordinis agere tentaverit Anathema sit The transplanting of Bishopricks and division of Provinces probably was never order'd by Princes but either first propos'd or assented-to by the Clergy see that instance of Anselm Hammond of Schis p. 122. or upon some more general grant indulgently made to some pious Princes from the chief powers of the Church Tho Historians commonly in relation of such facts mention only the King's power as by whose more apparent and effectual authority such things are put in execution in which things negative arguments that such persons as are not mention'd did not concur especially when they are mention'd to concur in some other acts of the same nature are very fallacious But imagine we once the 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 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 obedidience to such Superiors and submitting to their judgment and decisions in spiritual matters by which the King may sway the controversies in Religion within his own Dominions what way he pleaseth unless we will imagine there shall be no Ecclesiasticks at all of his own perswasions whom he may surrogate into the places of those who gainsay Such were the times of Constantius And by such violent and uncanonical expulsion and intrusion of Prelates the face of Religion was seen changed and re-changed so often here in England within a few years according to the fancies of the present Prince as if there were in her no certain form of truth And the same thing we have seen done before our eyes in our own days The removing inducting deposing promoting Ecclesiastical persons as the Secular power pleaseth being also a changing of the Church's Doctrine as it pleaseth Thus much to what Dr. Hammond hath said Schis p. 120 c. § 46 Lastly Schis p. 125. he makes three instances in the fact of the Kings of Judah in the fact of St. Paul and in the fact of the Christian Emperors tending to this purpose that their authority is supreme in Ecclesiastical causes as well as Civil and therefore may erect Patriarchies His words there are The authority of Kings is supreme in all sorts of causes even those of the Church as well as Civil as appears among the Jewish Kings in Scripture David ordering the courses of the Priests Solomon consecrating the Temple Hezekiah 2 Chron. 29. 2 King 18. and Josiah 2 King 22. ordering many things belonging to it And so St. Paul appeal'd from the judgment of the chief Priests to the Tribunal of Caesar So in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉