Truth 's perpetual presence with and assistance of them as I shall now shew you § 41 After therefore those taken away who sate in Moses his chair to guide the people in matters of the law that there are others placed in Christ's Chair to guide God's people in all matters of the Gospel whose judgment and sentence in all their decisions the subjects of the Church ought to follow and obey appeareth 1. from many texts of Scripture See first that text in the Gospel Matt. 18.15 c. answering to that other formerly urged in the law Deut. c. 17. v. 8. c. If thy brother shall trespass against thee i.e. either by way of personal offence or by way of scandal of which our Saviour had bin speaking before v. 6 7. whereby any great offence of our brother against God against his neighbour or himself becomes matter of our cognisance as fellow-members of the same Body and who should be always so charitably affected to him as not to suffer sin upon him Lev. 19.17 go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone c. If he will not hear thee then take with thee two or three more c convent and arraign him as it were before some neighbours If he shall neglect to hear them tell it his fault and neglect unto the Church but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican as a person excommunicated and not to be a companied with Luk. 15.2 Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye before whom such matters are brought shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall upon such offenders penitence loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Again I say unto you that if two of you any small assembly shall agree together on earth as touching any thing that they shall resolve on and ask to have it ratified it shall be done for them of my Father For where any such assembly tho but two or three are gathered together in my Name and by my authority delegated to them see 1 Cor. 5.4 2 Cor. 2.10 there am I whom the Father heareth always in the midst of them § 42 In which Scriptures 1. That by Church Tell it unto the Church v. 17. is to be understood Clergy is clear from what follows v. 18. whatsoever ye shall bind c. comp with Mat. 16.19 Jo. 20.23 and from what follows v. 20 comp with Mat. 28.19 20. And 2. That here is meant the Clergy not only that were then in being the Apostles but that should succeed them through all following Ages is clear both from the same occasions of repairing to the Churches Tribunal v. 15. occurring in all ages and from the power of binding and loosing as necessary in one age as another and unquestionably exercised by the Apostles Successors concerning which matter I refer you to what is said before § 36. n. 1 2. and below and Church-Government part 2. § 27. c. 3ly That the Order for telling and the Precept of hearing this Clergy the Church of all Ages is to be understood not only concerning some injuries or wrongs done to us by our brother but concerning other faults and evil manners whereby our brother offends God and the Christian Society whereof he is a member appears from that expression v. 15. If he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother not gained thy loss in receiving satisfaction but gained thy Brother in procuring his reformation Again that is to be understood not only concerning trespass of Manners neither but also of Doctrines and Opinions much more as it seems deduceable from the context v. 6 7. mentioning scandals of which false doctrines and opinions are the chiefest and as it seems clear a minori ad majus if others our Brothers trespasses be matter of complaint and of the Churches cognisance much more these any corruption in a matter of faith being generally far more dangerous and pernicious than a corruption in manners See Jo. ◠11 Gal. 5.20 evil deeds heresies c. and Rom. 2.8 the contentious not obeying the truth 2 Pet. 3.16 Wresting Scriptures to their own destruction Tit. 1.11 Rom. 16.17 Act. 15. Subverting mens souls and deceiving the hearts of the simple Jud. 1. perishing in gainsaying And our zeal to God's truth and honour being much to be preferred before that to our own wealth honour or security So is it evident and put out of doubt by many other Scriptures which may be brought in illustration of this 1. In which Scriptures both the members of the Church are warned to mark and avoid such false teachers and doctrines And 2ly The Church-governours are authorized to judge controversies and proceed in their censures against such teachers and such tenents as are contrary to the Doctrines formerly delivered by our Lord and his Apostles And 3ly in which Scriptures also are contained several instances of such judgments and proceedings § 33 See for the first Rom. 16.17 2 Thes 3.14 2 Jo. 10. where we are bidden to mark to note those that obey not those that cause divisions contrary to the Doctrines received from the Apostles to avoid not to have company with not to salute them i. e. to carry our selves toward them as Heathens and Publicans here Matt. 18.18 and to avoid such in like manner as the Corinthians the incestuous person 1 Cor. 5.11 compared with 7.13 that is by Excommunication and Church-censures Whence also was the custom in the Primitive Church of Christians that travelled to carry with them Letters commendatory from the Bishop of the place that so they might be admitted to the prayers and communion in those Churches whither they went scrupulous of joining with any Hereticks See for the 2d Eph. 4.4 5 11 c. There is one Body and one Spirit One Lord one Faith When he ascended up on high he gave gifts unto men And he gave some Apostles c. some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith unto a perfect man That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the slight of men c. This then is one office of the Churchmen to edify the Church in the unity of the faith and to keep them steddy in its Doctrines that they be not carried about now one way now another and that they be not thus carried about not only before the Gospel or other Books of the N. Testament were written but also after nay also that they be not carried about with several false glosses and misintepretations of these Writings of which very Writings S. Peter saith 2 Pet. 3.16 that some wrested them to their own destruction therefore the members of the Church to submit to their Doctrines and to conform to their Faith that there may be a
unity therein One Lord one Faith one Body one Spirit an unity of the Spirit kept in the bond of peace v. 3. see Heb. 13.7 9 17. The like obedience commanded to be given to these Church-rulers in respect of Doctrine and Faith Remember them who have the rule over you and who have spoken unto you the Word of God whose faith follow Jesus Christ the same for ever Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines Obey them c. for they watch for your souls as they that must give account Account for the Precepts they give you and for the Doctrines they teach you Add to these those Texts of the Apostle charging Christians to be all of one judgment to speak the same thing not to be wise in their own conceits 1 Cor. 1.10 Rom. 12.16 15.5 6. Phil. 1.27 3.16 where the Apostle seemeth not to mean their condescendence for opinion one to another for which rather who shall so yeild will still be in debate but their union in the doctrine of their Spiritual Superiors in which he would have them all to acquiesce See 1 Cor. 4.16 17. 11.1 2. Phil. 3.17 Rom. 16.17 2 Thes 3.14 the succeeding Ecclesiastical Superiors being commanded still to retain and continue the doctrine of their Predecessors 1 Tim. 1.3 2 Tim. 1.13 2.2 After the forenamed mission Eph. 4.11 see 1 Cor. 14.29.32 where the Apostle amongst other things submits also the doctrines of the Prophets to the judgment of the Prophets let the other judge and 1 Tim. 4.11 6.3.5 and Titus 1.11 and 3.10 11. where he gives order to the Church-governours Tim. and Titus that touching error and heresy in matter of faith such persons if any discovered after due admonishment should be withdrawn from should be excommunicated and silenced by him their persons rejected c. 3. their mouths stopt c. 1. § 44 See for the 3d. Act. 15.2 c. where a controversy riseing in the Church of Antioch by reason of some teaching there that the Gentiles were to be circumcised and to keep the Mosaical Law without any such commandment from their Superiors Act. 15.44 who were opposed by Paul and Barnabas the Antiochians tho many amongst them having eminent gifts of the Spirit do repair for a final decision thereof to the judgment of the Apostles at Jerusalem where after an Assembly called v. 6. we find a consulting and disputing on this matter from the believing Pharisees still zealous of their law and then a giving of their several votes and a deciding of it not from pretence of immediate inspiration or revelation but from arguments 1. Of Gods converting the Gentiles shewed in several instances and giving them the Holy Ghost as to the Jews without any previous using such Jewish ceremonies And 2ly from the Predictions of the Prophets concerning the calling of the Gentiles in the latter days as a distinct people not to be translated by circumcision c into the Jewish Religion but to be transplanted and counited together with the sews into the Christian v. 7 12 13 19. After this the sending of their Constitutions to the particular Churches under this stile It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you c. v. 28. See again 1 Tim. 1.20 compared with 2 Tim. 2.17 18. and 4.14 15. the Apostle excommunicating Hymeneas Alexander and others for their false doctrines and see Rev. 2 2 14 15 20. the Lord Jesus commending the Angel i.e. Bishop of the Church of Ephesus for trying and not tolerating or bearing with the false Apostles and reprehending the Angels of the Churches of Thyatira and Pergamas for the contrary for their suffering the false Prophetess Jezabel to teach and seduce his servants and for their tolerating the Nicolaitans who indulged the Christians more liberty 2 Pet. 2.18 19. in complying with Heathen Religions and held it lawful to eat of their sacrifices and to commit fornications like them some unnatural ones also which usually accompanied Idolatry See 1 Kings 14.24 15.12 2 K. 23.7 § 45 Thus have I shew'd you 1. That by the Church Mat. 18.17 which is to be complain'd and repair'd to in matters of trespasses unreform'd and to be heard and obey'd upon pain of being reckon'd as an Heathen and Publican of Excommunication and being bound both in Earth and Heaven Mat. 18.18 that by this Church I say is meant the Clergy 2. The Clergy of one Age as well as another 3. This Clergy to be heard and obey'd as well in matters of Theological Controversies and of Doctrines as in any other matters as well in these if not more Now 4ly That this Hearing and Obedience due to them is not only an obligation of non-contradicting but of assenting to such their Doctrines and Decisions of Controversies so far as they require assent appears likewise from the aforenam'd Texts as likewise those following Because these Church-Officers are call'd Teachers and Guides which have reference to Truth as well as Judges and Rulers which have reference to Peace and we charg'd to hear them as Christ who also have receiv'd from Christ a Spirit leading them into all Truth and a promise that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against them c. Of which more anon Again Because they are said to be set over the Church that there may be in it an unity of faith Eph. 4.13 and one faith ver 5. and not only a bond of peace but an unity of the spirit and of judgment and speaking the same thing c. Eph. 4.13 3. 1 Cor. 1.10 That their Subjects may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men not carried about with them i.e. not believe them Now he who by these Superiors may be restrain'd from believing them is hereby enjoin'd to believe the contradictories of them namely the Positions of the Church and if the people are enjoin'd to believe this then also their Seducers But were the people oblig'd only to the obedience of non-contradiction and not of assent toward such Superiors then whereas some Tenents are exclusive of Salvation and many more having dangerous effects upon the lives and manners of Christians see Act. 15.24 2 Pet. 3.16 and wherefore are the Teachers prohibited if the Doctrines were not pernicious and to be renounc'd Yet is there no Church-authority which can afford any remedy to this great evil It can indeed provide for its own peace but not its subjects safety whilst it must tolerate the liberty of all tho destructive opinions and may exact no more than a non-gainsaying Again Because it is clear that these Church-Guides may not only reject and excommunicate false Teachers and Seducers but the Heretical also when any way they come to be discover'd guilty thereof consider Tit. 3.10 11. where observe ver 11. that their autocatacrisie or being condemn'd by their own Conscience tho there be no endeavour by divulging their Heresie of infecting other men's Consciences therewith is render'd a
19 2 Cor. 12.12 1 Cor. 2.4 Mark 6.20 required belief and submission to their doctrine and universal Tradition upon which the Church also requireth belief to the Scriptures the same Tradition that delivered the Scriptures delivering also such doctrines and expositions of Scriptures as are found in the Church So that a Pharisee searching and not finding in Scriptures by reason indeed that he searched them not aright such testimony of Jesus being the Messias as was pretended yet ought to have bin convinced and to have believed his doctrines from seeing his miracles and from hence also to have blamed his faulty search So a Berean searching and not finding in Scripture such evidence of S. Panl's doctrine suppose of the abrogation of the Judaical Law by Christ as was pretended yet ought to have believed it from the mighty works he saw done by S. Paul or from the authority he or the Council at Jer salem Act. 15. received from Jesus working Miracles and raised from the Dead as universal Tradition testified And the same may be said for the Churches Doctrines And therefore as there are some Scriptures that bid us search the Scriptures because if we do this aright we shall never find them to disagree from the Doctrines of the Church and beause some doctrines of the Church are also in the Scripture very evident so there are other Scriptures if those who are so ready to search them on other would search them also on this point that bids us hear the Church because our searching of Scriptures is liable sometimes to be mistaken and because in some things the Scriptures may seem difficult In which case God having referred us to the judgment of those whom he hath appointed to be the expounders thereof Deut. 17.8 9 10. Matt. 18.17 Luk. 10.16 cannot remit us again to the same Scriptures to try whether their expositions be right Therefore that Text Gal. 1.8 9. is far from any such meaning If the Church or Churchmen shall teach you any thing contrary to the Scriptures as you understand them let these he Anathema to you but rather it saith this If an Angel or I Apostatizing as some shall Act. 20.30 shall teach any thing contrary to the doctrines ye have received that is from the Church let him c. which makes not against but for the Churches Authority very much § 61 To the former Texts then mentioned § 56. this briefly may be returned To the three first Texts That a search of Scriptures concerning our Lord's or his Apostles doctrines is both allowed and recommended because the Scriptures rightly understood and these doctrines perfectly agree But a dissent from these doctrines if upon a search thought to be disagreeing which the Objectors would infer is not allowed from the reasons formerly given In the fourth Text the Apostle speaks of private Spirits to be tried whether of God by their conformity to the common doctrines of the Scripture and of the Church See 1 Cor. 14.29 32. The 5th includes a general trial as well by the directions and expositions of the Spiritual Guides as dictates of the Scriptures the Rule The 6th is expounded before If an Angel shall teach you any thing contrary to the doctrine you have received from Christ's Ministers or from the Church confirmed with Miracles let him be Anathema § 62 As for those things which are urged for the failing of the visible Church or at least of the major part of the Guides and chief Professors thereof under the Gospel As in the Scriptures die Prophecies of our Saviour Matt. 24.11 12. 24.38 Luke 18.8 compared with 7. Luk. 17 25 26 27 c. 21.35 and of the Apostles 2 Thes 2.3 1 Jo. 2.18 2 Tim. 3.1 1 Cor. 11.19 2 Pet. 2.1 c. Rev. 20. c. 13.20.8 9. and other places speaking of the power of Antichrist and of his sitting in the Church of God and in the Church-story the prevalency of Arrianism In answer to the former the Scriptures It is granted that it seems in these latter times of the world there shall be a great falling away from the faith but that it is from Christianity it self and from the Church as indeed we have already seen all those flourishing Churches of Asia and other Eastern and Southern parts once Christian now over-run by the Doctrine of the Great Prophet of God as he stiled himself Mahomet who sits and triumphs in those same places which were once the chiefest Churches of God and the love of many to Christ waxen cold by the abounding of iniquity and the terrible persections of the Turkish Empire the Image of the former Persecutor the Heathen Roman Empire to which Imago Mahomet's doctrine hath given life and vigor and this decession we have seen and what more shall be seen hereafter God knoweth But this argues not that Truth shall fail in all or the major part of the Doctors who remain still in the Church and profession of Christianity but that the Church it self shall sail of having so great an extent in the world or her Guides of being so many at some times as at others yet at all times sufficiently apparent § 63 Again In answer to the prevalency of Arrianism it seems that in these later times there shall be a falling away too within the profession of Christianity from the faith i.e. from that faith which is orthodox by many dangerous Heresies and Schisms from time to time arising in the Church whilst many formerly members of it shall separate from it 1 Jo. 2.19 but shall always apparently be known by their departure from it but it follows not that any of these Sects within shall ever have so great or so long a growth as to be able to out-number the Body of the Church or the true Teachers Concerning which many are of opinion that the Orthodox Communion in all times shall exceed not Infidels but yet any other Sect especially of one Communion as it is professing Christianity both for the multitude of people and extent of several Nations See Tryal of doctrines § 30 31 c. and particularly concerning Arrianism in 2. Disc conc the Guide in Controversy § 26. As for Antichrist the story of whom hath given occasion of a contrary fancy especially amongst the Reformed I shall elsewhere I think sufficiently clear to you that he shall profess an Antichristianity and oppose the Gospel in general or if at some time such Sect shall out-number the Church it self yet as was said before it shall stand in an external Communion separate from the Church and also formerly expelled by the Church when these did not outnumber it and tho afterwards these shall grow never so numerous yet the remnant of Orthodox Believers how small soever continuing in the same body will not cease to be truly and only Catholick without them neither have these any right or will be permitted to vote in her Councils which Councils to be truly General need to be no larger than the Church
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.
under several other Laws besides that of Nature written in every man's Conscience Rom. 2. 14 15. Laws and Rules of Worship reveal'd and deliver'd by God to Adam himself at first or to other Holy men even of the first times and many of these Laws the same with those after ward recorded by Moses So for the Church we find righteous Abel serving God in a way well pleasing to him and offering acceptable Sacrifice and an early type of our Saviour slain and martyr'd by the Nead of the Race of the Church's Persecutors out of envy to his sanctity Heb. 11.4 1 Joh. 3.12 Upon his death Seth raised in his stead a Father of the Holy Race Gen. 5.1 2 3. His Son Enos the first more eminent publick Preacher of Righteousness see 2 Pet. 2.5 In whose time it is said that people now began more publickly to call on the name of the Lord Gen. 4.26 Enoch the fifth from him a Prophet Jude 14. and in a most singular manner pious Gen. 5.24 Heb. 11.5 6. the eighth from Enos Noah again a famous Preacher of Righteousness 1 Pet. 3.19 2 Pet. 2.5 In whose times the Members of the Church are by a special name call'd the Sons of God Gen. 5.2 From him again we find the Church continued to Abraham a Prophet Gen. 20.7 Psal 105.15 In whose time also was Melchisedech the Priest of the most high God Gen. 14.18 And to Abraham we find a Promise made by God of the never-failing of his Seed i. e. of the Children of his Faith and Holy Religion i. e. of the Church So soon as this Spiritual Seed began to cease among the Jews then it being continued to him still among the Gentiles See Rom. 4.12 16.17 Gal. 3.7 c. Gal. 4. Joh. 8. 39.44 Luk. 19.9 § 5 This for the old Church Next for the old Laws Rules and Government under which it liv'd we find early mention of several of these long before Moses his committing them to record Of Holy Persons Priests Prophets Intercessors Gen. 14 18.-20.7 17. Exod. 19.22 24.5 Of Holy Times Gen. 2.3 Exod. 16.23 Of Holy Places Gen. 4.12 14 16 -28.17-35.1 12 6.-26.25 Ex. 3.5 Of Altars Gen. 8.20 which the Patriarchs built in such places where God appear'd to them Gen. 12 6.-26.25 Or where they made a longer abode Gen. 12 8.-13.4 18. Of Sacrifice Sacrifice of the firstlings and of the far Gen. 4.3 4. Burnt Offerings and Peace Offerings Gen. 8.20 Exod. 5 1.-10.25 The Birds in Sacrifice not divided Gen. 15.10 as it was afterward commanded in Lev. 1.17 Of clean and unclean Beasts Gen. 7.2 and of not eating the Blood Gen. 9.4 Of Purifyings Cleansings changing their Garments c. Gen. 2. Of Tythes paid to the Priest Gen. 14.20 Of making Vows Gen. 28.20 Of not matching with Unbelievers Gen. 6.2 comp 1. Of the Brother's raising of Seed to his Brother Gen. 38 8.comp Deut. 25.5 Thus then from the beginning God had a Church had Preachers and Priests and certain Rules of his due Worship 2. In these times it seems that the People for matter of Religion and God's Worship were cast wholly upon the Instructions and Doctrines Traditions and Dictates of their Guides for knowing their duty without any Written Records or Law of Natural Reason which these things transcended to examine these by and supposing that there should have happen'd to have been concerning any particular two contrary Traditions amongst these Teachers in all reason they ought to have follow'd the former and more universal Here also we may presume that these Fathers of the Church were then sufficiently assisted by God to deliver always to the People all truths necessary to their Salvation since they had no other Director to repair to § 6 2. To let these obscurer times pass and to come to those under the Law Written which was in all things a more express type of the Gospel Tho this Law seems much more punctually and methodically committed to Writing as to the Rule thereof than the Gospel is yet there was a Judg and certain Courts appointed for the Exposition thereof in difficult matters Which Office at first we find Moses who also had continual recourse to God in his Doubts to have executed for some time both for Religious and for Civil causes alone To whom saith the Text Exod. 18.16 the people when they had a matter came and he made them know the Statutes of God and his Laws Afterward to ease him of this great burthen especially as to ordinary Civil matters we find by Jethro's advice but also God's approbation other able men chosen out of the people and set over Tens Fifties Hundreds and Thousands to decide the easier matters but to bring the harder still to Moses Exod. 18.13 c. And he still alone to be for the People to God ward to bring the causes unto God teach them Ordinances and shew them the Work that they must do Exod. 18.19 20. Afterward yet more to ease him in these more difficult matters we find by God's appointment Seventy Elders chosen out of the former Officers and Judges more immediately to assist him which Seventy Elders to enable them for this higher employment had part of Moses his Spirit taken and put upon them which Spirit at the first shew'd wonderful effects in them and magnified them before the People as Christ the Prophet whom Moses resembled Deut. 18.15 his Spirit also did at first when it was deriv'd on the chief Evangelical Judges and Magistrates Act. 2. See Numb 11.14 16 c. § 7 Thus it was order'd in the Wilderness Again when the People should come to the Land of Rest here we find besides the Inferior Judges distributed in the Country Deut. 16.18 by God's command a standing Court established in that City where God setled his Sanctuary and Presence that they also might there consult him in their difficulties established I say for the Exposition of the Law in all matters too hard for the other and we find all persons oblig'd under pain of Death to stand to their Decisions See for this Deut. 17 8 c. If there arise a matter too hard for thee i. e. the inferior Country-Judges Deuter. 16.18 in judgment between Blood and Blood between Plea and Plea or between stroke and stroke or Leper and Leper what in these was permitted or prohibited excusable or punishable or in what manner punishable according to the Letter of the Law being matters of Controversie within thy Gates or as the Vulgar Judicum intra portas tuas videris verba variari thou shalt then arise and get thee up unto the place which the Lord thy God shall chuse And thou shalt come unto the Priests the Levites and unto the Judg that chief Secular Magistrate or his Substitute because the matters brought before this Court were sometimes relating to God's sometimes to the King's Laws Causes some Ecclesiastical some Civi that shall be in those days and they shall shew thee the sentence
have not and which we have not first from them And what can be clear therein to us which is not so to them Or since no place of Scripture tho never so plain in its terms may be so understood as will render it contradictory to any other place how can such a man be secure enough of his diligence and wit in making such a due collation of Scriptures and collecting a right sense where he findeth such a Body to oppose him But perhaps these Guides tho more knowing then he yet have not like integrity And what misguiding passions are these subject to in judging to which our selves are not much more Or what self-interest do we find in them but only when we have a contrary our selves Every one imagines himself to stand in an indifferency to Opinions when as indeed scarce any by reason of their education fortunes particular dependances and relations is so and mean-while like Icterical persons he thinks that colour to be in those he looks upon abroad which is only in himself I know no greater sign of a dis-interested and an unpassionate temper of mind than to be apt readily to submit to another's judgment and seldom it is but much self-conceit and spiritual pride do accompany singularity of Opinion This have I said to shew what reasons there are for our assent to the Doctrines and Determinations of our Spiritual Guides drawn from that measure of assistance and infallibility which our Lord hath promised them tho other Scriptures had laid on us such injunction Of which subject see what is more largely discours'd in Obligation of Judgment from § 5 to § 9. and Infallibility Church Government Par. 2. § 35. Par. 3. § 27. n. 1 c. § 52 And hitherto from § 41 I have endeavour'd to shew you in the first place from the Scripture That there is a Judg of Controversies appointed and left under the Gospel to all whose Decisions the Subjects of the Church ought to be obedient and acquiesce as there was formerly under the Law 2. Next The same thing is prov'd from the constant Practice of the Church which we must not say to have been mistaken in the just extent of her Authority 1. The Church from time to time in her General Councils hath judg'd and decided Controversies as they arose both in matters Practical and Speculative In Practicals enjoining her Subjects upon Ecclesiastical penalties not only not to gain-say but also to do them and consequently enjoining them to assent that such things are lawful to be done And in Speculatives also enjoining her Subjects not only not to gain-say her Decisions but to profess them and consequently enjoining them to assent that such her Positions are true For none may profess with his mouth what he believes not with his heart Nay further enjoining her Subjects to believe them her Language for several of her Determinations and Canons in those her Councils which all sides allow being such as this In her Canons Siquis non confitetur non profitetur non credit putting several of her Determinations in the Creeds And in her Decisions constanter tenendum firma fide credendum Nemo salva fide dubitare debet and the like If it be said that such â—ssent is requir'd by the Church or her Councils only to some not all their Decisions I answer that I contend not that you are to yeild your assent by vertue of Obedience whatever you ought to do in prudence where they do not require it Only let it be granted that it belongs to them not you to judg what or how many points it is meet for them to require and for you to give your assent And let no such limitation as this be annex'd to their Authority That they require assent to what is true or to what is agreeable to God's word not in theirs but in his Opinion whose assent is required For thus their Authority is annihilated to this That they may only require me to assent to that whatsoever I do assent to Do what I will or they make me § 53 Again The Church hath from time to time in her Councils according to the Authority given her see before § 43 45. excommunicated men for holding false and pernicious Opinions hath Anathematiz'd and declar'd Hereticks the non-confitentes and the non-credentes in such main points as she thought necessary to be believ'd Which infers either sin in dissenting from her Judgment and the Doctrines she defines or that she faultily excommunicates any on this account or that she may lawfully punish another for that which the other lawfully doth But if there be any Church that teacheth That every one may examine her Doctrines and where he judgeth or thinketh these contrary to Scriptures that there he is not obliged to yeild his assent the same Church cannot justly excommunicate such person for dissenting i. e. for doing that which she teacheth him he may do And then since all that dissent from the Church will pretend that the church-Church-Doctrines seem to them to be contrary to the Scriptures it follows such Church can justly excommunicate none at all for any Heretical or false Tenent whatever See more of this subject in Church-Government Par ◠§ 34. and Par. 3. § 29. Obligation of Judgment § 3 c. § 54 3. The same Obligation of Assent is prov'd from the practice of the Reform'd Churches also as well as others and they as rigid in requiring it as the rest and particularly this our Church of England as will easily appear to you if you please to view the 139 140 4 5 73 12 36 of the Synod held under King James 1603 and the 3 4 5 and the Oath in the 6th Canon of the Synod under King Charles I. and what is argued from them in Church-Government Par. 3. § 29 c. and after all these to view the Act of Parliament 13 Eliz. cap. 12. requiring Assent to the XXXIX Articles and the Title also prefix'd to them which saith That these Articles were drawn up for the avoiding of diversities of Opinions and the establishing of Consent touching true Religion It Subscription then to them doth not extend to Consent to the truth of them the end is frustrated for which they were composed Lastly If you please to view the Complaint for this cause of the Presbyterians in their Reasons shewing necessity of Reformation printed 1660. See Church-Government Par. 3. § 29. against the Canons and Articles of the Church of England as the Church of England doth for the same cause against the Canons and Articles of the Church of Rome § 55 Now from all that hath been said from § 4 and more especially from § 41 you may perceive a great difference between the Obedience which we owe to Secular and which we owe to Ecclesiastical Magistrates as to any matters which relate to the Divine Law To the Secular Magistrate we owe in these matters an active obedience with some limitation in omnibus licitis
honestis or the like licitis I mean lege divina But if we have any doubt concerning this we are to repair from him not to our own judgment but to the Spiritual Magistrates and according as they shall declare the lawfulness or unlawfulness hereof we are to yeild or withdraw our active obedience to the Civil neither can this Civil Magistrate justly punish us for not observing his Laws when pronounc'd by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate opposite to the Divine And in such case we may answer to them as the Apostles who were then the chief Ecclesiastical Judges twice answer'd to the Sanedrim which was then exauthorized that we ought to obey God rather than men But to the Ecclesiastcal Magistrate we owe an obedience advanc'd beyond the former limitation being not only to do what they command if it be lawful or subscribe or swear to what they require if it be true but to believe that to be lawful or unlawful that to be truth or error I say in these Divine matters what they tell us is so without repairing concerning these to any other Judg. We are to yeild the same obedience to these Delegates of Christ our Lord touching Divine Laws as to a Temporal Supreme Legislator concerning his own Laws that are made in things left purely indifferent by the Divine Laws The Commands of which Temporal Legislators in the foresaid matters we are to obey not only when we our selves judg that they do accord with his Laws but also when we doubt of the meaning of his Laws we are to learn their true sense from him to obey him in all his Laws and to know from him what are his Laws For as he or his Delegates have authority to determine Controversies concerning the Secular Laws to put an end to contentions so have I shew'd the Church Magistrates to have to determine Controversies concerning the Divine Laws § 56 Against this so absolute Obedience and Submission of Judgment to the Church-Governors under the Gospel there are several Scriptures urg'd and necessary to be explain'd before we proceed further which Scriptures seem to licence all men lest perhaps they should be misguided to try and that by the same Scriptures their Teachers Doctrines that so if not finding their Doctrine according with these Scriptures they may so far withhold their assent to them For this are urg'd first Joh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life and they testifiâ— of me 2ly Act. 5 17.1â— These the Bereans were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they receiv'd the word that Paul preach'd to them with all readiness of mind and search'd the Scriptures daily whether those things were so 3ly 1 Cor. 10.15 I speak as to wise men Judg ye what I say 4ly 1 Joh 4.1 Try the Spirits whether they be of God 5ly 1 Thes 5.21 Prove all things hold fast that which is good 6ly Gal. 1.8 9. Though we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel to you then that which we have preach'd unto you let him be accursed To which Texts is added the utter uselesness as to Spiritual matters of private Judgment in such an universal submission requir'd to a Judg. § 57 In Answer to these Texts First it is to be noted in general That trial of Doctrines by Scriptures is either of the Doctrines of private Teachers made by the Church-Governors of which trial no question is made Or of the Doctrines of private Teachers made by private men And these also they may try by the Scriptures so that they guide themselves lest our trial be mistaken in the sense of these Scriptures according to the Exposition thereof by the Church i.e. in her General Councils or in the most unanimous consent of those whom our Saviour departing left to be the Guides of the Church and Expositors of the Scriptures And if thus searching we find the Doctrines of our Teachers contrary to the Scriptures so expounded we may and ought to with-draw our belief from them Or this trial 3ly by Scriptures is of the doctrines of the Church i.e. of those doctrines which are deliver'd not by a private Teacher but by a general consent of the Church-guides at least the fullest that we can discover Or by General or other Superior Councils or by the Apostles or by our Saviour himself 1. Now the allowance of such a trial may be understood in two senses 1. Either in this sense Search or try my or our Doctrine by the Scriptures for you will surely find my Doctrine agreeing thereunto if you do search right and as you ought and in this sense the trial by the Scriptures of the Doctrines of the Church nay of the Apostles S. Paul's by the Bereans nay of Christ himself Whether the Old Testament as he urged testified of him is both allowed and recommended for since there is no difference of the teaching of Christ or of S. Paul or of the Church from the teaching of the Scripture the one will never fear but freely appeal to a trial by the other if it be rightly made § 58 2. Or 2ly it may be understood in this sence Search and try my Doctrine by the Scriptures and if you in the search do not perceive it agreeable unto them I declare that you have no reason to believe or that you are excusable in rejecting my Doctrine Now in this sence our Saviour or St. Paul or the other Scriptures never recommended private mens searching or gave any such priviledge to it unless you put this clause that they have searched aright But if you put in this clause then is the searcher after his searching not yet at liberty to disbelieve the Apostles or the Churches doctrine till he is sure first that he hath searched aright I say our Saviour or the Scriptures cannot recommend Searching in such a sence or upon such conditions § 59 1. First because such a Searcher or Tryer by the Scriptures there may be as is prejudiced by passion or interest or miseducation or as searcheth negligently and coldly or as hath not a sufficient capacity to understand the Scriptures he searcheth when perhaps it is in some difficult point wherein they are not so clear as if he should search the text of the Old Testament in the point delivered by St. Paul of the abrogating of Circumcision under the Gospel neither can any body be secure of his dis-engagement from all such letts of using a right judgment in searching § 60 2. Because however the Search or the Searcher prove there are other means and m diums by which is proved to men the truth of such doctrines and by which not bearing witness to a falsity one may discover himself to have made his search of Scripture amiss so often as he thinks it to contradict them Such mediums are Miracles and other mighty operations done by the power of the Holy Ghost upon which our Saviour Jo. 5.36 and elsewhere and S. Paul Rom. â—5
4.19 And he must give account to the same King of Kings for killing his Subjects in their obeying their Lords commands who sent them to all Nations without asking any man's leave as they could not in doing their duty possibly wrong any man's right § 66 And if any here argue That a Spiritual Supremacy thus describ'd cannot consist with another Temporal but that one will ruine the other and probably the Ecclesiastical denouncing eternal torments the Civil threatning death temporal experience is enough to confute him which hath long shew'd the contrary Those Kingdoms where these two Scepters are set up having flourish'd I mean for any occasion of disturbance or war arising from the opposition of these two powers in long peace and prosperity whilst others where one of them hath been beaten down have either ever since been miserably afflicted with Civil Wars I mean about Religion unsetled or quite over-turned 1. Partly by reason that every one gives not the spoils of the Church's ruin'd power I mean the judging and deciding spiritual matters to another the Civil Magistrate but takes them to himself And secondly partly because one main doctrine of the Spiritual power which hath most command over men's consciences Namely this that resistance in any things by Arms to the Temporal power is unlawfu is faln together with that power And thirdly perhaps partly I may add because that where the Church-Authority is crush'd Religion and Goodness in general withers and decays and consequently with these Allegiance and Fidelity That which makes good men making good Subjects 4ly And again because That where any takes away another's right both Divine Justice sentences him to loose his own and his Example teaches others to invade it § 67 Hence it is That these Substitutes of Christ as himself being under Herod's jurisdiction yet was hindred by no threats for exercising the commission of his Father in his Dominions Luke 13.31 32. did exercise their Authority as much as ever and that for some hundreds of years even when all the temporal Magistrates and their Sovereigns opposed it for then they were sustained unarmed against all force by the power of the King of Kings JESUS and so shall be till his second coming in which time we find they had their Publick Assemblies for God's Worship revenged by Excommunications and Penance all disobedience called Councils for enacting Ecclesiastical Canons and Laws which therefore it is not absolutely necessary very convenient I grant that the Secular power should either call or assist neither may he annull them or any part thereof if purely concerning Ecclesiastical affairs but as a member also himself of the Church ought to become subject unto them and as a Prince to maintain them And hence it seems to follow That no Prince can lawfully abrogate the Authority of Patriarchs supposing it only founded on Ecclesiastical Constitutions over those who are the Churches as well as His Subjects no more then he can any other Ecclesiastical Decrees Again in which times we also find that as fast as any suffer'd by persecutions in their places they ordained others multiplied by their slaughters and ordained them without any order or nomination from the civil power who for ever neither can himself neither can cause them to lay hands on any but whom they approve nor to be partakers by this of other mens sins or errors 1 Tim. 5.22 § 68 And all this they did without the Emperour's leave nay contrary many times to their Edicts Now what Authority they had before amidst the oppositions of Secular power they cannot lose it nor any part of it since by this Powers submitting it self unto Christ's Scepter and to the Church Greater then this Church-authority might be made many ways by Princes by granting the Church now some temporal priviledges by making the Acts of the Church their Law also and by enforcing it on all their Subjects as well Clergy as Laiety with corporal punishments and the temporal sword further than the other could singly with his Spiritual which yet experience shews was able alone both to preserve order and discipline amongst its Subjects With the temporal sword I say which tho the Clergy may not use in the behalf of Religion yet He that hath it committed to him Rom. 13.4 the Civil Magistrate as a Son of the Church and the Servant of Christ upon his own subjects may and ought to use that weapon in maintaining of Christ's Laws which he may in defence of his own as who also may make Christ's Laws his own Hence Calvin Instit 4 l. 11. c. 16. sect speaking of the Primitive Governours of the Church Non improbabant saith he si quando suam authoritatem interponerent Principes in rebus Ecclesiasticis modo conservando Ecclesiae ordini non turbando disciplinae stabiliendae non dissolvendae of which I suppose the Spiritual Governors not the Princes were to judge hoc fieret Nam cum Ecclesia cogendi non habet potestatem c Principum partes sunt legibus edictis judiciis religionem sustinere But these Princes may do only according to the Priests directions Therefore all the establishing and restoring of Religion by the Kings of Judah from whose having power in advancing Religion t is strange to see how some argue their having the sole power were only by and in assistance of the Priest never against him and they commanded often the Priests to perform what the Priests together with them consented to be their duty See 2 Chr. 29.4 11. c. 17.6 8. 24.6 26.17 19.8 10. 13.9 34.5 9 14. Ezra 1.5 3.2 1 Chr. 25.1 compared with 24.31 see Deodat 2 King 23.5 2 Chr. 35.10 18. And see Deut. 17.18 19. the end of the Kings having a copy of the Law allowed him but another end of the Priests having the custody of it Deut. 17.9 and 2 Chr. 19.8 But no where can we find that they decided controversies against the Priests or that the succession of Priests maintaining a false Religion the King against them vindicated the true or in their stead because erroneous appointed and made new Priests because indeed the Succession of Priests never apostatized from the whole body of true Religion nor ever shall but should they yet why not the Prince rather and whom then finally is it fit to rely on for Religion But for those parts of true Religion wherein the Clergy was defective as it happened under the later Kings of Judah and in the times of our Saviour they were reformeable only by extraordinary Prophets sent from God whom in all times the people lawfully consulted and repaired to for judgment as they did to the Priests fee before but neither people nor Princes reformed Priests upon this pretence and therefore those Texts wherein the Prophets blame the errors of the Priests do no way warrant the Laities reforming them lest so the errors of the second be worse than that of the first See this spoken of more at large before But
so far of it as that they may not ordain others against that wherein they grant is preserved the unity of the Faith tho I think that simply an unjust Excommunication never made such a manner of division in the Church but that those who have set up new communions have still disallowed some Tenents or practices of the former for which they would not if permitted return to communicate with her tho they seem to justify their new communion chiefly upon the pretence of being cast out of the former Now Schism as the former times understood it is any relinquishing and departing upon what pretence soever from the former external communion of the Church when we cannot shew that it hath departed from the former external communion of its Predecessors where we must grant was before the unity of the faith because there was no Christian communion at all besides it and in that faith salvation undeniably to be had and its judgment in all controversies of faith and interpretations of Scriptures to be obeyed Now who depart thus are also easily discerned 1. By the paucity of their number if we look not at the Succession but at the beginning of the Breach tho afterward in some places at least it may outnumber the Orthodox So Arianism was easily discerned for Faction at the Council of Nice when it was but new planted tho not at that of Syrmium or Seleucia afterward And 2ly By their plea one alledging Truth only the other also Tradition § 76 3. By the constitutions of the Church Ordinations are unlawful not only where not such persons as the Canons of the Church have appointed do ordain as one no Bishop or not such a number as for making a Bishop less than three where cannot be shewed an irremediable necessity which necessity where truly it is and not pretended to be if you please we will suppose Presbyters also may do the Office or propagate the Order of Bishops or the Christian people create all these to themselves or in practising the duties and retaining the faith of Christianity be saved without such Ecclesiastical Administrations but what will this avail those who pretend such necessities when they live in the middle of the bosom of the Church of God and the original ministery thereof but also where-ever a greater part of the Bishops of such a Province oppose than consent to it See Mr. Thorndikes concession Right of the Church p. 148. 250. 147. The Reason because Ordinations were to have bin made only by the Provincial Councils which were to be held frequently twice a year in defect of these the execution of it was committed to three or in a case of necessity to one but presupposing the consent and that by letters of the rest or the major part of them See Conc. Nic. 4. Can. Conc. Nicen. can 6. Apost can 1.36 38. Ap. Const l. 8. c. 27. Else the unity of the Church can no way be preserv'd Therefore Novatianus ordain'd for Bishop of Rome by Three was forc'd to yeild to Cornelius Ordain'd by Sixteen Again it was caution'd That all the Bishops of a Province might do nothing in these Ordinations without the Metropolitan's consent Conc. Nic. Can. 4 6. And again these Metropolitans were subjected to a Council And what is said here of Bishops in respect of a Provincial Council the same may be said of all those of a Province or also Patriarchy in respect of a General For as in a Province disagreeing those are only to be accounted Successions lawful i. e. such as all are only to submit to which the Provincial Council allows so in greater rents of the Church only those which the General Council allows which disauthorizing of some if it be not allow'd there can be no Unity in the Church nor suppression of Heresies Schisms c. If it be allow'd there can never be two Successions opposing one another both lawfully by such Clergy exercis'd and submitted to by the people after this exauthorizing one of them by a Council And this is the reason why we find the Canons of the ancient Councils not so much busied in debating Opinions as about setling Peace and Unity and perfect Subordination amongst Ecclesiastical persons knowing that upon this more than evidence of Argument and Reason which in most men is so weak and mis-leadable depended the preservation of the Unity of the Church's Doctrines and requiring in any division of these Governors Obedience still to the major and more dignified Body of them Christ's promises of indefectability belonging to a City set on an Hill and to a Light set on a Candlestick that we should not leave this City so eminent to repair to some petty Village nor this Light that shines over the whole House to follow a Spark glistering for a while in some corner thereof § 77 Two great Divisions or Separations of external Communion there have been in Christianity before this last made after the Christian Church was fifteen hundred years old The Sect of the Arians and afterward the Division of the Eastern Churches from the Latin or Roman Now for the first of these which seemed for a time to eclipse the Church-Catholick and to be set higher on an Hill than it very small it was at first when censur'd and condemn'd in a General and unanimous Council and tho afterward it grew much bigger by being promoted by the Secular power yet it never grew to a major part as is shew'd in the Discourse Of the Guide in Controversies Disc 2. § 26. and the violence of it vanish'd in fifty years i. e. when the Secular power fail'd it and the former Church-Communion hath out-liv'd it And for the time also in which it most flourish'd the Catholicks valiantly kept both their Bishops and Communion distinct there being two Bishops at Rome at Constantinople c. one Catholich and the other Arrian and two external Communions one containing that of the former times and adhering to the General Council of Nice the other deserting and deserted by the former Communion nor admitted to any Fellowship with it till at last many of the penitent members thereof return'd to the Catholick Communion and the new Sect expired See before § 62. § 78 For the second the Division of the Greek Churches from the Western it is granted that two Churches co-ordinate may upon several pretences moving them thereto if such as are not determin'd by the Superior to them both abstain from one another's external Communion without incurring any such Schism as to cease to be still both of them true Members of the Church-Catholick But if one of these Churches either desert or be deserted by and excluded from the Communion of the other for a matter once determin'd by an Ecclesiastical Authority Superior to both and such Superior Authority be embrac'd and adher'd to by the other rejected by it Here the Church that disobeys its Superior and departs from such other Churches as are united to them is Schismatick
ubi tot a hujus authoritate justa quae fuerit pronunciatio firmaretur indeque sumerent caeterae Ecclesiae velut de natali suo fonte c. and mention'd in Socrates l. 2. c. 13. Canonibus nimirum jubentibus proeter Romanum nihil decerni Pontificem and in Sozomen l. 3. c. 9. Concerning which Canon much stood upon § 22. n 1. A Digression concerning the meaning of that ancient Canon Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum give me leave to dilate a little before I produce any more Authorities Nothing say some of great consequence for the Vnity and Communion of the Church or also which should universally oblige to be concluded without him that is without his knowledg or without asking his consent So Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 7. s. 8. ut absente Romano Episcopo universale de religiose decretum non fiat siquidem interesse non recuset The same saith Dr. Field p. 651. No not only so for this as Bellarmin replies will signifie no more privilege to this See than any other Patriarch had and why canonically and singularly is that granted to one which is common to all In the second place therefore Nothing to be concluded by Councils without him i. e. without his giving his consent For in this sense and not only in the former Julius and the Roman Bishops urg'd it and that anciently it was taken in this sense is shew'd by the frequent Appeals of Bishops and Patriarchs to the Bishop of Rome not so to others for redress from the Decrees of Councils and those Councils some of them in some sense General as the second Ephesin Council General for the meeting but not for the vote since neither the Roman Patriarch nor his Legates nor the Western Bishops did vote with them when they thought themselves injur'd thereby So Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople see Leo Epist 23. ad Theodosium Quia nostri fideliter reclamarunt eisdem libellum appellationis Flavianus Episcopus dedit And Conc. Chalced. Act. 3. and Theodoret appeal'd to him from the second Ephesin Council which sided with Eutyches So Athanasius and Paulus and Chrysostom from several and numerous Eastern Councils Without his giving his consent then nothing of moment stood firm But thirdly Without his giving his consent indeed but so amply understood as that this his consent involve also that of all the Western Bishops of his Patriarchy few of which excepting the Pope's Legates could be personally present at those remote Councils of the East or of so many of them as he could conveniently call to Council against whom it was presum'd he would do nothing as a person standing wholly singular and universally dissented from for these making so considerable a part of the Church and as it seems by that passage in the Epistle of the Eastern Bishops to Julius Sozomen l. 3. c. 7. esteem'd more numerous than the East it was most unreasonable that any thing of moment and worthy the cognizance of a General Council amongst which this was one removing Bishops of note from their Seats or from the Communion of the Church which might cause great Schisms should stand in force without their approbation And upon this that Canon of Chalcedon advancing the Bishop of Constantinople so much urg'd justly could have no force till afterward it was condescended to by the Bishops of Rome because as not he so neither the Western Bishops allow'd it Neither upon this could the fifth Constantinopolitan Council be justly call'd General no more than the 2d Ephesin Council which being never confirm'd was never accounted such when-as neither the Bishop of Rome nor his Legates nor his Western Bishops would be present therein upon a difference between them and the Orientals not de fide wherein both sides agreed but de personis Theodorus Theodoret and Iba until it was afterward confirm'd also by the Pope and his Western Party not long after the ending thereof because they found it not so injurious to the Council of Chalcedon as was at first fear'd in like manner as the first Constantinopolitan Council where none of the West was present was counted the 2d General Council from such a post-confirmation of the West See what is said below § 25 n. 3. and § 26. But perhaps we may ascend yet a step higher 4. Nothing to be concluded by General Councils without his giving his single personal consent § 22. n. 2. tho both Western and Eastern Churches were all united in their vote yet I think it cannot be shewed that the Roman Bishop ever opposed such an universal Vote where his Western Bishops were joyned with the East against him by reason of the dignity and primacy of his See For so it was thought fit to be ordered by ancient Canons concerning Metropolitans in respect of their particular Provinces that nothing may be done without them see Conc. Antioch can 9. and Apostol Can. 35. c. and the reason given Sic enim unanimitas erit and so t is ordered concerning Princes and their Parliaments for the more peaceable government of States and why may not this Canon have the same meaning for St. Peter's chair in respect of General Councils Especially since it is not denied That as they can conclude nothing without him so neither might He without Them i.e. in the time of their sitting or assembly do any thing which was obligatory to the whole Church He may indeed in the interval of Councils take care of the due observance of former Ecclesiastical Canons and perhaps also for the present peace of the Church see § 18. and below § 34. decide dubious matters upon appeals made to him for the peace of the Church till such Council meet for t is both necessary in general that some standing supreme Tribunal there be where in the vacancies of General Synods Suits should be finally terminated and also the practice of Appeals from all parts of the Church for matters of moment to Rome do shew his in particular to be that Tribunal So Metropolitans also do act single when their Provincial Councils are not convened who in time of those Councils may act nothing without their concurrence But yet when a General Council sits it may upon mature deliberation reverse any thing he hath done without it correct any error he hath committed neither do his laws prescribe to it To which purpose hear what S. Austin saith Epistle 162. in a judgment given against the Donatists before the Nicen Council by the Roman and some other Bishops Ecee putemus illos Episcopos qui Romae judicarunt non bonos judices fuisse restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae universae Concilium Nicaenum ubi etiam cum ipsis Judicibus causa possit agitari si male judicare convicti essent eorum sententiae solverentur Solverentur therefore till such Council such sentence was obliging The issue therefore of such mutually limited power is only this which can neither damage the Churches doctrine nor
the Roman Bishops power now to look a little back into the former ages wherein by reason of the persecutions by heathen Princes the Church's discipline was not altogether so perfectly formed See Athanasius de sententia Dionysii Alexandrini § 23. n. 7. where he relates how Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria living above fifty years before the Nicene Council was accus'd by some of Pentapolis as erroneous in the Doctrine of the Trinity to Dionysius the then Bishop of Rome and thereupon writ an Apology to purge himself Quidam ex Ecclesia recte quidem sentientes sed tamen ignari c. Romam ascenderunt ibique eum apud Dionysium ejusdem nominis Romanum Praesulem accusaverunt Re comperta Alexandrinus postulavit a Romano Praesule ut objecta sibi indicaret non rixandi animo sed sui purgandi Apologiam scripsit Here it seems A. D. 266. long before the cause of Athanasius his addresses were made by the Alexandrians to the Roman Bishop See St. Cyprian contemporary to Dionysius to procure the deposing of Marcianus Metropolitan Bishop of Arles in France because he sided with Novatian writes thus to Stephen Bishop of Rome about it Dirigantur in Provinciam ad plebem Arelatae consistentem a te literae quibus abstento Marciano alius in locum ejâ—s substituatur Where Dr. Field l. 5 c. 37. grams Cyprian rather writ to him to do this than did it himself because the Roman Bishop was Patriarch of the West And it appears from his 68th Epistle that in his time two Bishops of Spain Basilides and Martialis ejected for giving their consent to some Idolatry appeal'd to the Bishop of Rome to restore them to their Dignities Romam pergens i. e. Basilides Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum gestae rei ac tacitae veritatis ignarum fefellit ut exambiret reponi se injuste in Episcopatum de quo fuerat juste depositus In which Epistle he censures Stephen indeed but not for receiving Basilides his appeal or hearing his cause but for judging it amiss yet some way excuseth him also as misinform'd Neque enim tam culpandus est ille saith he eui negligenter obreptum est quam hic execrandus qui fraudulenter obrepsit But had Stephen had no just authority to judg this matter or reponere Basilidem in Episcopatum St. Cyprian would not have accused him of negligence i. e. in believing without seeking better information what Basilides or his friends said but of usurpation and intrusion and tyranny in judging in matters no way belonging to him But he allowing the Western Patriarchs authority over the Gallican Bishops as appears in the last instance could not rationally deny him the same over the Spanish Therefore that which this Father saith before that Basilides his appeal and Stephen's sentence ordinationem jure perfect am rescindere non potuit is to be understood with reference to the justness of the cause not of the authority For one may rightly be accus'd of injustice either who doth a thing and hath no just power to do it or who hath a just power to do a thing and hath no just cause And therefore the Spanish ought to seek a reversion of such sentence by presenting to their Patriarch perfecter informations Else surely his sentence who is granted to have the supreme authority to judg is to stand and he must give account thereof to God And yet higher before Cyprian's time about A.D. 200 we find in Eus Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 22 c. that in a controversie about the celebration of Easter whether on the Lord's day or on the same day with the Jews after many Provincial Councils in a peaceful time of the whole Christian Church call'd in several Countries as well of the East as Aegypt Palestine as of the West who all agreed with the Roman Bishop excepting Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and the Bishops of Asia minor who assembled in Council as the rest resolv'd to continue their custom of keeping it the same day with the Jews and in a Letter to Rome signified so much We find I say that Victor then Bishop of Rome either intended or also executed an Excommunication upon Polycrates and his party as pertinaciously retaining a Mosaical ceremony which might be an introduction to more Executed an excommunication not negative as Dr. Field would have it p. 558. by with-drawing his own communion from them but privative and authoritative by rejecting and debarring them from communion of the whole Catholick Church tho indeed debarring them from the Roman communion debars them also from all others that communicate with the Roman for those who may not communicate with an Heretick neither may communicate with any others who by communicating with such Heretick make themselves partakers of his sin This seems to me clear by the words of Eusebius Victor totius Asiae Ecclesias a communionis societate abscindere nititur tanquam in haeresin declinantes literas mittit quibus omnes simul absque discretione ab Ecclesiastico faedere segregaret Extant Episcoporum literae quibus asperius objurgant Victorem velut inutiliter ecclesiae commodis consulentem Ecclesiae i. e. universalis And of Iraeneus who amongst the rest reprehended him quod non recte fecerit abscindens a corporis i. e. Christi not Romanae Ecclesiae unitate tot tantas Ecclesias Dei And by Polycrates his Letter Euseb l. 5. c. 22. to the Church of Rome wherein it appears both that he assembled his Asian Bishops at the Bishop of Rome's intimation and that some censure had been threaten'd him from thence upon non-conformity to which he answers That it were better to obey God than men His words are Sexaginta quinque â—nnos aetatis gerens non perturbabor ex his quae ad terrorem proferuntur quia majores mei dixerunt Obtemperare oportet Deo magis quam hominibus As for Irenaeus or other Bishops reprehending this fact or purpose of Victors it was not because he usurp'd or exercis'd an authority of Excommunication over the Asiaticks not belonging to him but that he used such authority upon no just or sufficient cause namely upon such a declination from Apostolical tradition vel per negligentiam vel per imperitiam in so small a matter some compliance with the Jews to gain them partly excusing such a practice Thus a Prince who hath lawful power to inflict punishments upon his subjects when delinquent is reprehensible when punishing the innocent To this of Victor I may add another Excommunication not long after this by Stephen Bishop of Rome either inflicted or at least threatned to some of the Asian Churches in Cyprian's time that held the necessity or Rebaptization upon the Baptism of Hereticks Concerning which see Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 4. c. 4.6 See St. Austin's Epistle 162 the great care and superintendence which Melchiades Bishop of Rome before Sylvester in Constantine's time used over the African Churches in the Schism of
more Orthodox my chief intention here was not to declare quo jure such jurisdiction was either claim'd or yeilded to but that de facto that power was so long ago assum'd which being now challeng'd is by our men deny'd and I may add assum'd with good success to the Church of God during those first Ages The Bishops of Rome having patroniz'd no Heresies at all as all the other Patriarchs at some time or other did Such were in the See of Constantinople Macedonius Nestorius Sergius Arch-hereticks in Alexandria Dioscorus the grand Patron of the Eutychians in Antioch Paulus Samosatenus the Father of the Paulianists c. All which Heresies and several other which took root in the East were suppressed and the Unity and Uniformity of the Church's Doctrine and Discipline preserved by the over-ruling power the threats the censures of this See as any not over-partial Reader of the Ecclesiastical History will easily discern And perhaps I may venture a little further That to this day in the chief point and occasion of breach for which any other Church besides the Reform'd stands divided from the Roman Communion the Reformed do justifie the Roman tenent against those Churches The chief matter of the division of the Greek Church from the Roman was besides that of the Bishop of Constantinople's using the stile of Occumenicus and the procession of the Holy Ghost as appears by the disputation in the Council of Florence where both Churches the Eastern now falling into some distress heartily sought for an accord almost wholly spent about this point Now in this article the Reform'd do side with the Roman Church and so far also as we allow of any superiority we adjudge the prime place not to the Constantinopolitan but the Roman Patriarch The chief Doctrine for which the other Orientals as the Assyrian Churches the Jacobites Armenians Cophti Aethiopians Maronites c. of which see Field l. 3. c. 1 c. stand separate from Rome whilst their publick Service and Liturgies much-what accord with the Greek or Roman is either Nestorianism or Eutychianism or Monothelitism imputed unto them in which also the Reformed adhere against them to the Roman judgment The like may be said in the ancienter controversies of the Roman Church with the Asian Churches about Easter and with the African and some of the Asian about Rebaptization Thus in the main causes of differences with the Eastern Churches the Reform'd will grant Rome to have continued orthodox and that had the other been bound effectually to have received their laws in these controversies from her they had been better guided or at least that for those 600 years she happily moderated the great Questions of the Church by her supereminent authority But if it be said again That the Bishops of Rome now claim much more power than the instances above shew them anciently to have used I desire to know first before this be examin'd whether we will grant them so much for whilst we complain that they now a-days claim more than is due to them is it not so that we deny them not the more but all And have they done well who have used the Bishops so who have used Kings so upon pretence of their exercising an illegal power § 32 And now by what hath pass'd we may the better judge of the meaning notwithstanding whatever other glosses are made upon them of those places of the ancient Fathers By the instances above judgment may be made of the sense of many other controverted Sayings of the Fathers which are quoted before § 6. To which I will here add that which follows in Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. who speaks there how Hereticks may be easily confounded by the unity of the Tradition of Apostolical Doctrine Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam i. e. a duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique fideles conservata est ea quae ab Apostolis est traditio In qua i. e. in unione adhaesione ad quam Apostolical Tradition is more certainly preserv'd in all other Churches Let therefore potentiorem principalitatem if so you can make any sense be referr'd as it is by the Reform'd to the Roman Empire not Church yet the certain conservation of Tradition Apostolical which is the Father's reason of other Churches repairing and conforming to this that cannot be apply'd but only to the Church not as seated in the Imperial City but as founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul Of which Church Tertullian de praescript Haereticorum also saith Ista quam faelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt And after him thus Cyprian in his Ep. 45. to Cornelius Bishop of Rome not to urge any of those passages in his Book de Vnit Eccl. Cath. which perhaps seem capable of the exposition which the Reformed give them Nos singulis navigantibus i.e. from Affrick into Italy rationem reddentes scimus nos hortatos eos esse ut Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem matricem i.e. Ecclesiam Romanam agnoscerent tenerent And afterward Ne in urbe in Rome schisma factum animos absentium i.e. of those in Africk incerta opinione confunderet which party they should adhere to placuit ut per Episcopos istic positos African Bishops residing at Rome literae fierent to the African Provinces ut te universi collegae nostri communicationem tuam id est Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter ac charitatem probarent firmiter ac tenerent And Epist 52. Antoniano Fratri a Bishop not communicating with Novatianus Scripsisti etiam ut exemplum earundum literarum ad Cornelium the Bishop of Rome Collegam nostrum transmitterem ut depositum omni solicitudine jam sciret te secum hoc est cum Catholica Ecclesia communicare The like expressions to which we find in Ambrose Orat. in Satyr where he saith of his Brother Satyrus about to receive the Communion that percunctatus est Episcopum si cum Episcopis Catholicis hoc est si cum Romana Ecclesia conveniret And thus Cyprian again in his Epist. 55. ad Cornelium de Fortunato Faelicissimo haereticis who condemn'd in Africk appeal'd to Rome Post ista adhuc insuper navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est a schismaticis Fortunato c. literas ferre nec cogitare eos i. e. tales esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est ad quos persidia habere non possit accessum Add to these in the 46th Epistle the confession of those who return'd to Cornelius from the Schism of Novatianus made in this form Nos Cornelium Episcopum sanctissimae Catholicae Ecclesiae electum a Christo Domino nostro scimus
That no one Bishop nor Council hath any power over another but all Bishops left to their supreme liberty only rationem reddituri Domino of their actions contrary to the universal practice of the Church such superior Councils ordinarily censuring and also anathematizing Bishops or in the judgment of the Reformed who also maintain such subordinations S. Cyprian must be in an error Now in the vacancy of any General or Patriarchal Council the Patriarch at least for his own Patriarchat as Cyprian was within the Roman Patriarchat is the supreme Judge and therefore Cyprian not exempt from all subjection or subordination to Him See for this Dr. Field's concessions before § 18. Supreme judge for the executing of the former Ecclesiastical Canons and preserving of the doctrines formerly established and determined by Councils Supreme Judge thus over Provincial not only Bishops but Councils for from these may be made appeals to him and a confirmation of their decrees is fought for from him See that of Milevis and of Carthage in S. Austin's time before § 23. n. 4. neither ought they to promulgate any doctrine not formerly determined by former Councils against his approbation and consent See before § 22. Therefore Cyprian might not make a contrary Decree to the Western Patriarch so as to necessitate those under his Primacy to the obedience thereof as neither he did But how far on the other side they stand obliged to conform to the judgment of him or also of his Provincial Council when defining any such new point against theirs the case here between Stephen and Cyprian I determin not Especially considering the liberty Cyprian took to dissent from Stephen and considering what Bellarmin de Concil 2. l. 5. c. and before him S. Austin grants that by such dissent he ceased not to be a good Catholick and considering also the liberty S. Ambrose took at least in a ritual of practising contrary to the custom of the Roman Church See de Sacram. l. 3. c. 1. Non ignoramus quod Ecclesia Romana hanc consuetudinem i.e. de lotione Pedum non habeat cujus typum in omnibus sequimur formam In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam in omnibus that is which I can reasonably assent to sedtamen nos homines sensum habemus Ideo quod alibi rectius servatur nos recte custodiamus ipsum sequimur Apostolum Petrum c. But neither is Cyprian's authority whatever he did in this matter nor any decree of an African Council as Dr. Hammond Schism 6. c. p. 128. urgeth a canon of an African Council in Anastasius his time A.D. 401. the 71. in Balsamon the 35. in Crab and Binnius which imports thus much That laws made at Rome do not take away the liberty of another National Church to make contrary laws thereunto a sufficient argument clearly to decide this point namely that the African Churches being subject to this Patriarch might promulgate a Doctrine contrary to his judgment For there is no more reason we should justifie Cyprian's or an African Council's authority against the Bishop of Rome and his Council than this Bishop's and his Council's against theirs where if Cyprian for his person were a Martyr for Christ so was Stephen too Especially when we find Cyprian so much erring in the matter of this controversie whilst he saith Epist 74. Pompeio Qui Stephanus haereticorum causam contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur And when we consider the modest and safe grounds Stephen went upon Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est having the former custom of the Church on his side to which St. Cyprian pleads Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris and Epist 71. Quinto Fratri Non est consuetudine perscribendum sed ratione vincendum Whereas in this contest it had bin an happy thing for the Church and had sav'd St. Austin many sheets against the Donatists had he and his Council acquiesc'd in the judgment of their Patriarch Thus much to those places objected out of Cyprian § 35 As for that pretended Canon of the African Council I find the passages in Binnius with whom the Dr. saith Balsamon agrees in setting down this Canon but indeed there is some difference and Balsamon's Translation hardly intelligible otherwise then the Doctor in his Reply to Schism Disarm'd p. 209. relates them The business there consulted upon was about the re-admission of the recanting Donatists not only to the Unity of the Catholick Church but also to the former Dignities which such had held in the Church concerning this a Council had been held already in Italy by Anastasius and his Bishops wherein it was decreed that such Donatists should not be admitted to their former honours and places and a Letter was to this purpose sent to the Africans by Anastasius Concerning which Letter first this Council saith Recitatis epistolis beatissimi Fratris consacerdoti nostri Anastasii quibus nos paternae fraternae charitatis solicitudine sinceritate adhortatus est ut c Gratias agimus Domino nostro quod illi optimo ac sanâ—â—o Antâ—stiti suo tam piam curam pro membris Christi qâ—amvis in divâ—rsitate terrarum sed in una compage corporis const tutâ—s inspirare dignatus est Then in Can. 33. they say onsideratis omnibus c. eligimâ—s cum memoratis hominibus the Donatists leniter pacifice agere upon this reason that so they might reduce together with them many others seduc'd by them Lastly in c. 35. which is the Canon urged they say Itaque placuit ut literae mittantur ad fratres coâ—p scopos nostros i. e. those of the Council which Anastasius had held in Italy maxime ad sedem Apostolâ—cam in qua praesidet memoratus venerabilis Frater Collega noster Anastasius quo noverit habere Aphricam magnam nec ssitatem ut ex ipsis Donatistis quicunque transire voluerint c. in suis honoribus suscipiantur si hoc paci Christianae prodâ—sse visum fuerit i. e. as they explain themselves afterwards in the same Canon that such Clerks of the Donatists should be admitted to their former Dignities upon whose reconcilement depended the gaining and reduction of a multitude also of other Souls who were their followers This then they were to write to the Pope and the Bishops of the Italian Council that such Donatist-leaders might be readmitted not only into the Church's bosom but to their former places They go on Non ut Concilium quod in transmarinis partibus de hac refactum est who had decreed the contrary dissolvatur sed ut illud maneat the Council stand good cirea eos qui sic transire ad Catholicam volunt ut nulla per eos unitatis compensatio procuretur i. e. who do not procure the uniting of many others per quos autem adjuvari manifestis fraternarum animarum of those under the Donatist Clergy's Spiritual Conduct lucris Catholica unitas
visa fuerit non eis obsit quod contra honores eorum in transmarino Concilio statutum est Then contracting what is formerly said they conclude thus id est ut ordinati in parte Donati si ad Catholicam correcti transire voluerint non suscipiantur in honoribus suis secundum transmarinum Concilium exceptis his per quos Catholicae unitati consuletur Now some difference there is between their writing to the Pope and the Bishops of the former Council ne obsit for some and maneat for the rest and their decreeing against the Pope and that Council ne obfuerit for any Now this close is thus English'd by the Doctor our of Balsamon That they that have bin Ordain'd on the part of the Donatists shall not be proceeded with according to the transmarine Synod but shall the rather be receiv'd as those that take care for the Catholick Unity How well I leave to your judgment § 36 The Protestants ordinary Replies to these to me seeming not satisfactory Now to these several instances which I have drawn out of the primitive times the answers which are usually made by some for you must expect that nothing is said by any side which is not reply'd to by the other are such as these That such places as speak of the Primacy and Principality of the Roman Bishop speak only of that of Order and Dignity not of Power or Authority Apostolicae Cathedrae Principatus i. e. say they quoad dignitatem non quoad potestatem Rector domus Dei Ecclesiae Catholicoe or universalis Episcopus i.e. say they Vnus erectoribus domus Dei unus ex Episcopis c. That such places as mention appeals to the Bishop of Rome speak of them as made to him non ut ad Judicem sed ut ad ejusdem fidei fautorem ut ejusdem fidei professores in communionem suam admitteret non ob aliquam jurisdicendi authoritatem sed ob amicam communionis ejusdem societatem That the like addresses were made to other Patriarchs and Bishops for their communion and assistance as to him and that his Letters were requested and in behalf of sufferers directed to all parts of Chcistianity not by vertue of any authority he had to correct but by reason of the power he had from the reverence they gave to the dignity of his place every where to perswade That such places of Fathers or Councils as affirm that no publick affairs of the Church may be transacted without the Bishop of Rome are not appropriate therefore only to him but verified as much of the rest of the Patriarchs as of him That those places which mention his censuring excommunicating deposing Clergy that were not under his own Patriarchy speak not of any authoritative or privative excommunication to use the Bishop of Derry's expression Vind. c. 8. by way of jurisdiction excluding such from the communion of Christ but only of a negative in the way of Christian discretion by with-drawing him or his from communion with them for fear of infection for declaring his non-currence with or countenancing of their fault c. There being great difference as Dr. Field observes p. 558. between excommunication properly so nam'd or authoritatively forbidding all men to communicate with such and such and the rejecting only of them from our communion and fellowship And I also confess and grant such negations of communicating with others anciently used and amongst rest used also by the Bishop of Rome who often prohibited his Legates and others from communicating with some other Bishop as with the Bishop of Constantinople when he used the stile of Vniversalis or from going to and being present at their celebration of Divine Service when he did not excommunicate the other nay when also he admitted the ministers of the other and those who communicated with the other to come to his communion and celebration of Divine Service See Gregory 6. l. 31. Ep. to Eulogius and Anastasius indulging this to those who were sent from Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople to him But that all the Bishops excommunications of those without his Patriarchy were only such this is the thing denied That the like may be said of his confirming or restoring his fellow-Bishops that it was done not by way of forensical justice but fraternal approbation and that all other Patriarchs used excommunicating deposing acquitting and restoring in the same manner allowing or withdrawing their communion from their fellow-Bishops as they saw fit and that they confirmed the Roman Bishop by their communicatory letters as he them Which things how well they agree with the above said forms of such Ecclesiastical censures and with other practices of the Roman Bishops towards others much differing from the practices of other Patriarchs either towards him or towards others how well they agree with the addresses made from both Church-governors and Councils upon differences and contentions in the Church to Rome addresses not used in the same manner to the other Patriarchs yet would have bin done equally to them also had all Patriarchs bin esteemed in their power equal especially how they agree with what is said § 24. and § 18. upon reviewing the instances I have given I leave to your judgment That the places which speak of his judging causes and inflicting such Ecclesiastical censures c speak not of him singly but as joined with his Western Bishops they meaning by this not some of his Western Bishops only whose assistance the Roman Bishop ordinarily useth in all his judgments but his whole Patriarchal Council That those places which do argue joining-with the Roman to be joinning with the Catholick communion see before § 23. n. 2. and n. 3. and § 32. as it must needs be that if God hath appointed any person or Council as a supreme Guide whom the rest ought to obey such members as do not obey cannot be Catholick are spoken only with respect to such a Roman Bishop at such a time who in their opinion held the true Profession and not that all the Roman Bishops at any time have or shall hold it those who made these expressions accounting the Roman Bishop orthodox and catholick because he then was of such a faith as they approved not the faith orthodox and catholick because it was the faith of the Roman Bishop or which he approved So Spalatensis in answer to the places produced out of S. Hierom. in 23. § saith 4. l. 10. c. 23. n. Quod Hieronymus Damaso hoc est Petri cathedrae consociari velit significat privilegium illius Cathedrae adhuc Hieronymi tempore vigens circa fidei puritatem and 88 n. Quasi dicat quia nunc not perpetuo in terris video Apostolicam doctrinam Romae maxime puram conservari ideo in his dissensionibus volo tibi adhaerere Which answer circularly makes him to judge first in what Church the true doctrine is who is to seek what Church to adhere to to be guided by it to
disliked repealed 2. That tho Metropolitan Synods in some times were not unfrequent yet Patriarchal Synods were never nor never well could be so nor find we any set times appointed for calling them as for calling the other so that as t is plain by many former instances that the Patriarch ordinarily did so t is all reason that he should decide some appeals without them tho in some cases extraordinary and of great consequence such Councils also were assembled 3. Since where they speak of the Metropolitans judging matters alone to have bin a practice only of latter times yet they allow this to be done upon very rational grounds observe that there were the same rational grounds of doing it anciently and again that the practice they justify for Metropolitans in latter times they have much more reason to allow to Patriarchs in all times because the greater the Councils are with the more trouble are they conven'd and lastly that the reformed Metropolitans themselves who blame the Bishop of Rome's managing Ecclesiastical affairs by himself alone i. e. without a Patriarchal Synod yet themselves think it reasonable to do the same thing themselves alone i. e. without their Provincial Synod authorizing their High-commission Court and blaming his Consistory Now what is allowed to Patriarchal proceedings without Councils in respect of appeals from their several Provinces the same it is that in the differences and contests of Patriarchs themselves and of other greater Bishops since it is meet for preserving the Church's peace and unity that some person or assembly should have the authority to decide these and since it is unreasonable and for the great trouble thereof not feisible that a General Council or also Patriarchal in all such differences should be assembled the same I say it is that by ancient custom and Ecclesiastical canons hath bin conferred on the Bishop of Rome with his Council tho granted liable to error He being more eminently honourable than the rest by reason of the larger extent of his Patriarchy of the great power and ancient renown of that City which in Spiritual matters he governed but especially of the two greatest Apostles Peter and Paul there ending their days in the government of that See and leaving him there the Successor of their power Yet is this office of supreme judicature so committed unto him that his judgments only stand in force till such a meeting and may be reviewed and where contrary to former canons reversed by it concerning which see the saying of S. Austin quoted before § 22. Restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesie universae Concilium c. and the saying of Zosimus quoted § 22. n. 2. and the Epistle of Gelasius quoted § 25. n. 3. and what is said § 22. Now all Metropolitan and Patriarchal authority in the intervals of Councils being limited to the execution of Conciliary Laws and Canons or at least to the acting nothing against them if the question be asked who shall judge whether so they do I answer none but a superior Council till which their judgment stands good For as I have largely shewed elsewhere if Litigants once may judge of this when their Judges judge rightly and not against the laws and accordingly may yeild or substract their obedience such obedience is arbitrary In civil Courts Princes or their Ministers are obliged to judge according to or not against the laws of the Kingdom may the litigant therefore reject their judgment when it seems to him contrary to these laws I believe not § 38. That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power established by Ecclesiastical Canon and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by the power Secular Thus much having bin said of the authority and jurisdiction given by Ecclesiastical constitutions and ancient customs and practice to some Ecclesiastical persons above others and amongst them supereminently above all the rest to the Roman Bishop and given to these persons not only as joined with Councils but as single Magistrates in the vacancy thereof in the next place these Propositions also I think must necessarily be granted First That whatever authority is thus setled upon any persons by the canons and customs of the Church concerning the managing of affairs not civil but meerly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical cannot be annulled and dissolved nor cannot be conferred contrary to the Church's constitutions on any other person by any Secular power neither by Heathen and unbelieving Princes who were enemies to the Church nor by Christian much less because these are in Spiritual matters Sons and Subjects of the Church and now obliged to obey her laws neither by the one who so might easily hinder the propagation of Christianity nor by the other who if happening at any time to be Heretical or Schismatical might easily hinder the profession of the Orthodox faith or disturb the Church's peace Thus Grotius a great Lawyer in Rivet Apol. discuss p. 70. 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 comparatum est Nam cum Principes filii sint Ecclesiae non debent vi in matrem uti Omne corpus sociale jus habet quaedam constituendi quibus membra obligentur 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 etiam Regibus dictum See this discoursed more largely in Success Clerg § 64 65. 2. And further That it is Schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power so established and never since by the same Ecclesiastical laws reversed I say here concerning matters Ecclesiastical not Civil therefore let that Proposition of Dr. Hammond schism 6. c. p. 129. for me stand good That a Law tho made by a General Council and with the consent of all Christian Princes i. e. of that time yet if it have respect to a civil right may in this or that Nation be repealed i. e. by that Prince's Successors provided only That the ordaining or confirming of inferior Governors and Officers of the Church the assembling of Synods and decision of controversies of Religion the ordering Church-service and discipline the Ecclesiastical censures upon delinquents and the like for preventing or suppressing of Heresie Schism and Faction and for preserving the Church in unity of doctrine and practice Provided I say that such things be not reckoned amongst civil rights as they may not be because all these were things used by the Church under the heathen Emperors even against their frequent Edicts yet could they not have bin lawfully so used if any of these had encroached on civil rights in any of which civil rights the heathen Prince might claime as much lawful power to prohibit them as the Christian
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
the true doctrine Whereas those who submitted to the Roman as the most orthodox gathered it to be orthodox as being S. Peter's Seat and the prime Apostolical See That most of these testimonies and examples are not alledged out of the first and purest times non esse ex prima antiquitate sed post Nicaenam Synodum cum schismata partium studia in Christianos valere coeperunt Yet then that as their pride claimed much as they claimed indeed great authority from the beginning so were they by the resoluteness of their fellow-Bishops as much opposed and what they decreed seldom executed And lastly That much more dominion over the Church of God than is shewed here to have bin then practised is now assumed but what is this to the vindicator only of their ancient practice and That were it not assumed yet many and unsufferable are the inconveniences of so remote a Judge of Appeals But see concerning this what is said before § 14. To such exceptions as these I will trouble you with no reply If you do not find the former passages reviewed sufficiently to justifie themselves against these limitations and restrictions and to vindicate much more authority to the Apostolical See than is here confessed §. 37. Such power anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome not only exercised jointly with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended for me you may admit them for good answers Hitherto I have bin shewing you the subordinations of Clergy for regular Ordinations for setling doctrine and discipline in the Church and for deciding differences and amongst these from § 11. the great power given to Patriarchs and amongst and above them from § 21. more particularly the power and preeminence the Roman See hath anciently challenged or others yeilded to it In the next place observe That the exercise of this power anciently lay not in the Roman Bishop or other Patriarchs only as joined with or President in a Patriarchal Synod nor in Primates and Metropolitans only as President in a Provincial a refuge which many willingly fly to in their defence of a dissimilitude of the present to the ancient Government of the Church by them but in them as using only their private council or the assistance of such neighbouring Bishops as could without much trouble be convened Of which I shall give you an account out of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Field who have made it up to my hand Thus then Dr. Field 5. l. 30. c. p. 513. Provincial Councils were by ancient canons of the Church to be holden in every Province twice every year It is very necessary say the Fathers of the Council of Nice that there should be a Synod twice in the year in every Province that all the Bishops of the Province meeting together may in common think upon those things that are doubtful and questionable For the dispatch of Ecclesiastical business and the determining of matters in controversy we think it were fit say the Fathers in the Council of Antioch that in every Province Synods of Bishops should be assembled twice every year To the same effect he quotes Conc. Chalced. 18. c. see likewise Canon Apostol 38. But in process of time when the Governours of the Church could not conveniently assemble in Synods twice a year the Fathers of the Sixth General Council decreed Can. 8. that yet in any case there should be a Synod of Bishops once every year for Ecclesiastical questions Likewise the Seventh General Council can 6. decreeth in this sort Whereas the Canon willeth judicial inquisition to be made twice every year by the assembly of Bishops in every Province and yet for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods the Fathers of the 6th General Council decreed it should be once in the year and then things amiss to be redressed we renew this latter canon But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy meetings we shall find that they met not so often and therefore the Council of Basil appointeth Episcopal Synods to be held once every year and Provincial at least once in three years and so doth Conc. Trident. 24. sess 2. cap. pro moderandis moribus corrigendis excessibus controversiis componends c. which accordingly were kept every third year by Carlo Borrhomeo Metropolitan of Millain And so in time causes growing many and the difficulties intolerable in coming together and in staying to hear these causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by canons and Imperial laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And much what to the same purpose Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 257. What power a Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province by the Canon-law the same and no other had the Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate But a Metropolitan anciently could do nothing out of his own particular Diocess without the concurrence of the major part of the Bishops of his Province nor the Patriarch in like manner without the advice and consent of his Metropolitans and Bishops Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority In convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them in pronouncing sentence according to plurality of voices when Metropolitan Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent difficulties or differences I confess that by reason of the great difficulty and charge of convocating so many Bishops and keeping them so long together until all causes were heard and determined and by reason of those inconveniences which did fall upon their Churches in their absence Provincial Councils were first reduced from twice to once in the year and afterwards to once in three years And in process of time the hearing of Appeals and such-like causes and the execution of the canons in that behalf were referred to Metropolitans until the Papacy swallowed up all the authority of Patriarchs Metropolitans and Bishops Thus the Bishop Now concerning what they have said note 1. That tho Provincial Councils in some ages and places were more frequently assembled in the time of whole sitting as the assembled could do nothing without their Primate or Metropolitan so neither he without them yet in the intervals of such Synods which intervals were too long to leave all matters of controversy whatever till then in suspence and happened many times also anciently to be longer than the canons permitted the Metropolitans authority was not void but they limited and directed by the former decrees of such Synods were trusted with the execution thereof and with the doing of many things especially in ordinary causes by themselves alone but so as their acts of justice might upon complaint be reviewed in the sitting of the next Council and if