can And because all these were continued to be used by the Church also under Christian Emperors without asking their leave to decree such things or subjecting them to their authority or depending on their consent only with humbly desiring their assistance yet so as without it resolv'd to proceed in the execution thereof as under Heathen as clearly appeared under the the Arian Emperors yet which thing she could not lawfully have done were any of these entrenching upon anothers right For example the 6th Canon of Nice and 5. Can. of Constant Council would have bin an usurpation of an unjust authority if the subordination of Episcopal Sees and erecting of Patriarchs had belonged to the Prince Upon the same grounds let also those instances collected by Bishop Bramhal Vindic. 7. c. of several Princes and States on many occasions opposing the Pope's authority stand good and be justified so far as he doth not shew these Secular powers to have opposed him in any right belonging to him by Church-canons in Ecclesiastical matters But if in any of those examples they are also found to oppose him in these the proving of such facts to have bin done justifies not their lawfulness to be done Tho also he confesseth that this fact of Hen. 8. in abolishing the usurped as he calls it jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions he cannot fellow abroad See what he saith Vindic. 7. c. p. 184. Neither do such facts as he urgeth to be done abroad hinder such Princes for living still in the external communion with the Church of Rome which facts he urgeth as a defence of the Reformed's necessary relinquishing this communion Again I said That no such Spiritual authority can he conferred or translated to others contrary to such Church Canons c. Else whenever it is not contrary to these Canons I grant that Inferior Councils or Church-governors or also Secular powers with their consent may change and alter many things both in respect of Ecclesiastical persons and affairs therefore many cases concerning the Kings of England with such consent of inferior Councils or Church-governors erecting or translating Bishopricks c. instanc'd in by D. Hammond or Bishop Bramhall are justifiable where any wore not contrary to the Laws of the Church i. e. of superior Councils but in any other examples where such Laws are transgressed either by the Prince or also by their particular Clergy the proving such facts to have bin done justifies not their lawfulness to be done tho such acts were done without any express or present controul Things being thus explain'd I say to give a particular instance of the former proposition No Prince or Emperor Heathen or Christian c. can for his own Dominions dissolve or abrogate the authority concerning Ecclesiastical affairs of those Patriarchs or Primates constituted or confirm'd in the 6th Canon of the Council of Nice the Church not commanding obedience to Patriarchs at random or to such as the Secular Prince should set over us but also nominating and constituting from time to time the Sees which had or should have such preeminence if these be since by no other General Council revers'd nor can any who by that Canon is subjected for instance to the Patriarch of Alexandria deny obedience in such Ecclesiastical matters to him without Schism tho his Secular Prince should command the contrary or subject him to another And if these things here said be true then also so far as the Bishop of Rome's Authority is found to be confirm'd in matters Spiritual by the Church's Canons and ancient custom over any Churches Provincial or National it will be Schism for any such Christian Prince or People to oppose it so long till the like Council reverseth it Hence to those three pretended rights of the Roman Bishop over the Church of England whereby Schism is said to be incurr'd mention'd by Dr. Hammond see Schism p. 138. namely his right 1. As St Peter's Successor or 2. By conversion of the Nation to Christianity or 3. By the voluntary concession of Kings I suppose I may add a 4th with his good leave namely his right by ancient Constitutions and Canons of the Church and may rightly affirm that if any such right could be prov'd the English Clergy must be Schismaticks in opposing it tho all the other pretences be overthrown For such a sort of Schism Dr. Hammond mentions p. 66. It may be observ'd indeed in our writers That they freely determine 1. That the Secular Prince hath a just external authority in Ecclesiastical affairs committed to him by God to enforce the execution of the Church's Canons upon all as well Clergy as Laity within his Dominions a thing denied by none 2. Again That the Secular Prince hath no internal Ecclesiastical authority delegated to him by God as to Administer the Sacraments to Absolve Excommunicate c. 3. Again That the Secular Prince hath no just authority to determine any thing concerning Divine Truths or perhaps other Ecclesiastical affairs without the Clergy's help and assistances But whether such Ecclesiastical Determinations or Laws are obligatory when the Prince makes these being assisted only with some small portion of the Clergy and oppos'd by the rest or also by a superior Council or Court Ecclesiastical Or whether the Prince against these provided that he have some lesser number of Clergy on his side may reverse former Canons or enact new to oblige the Clergy and Laity under his Dominion This they seem to me not freely to speak to most what to pass over and some of our later Writers when they are forc'd upon it rather to deny it And indeed neither is there any thing in the Oath of the King's Supremacy except it be in that general clause I will defend all Jurisdictions c. granted nor in the 37 Article of the Church of England which treats of the King's power in Ecclesiasticals that may seem to affirm or determine it For whereas the Oath in general makes the King only supreme Governor in Ecclesiasticals he may be so for some thing and yet not for every thing not therefore the supreme decider of all Divinity controversies And whereas the 34th Article expounds the Supremacy thus That he is to rule all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers All this he may do and yet be ty'd in all things to the Laws of the Church and to leave to the Church's sole judgment who are evil-doers or Heretical persons c. when any controversie ariseth in Divine matters about the lawfulness of some Practice or truth of some Tenet § 39 Now let us search therefore how far the concessions of Bishop Bramhall and Dr. Hammond may extend to the confirmation of the foresaid assertions The Concessions of B. Bramhall und of Dr. Hammond in this matter The Bishop Vindic. c. 8. p. 232. hath this proposition
thereof and consequently by what is said § 40. to their posterity until a Council of equal authority reverse them 6. Whereas Dr. Hammond thinks to free Prince and People § 60 Laity and Clergy from any submission that former canons may require That the principle upon which Dr. Hammond sets the English clergy nation free from such former obligations hath bin shewed to be erroneous or from any concessions that the clergy or the former or also the present Prince hath made to the Bishop of Rome or to any other Patriarch upon this ground which he builds much upon That it is in the power of Christian Princes within their Dominions to erect or translate Patriarchates For thus he saith Schis p. 115. To put this whole matter out of controversy it is and hath always bin in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchates or to translate them c. And p. 132. Upon that one ground laid in the former chapter the power of Kings in general and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchats whatever can be pretended against the lawfulness of the Reformation in these Kingdoms will easily be answered And p. 137. The whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry Whether at that time of the Reign of Hen. 8. the Bishop of Rome had any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other And p. 138. The 3d. will appear to have received its determination also by the absoluteness of the power of our Princes and by the rights of Kings to remove or erect Patriarchats And p. 140 If the Pope held his Supremacy here in England by the Title of Regal concession as Dr. Hammond holds he did see p. 138. 142. then he may dispose it from him to some other as freely as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chancellor c. And p. 142. Thus certainly the King being the fountaine of all power and authority as he is free to communicate this power to one so is he equally free to recall and communicate it to another And this takes-off all obligation of obedience in the Bishops to the Pope at the first minute that he is by the King divested of that power Which freedom from that obedience immediately clears the whole business of Schism as that is a departure from the obedience of a lawful Superior Thus He. Now I say whereas he builds so much on this ground to remove thereby all difficulties and objections I think I have above by the first Proposition § 38. and by answering his proofs thereof § 43 and also by so many contrary examples brought in the former part of this Discourse sufficiently shewed it to fail him and to be untrue Only here observe one thing concerning this right of Princes That the Doctor it being much pressed by S. W. upon the Doctors quoting some Church-canons for it of which review § 44. That if Princes had any such right they had it not as their proper right independent on the Church or her canons in his answer to this p. 174. seems somewhat uncertain and wavering by what Title Princes hold it His words there are I that meant not to dispute of such mysteries of State desirous to unite the Civil and Ecclesiastical power and not to sow seeds of jealousies and dissensions betwixt them finding the same thing assumed by Kings as their right and yeilded them by the Church to be enjoyed by them thought I might hence conclude this to be unquestionably their due but whether it were from God immediately conferred on them and independently from the Church or whether the Church in any notion were the medium that God used now under the Gospel to confer it on them truly I neither then was nor now am inclined either to enquire or to take upon me to determin And afterward If it were not formerly the Prince's right but the Churche's then sure it is become so by that donation Now then if Princes should happen to hold this right only from the voluntary concessions of the Church or Councils or particularly from the clause of one canon passed in the Council of Chalcedon upon which canon the Doctor Schis p. 120 confesseth Balsamon a great stickler for Regal authority to found it then I leave to their consideration whether the same reason he pleads upon the instance of former Kings of England conceding Supremacy to the Pope for Princes reversing the donation of their right when they please may not be returned him for the Church or her representative the Council For if the Prince cannot give his right away but so that he may recall and resume it so neither can the Church And then after so many canons in and since Chalcedon reserving to such particular nominated Patriarchs their priviledges the Church of England according with the rest and extending this their jurisdiction over some Princes subjects at least who have the same power and rights as the Kings of England and expresly prohibiting Princes to remove Patriarchs 8. Gen. Counc can 21. where will his plea be § 61 Yet farther but in what I shall say now I will not be too peremptory That some rights once resigned and parted with cannot afterwards be justly resumed suppose the erecting and translating Patriarchates to be the Prince's right and that originally yet it may be such a right as once parted with cannot be resumed by the former owner For such rights there are as once passed away are not to be retracted and such as we may alienate not only from our selves but from our successors if such be the purpose of our donation And why this right may not be numbred amongst such I yet seek a reason If it be said the King cannot divest himself of such a right without which his Regal power which he intends to keep to him and his successors entire cannot subsist I willingly grant it But the Regal power may well subsist without the right of constituting or translating Patriarchs For the Regal power is entire in a Prince not Christian yet such Prince hath no power to erect or remove those Patriarchs who have a Spiritual Supremacy over his so many as are Christian Subjects Again the Prince when Christian as now being a Son of the Church must also be subject to some Patriarch i. e. supreme Church-power giving to him Ecclesiastical Laws and if need be inflicting Ecclesiastical censures c. or other and so must also his successor if Christian Neither doth his power to chuse or appoint the person bearing such Office any way lessen such submission so far as it is due neither doth it impose any more submission upon his successor than is due Why therefore this may not be a right alienable and partable with I see not When-as the Kings electing a Spiritual Supreme to be over him seems not to be like the chusing of a Chancellor or other Officers to serve under him as the Doctor compares it Sch. p. 140. but rather like the people's electing a Temporal Soveveraign Now such people in electing such a Temporal Prince transfer not their dominion and power which every single person had before over himself upon him or submit their obedience to him durante beneplacito or quamdiu se bene gesserit bene i. e. in their judgment for so who obeyeth only so long as he pleaseth needs to obey only what he pleaseth for so soon as any thing displeaseth he may change his Governors So to make instance in the matter in hand if Ambrose upon just cause exercise some Ecclesiastical censure upon Theodosius Theodosius may presently remove Ambrose his Metropolitan power to another but we tye them to Allegiance and tell them of their former right now given away and bind the Children and Successors to the act of their Forefathers Thus much of the Authority and Subordinations of the several Ecclesiastical Persons and Orders In the next Part I will proceed to shew you the Authority and Subordinations of these as they are united in several Bodies of Councils FINIS
Nations who having made resistance to their Patriareh in some injunctions conceived by them not Canonical yet continue still their obedience in the rest Consider the late contest of the State of Venice and the present opposals both of France and Spain in some matters See Vind. 7. c. How can the Bishop then reasonably make use of those examples wherein Vindic. 7. c. he hath copiously shewed other Princes casting off the Pope's usurpations and oppressions to have retained still submission to his Supremacy to prove or countenance that Hen. 8. might lawfully cast off both those and also his Supremacy Especially since it cannot be shewed but that it is absolutely in his power who hath the sword to cast off only so much as he pleaseth and retain the rest Unless the sword in England cannot divide usurpations and lawful rights as beyond the Seas now it doth and did here before Hen. 8. but must necessarily cut off both at once As this p. 253 When a Steward chosen in trust by his fellow-servants violates his trust and usurps a dominion c it is not want of duty but fidelity for such servants to substract their obedience from him But what when most of the servants say he doth no such thing in those matters wherein the rest accuse him and therefore continue their obedience to him and also the Master of the house for the peace of his family hath ordered that the rest in all differences shall be swayed with the votes of the major part shall not this small part in departing from the whole and rejecting their governour and setting up another Steward of their own or every one assuming to be his own Master be held guilty of making a division in the family So p. 129. and p. 134. Many extortions and rapines and violations of rights both Civil and Ecclesiastical committed by such Patriarchs are urged But will these things done contrary to the Canon make a rejection of Canonical obedience to such authority lawful Is it a good argument against a King He hath bin tyrannous or done many things against law therefore depose him and his succession or hereafter yeild him no obedience where due by the laws Or against Bishops They have usurped some unjust power or otherways much violated their function therefore root out Episcopacy and yeild no more tho never so Canonical obedience unto them Thus as we have measured to others it hath bin meted to us again But if it be meant That obedience such as is Canonical to Patriarchs infers the violation of any civil rights the contrary I think is shewed elsewhere in Authority of Clergy derived from Christ more at large whither I remit you tho perhaps this may be enough to answer it That General Councils who made the Canons were of the contrary opinion to him Nay if it should be said that such preeminences as not the Canon but only some of the Roman writers more obsequious to the Papacy give to the Bishop of Rome are injurious to Civil rights yet the Bishop himself after some vehemency against them seems to wipe off this aspersion in saying thus Vindic. 8. c. p. 243. The best is that they who give these exorbitant priviledges to Popes do it with so many cautions and reservations that they such priviledges as they give him signify nothing and may be taken away with as much ease as they are given Which afterward he shews in the particulars of his Infallibility and his temporal power Did Popes practise therefore only what these write much wrong could not be done Again in his Replication to Bishop of Chalced. p. 230. t is urged That to whom a Kingdom is granted all necessary Power is granted without which a Kingdom cannot be governed and p. 238. that had the Britannick Churches bin subjected to the Bishop of Rome by General Councils yet it had bin lawful for the King and Church of England to substract their obedience from the Bishop of Rome and to have erected a new Primate at home amongst themselves upon the great mutation of the state of the Empire and great variation of affairs since those times For to persist saith he p. 241. in an old observation when the grounds of it are quite changed and the end for which the observation was made calleth upon us for an alteration is not obedience but obstinacy And p. 243. We pursue the same ends with them i. e. General Councils that is the conforming of the one regiment i. e. the Ecclesiastical to the other i. e. the Civil Thus he for Princes taking away the Bish of Rome's authority supposing General Councils had conferred any upon him Yet p. 293. speaking of that clause in the oath of Supremacy that no foreign Prelates ought to have any jurisdiction within this realm he saith A General Council is neither included here nor intended To which t is easily answered That there is no Church-canon detracting from Princes any of that power without which a Kingdom is not governable that the division of one Empire into many Dominions doth not necessarily require any alteration of the Oeconomy of the Church as appears in those States which conforming to these Canons still subsist and flourish without any disturbance of the civil peace But Quaere whether the throwing-off these Canons hath not bin the destruction of a Kingdom whose ruin took its beginning from divisions in Religion That the Church's end in constituting I say not of Metropolitans or Primats but of superior Patriarchs above them and of an Ecclesiastical Supreme to whom from several countreys might be the last appeal of greater controversies in Religion was not the conforming of the Ecclesiastical government to the Civil which end the Bishop pleads but the conserving of the Church tho sojourning under never so many temporal Scepters still as one body and government united in it self free from being divided and cantonized Which end is frustrated if so many Princes as there are there become so many independent Ecclesiastical Supremes Nay but rather the more the Civil Governments are multiplied the more need there is in the Church of but one or a few Supremes That there may not be so many modes or sects in Christianity as there are Princes So Vindic. p 145. Many inconveniences by foreign jurisdiction are urged That as the Bishops of Rome exercised it it was destructive to the right ends of Ecclesiastical discipline which discipline in part is to preserve publick peace and tranquillity to retain subjects in due obedience and to oblige people to do their duties more conscientiously See likewise p. 146. To the actual exercise of the foreign jurisdiction of Patriarchs I have nothing to say as one Patriarch may use it culpably so the next may use it justly But the foreignness of the jurisdiction is no way guilty of the things here objected Nay where are these ends of discipline more failed than where this Patriarchal jurisdiction hath bin banished Do not we see in other Kingdoms
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-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
Church of England seems obliged in as much observance to the Rome See as the former instances have shewed the Orientals to have yeilded to it § 51. That the Church of England seems obliged to yeild the same observance to the Roman See as other Western Provinces upon the 6th Nicene Canon § 52. That this Nation owes its Conversion chiefly if not only to the Roman See § 53. And hath in ancient Councils together with other Churches subjected it self to that See before the Saxon conversion § 55. The Britains observation of Easter different from Rome not agreeing with the Orientals and no argument that they received Christianity from thence § 57. That the English Nation is sufficiently tyed to such subjection by the Decrees of latter Councils wherein her Prelats have yeilded their consents § 59. Thus the Principle upon which some set the English Clergy and Nation free from such former obligations hath bin shewed to be unsound § 60. That some Rights once resigned and parted with cannot afterward be justly resumed § 61. Dr. Field of the Church Ep. Dedicat SEing the controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in matters so intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examin them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies in the world is that blessed company of Holy ones that Houshold of faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the Living God which is this pillar and ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment Grot. Animadv cont Rivet ad Art 7. Rogo eos qui. verum amant ut cum legent Dav. Blondelli viri diligentissimi Librum de Primatu non inpsius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed ipsas historias quarum veritatem Blondellus agnoscit animo a factionibus remoto expendant spondeo si id faciant inventuros in quo acquieescant S. Austin de util credendi 16. c. Authoritate decipi miserum est miserius non moveri si Dei providentia non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de religione satagendum Non est desperandum ab eodem iposo Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam qua velut gradu incerto innitentes attollamur in Deum Haec autem authoritas seposita ratione qua sincerum intelligere ut diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis partim sequentium multitudine 10. c. Sed inquis Nonne erat melius rationem mihi reddere ut quacunque ea me duceret sine ulla sequerer temeritate Erat fortasse sed cum res tanta sit ut Deus tibi ratione cognoseendus sit omnesque putas idonâ—os esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an paucos paucos ais existimo Quid caeteris ergo hominibus qui ingenio tam sereno praediti non sunt negandam religionem putas who therefore must receive this not from Reason but Authority 12. c. Quis mediocriter intelligens non plane viderit stultis utilius ac salubrius esse praeceptis obtemperare sapientum quam suo judicio vitam degere 13. c. Recte igitur Catholicae disciplinae majestate institutum est ut accedentibus ad religionem fides i.e. adhibenda authoritati Ecclesiae persuadeatur ante omnia 8. c. Si jam satis jactatus videris sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manaturaest 12. Quum de religione id est quum de colendo atque intelligendo Deo agitur ii minus sequendi sunt qui nos credere vetant rationem promptissime pollicentes Rivet Apol. Discussio p. 255. Nunc plane ita sentit Grotius multi cum ipso non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jungantur cum iis qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent sine qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen Ideo optat ut ea divulsio quae evenit cause divulsionis tollantur Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum Canones fatente Melancthone qui eum primatum etiam necessarium put at ad retinendam unitatem Neque enim hoc est Ecclesiam subjicere Pontificis libidini sed reponere ordinem sapienter insticutum Bishop Bilson in perpet governm of Christ's Church 16. c. Not Antichrist but ancient Councils and Christian Emperors perceiving the mighty trouble and intolerable charges that the Bishops of every Province were put-to by staying at Synods for the hearing and determining of all private matters and quarrels and seeing no cause to imploy the Bishops of the whole world twice every year to sit in judgment about petit and particular strifes and brabbles as well the Prince as the Bishops not to increase the pride of Arcbishops but to settle an indifferent course both for the parties and the Judges referred not the making of Laws and Canons but the execution of them already made to the credit and conscience of the Archbishop To the Fathers leave an Appeal either to the Councils or the Primate of every Nation Mr. Thorndike Epilogue 3. l. 20. c. p. 179. Of the Councils he meaneth those first Councils held in the East how many can be counted General by number of present votes The authority of them then must arise from the admitting of them by the Western Churches and this admission of them what can it be ascribed to but the authority of the Church of Rome eminently involved above all the Churches of the West in the summoning and holding of them and by consequence in their Decrees And indeed in the troubles that passed between the East and the West from the Council of Nice tho the Western Churches have acted by their Representatives upon eminent occasions in great Councils yet in other occasions they may justly seem to refer themselves to that Church as resolving to regulate themselves by the Acts of it and then he produceth several instances Whereby saith he it may appear how the Western Churches went always along with that of Rome Which necessarily argueth a singular preeminence in it in regard whereof He the Roman Bishop is stiled the Patriarch of the West during the regular government of the Church and being so acknowledged by K. James of Excellent memory to the Card. Perron may justly charge them to be the cause of dividing the Church who had rather stand divided than own him in that quality Afterward he saith p. 180. That it is unquestionable that all causes that concern the whole Church are to resort to the Church of Rome And p. 181. asks what pretence there could be to settle Appeals from other parts to Rome as such Appeals were setled in the Council of Sardica which Council he there allows and
calls General rather than from Rome to other parts had not a preeminency of Power and not only a precedence of Rank bin acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome CORRIGENDA Page 29. l. 7. else he would Page 55. l. 80. thro five or six Page 115. l. 3. except that of one or two of his Predecessors CONCERNING ANCIENT CHURCH-GOVERNMENT PART I. Of the Authority and Subordinations of Ecclesiastical Governors § 1 FOR the better Governing of the Church of Christ in Truth Unity Uniformity and Peace Subordination of Clergy and for the easier suppressing of all Errors and Divisions and for rendring all the Church of God tho dispers'd thro several Dominions but one visible compacted Society we find anciently these Subordinations of superior Clergy 1. Presbyters 2. Bishops 3. Metropolitans and amongst Metropolitans Primates 4. Patriarchs and amongst these Patriarchs a Primate § 2 Of these Patriarchs in the first General Council of Nice held A. D. 325. there were only Three call'd Three Patriarchs only at the first at the first by the common name of Metropolitants tho with a distinct authority from the rest Then by the name of Primates 2. Gen. Con. Const can 2.5 this name also being common to some others Afterward by the name of Patriarchs Conc. Chalc. Act. 3. 8 Gen. Conc. can 10 Neither was this name tho most frequently always applied only to the Patriarchs of the first Sees But we find in the East the Primates of Asia minor Pontus Thrace and many others to the number of nine or ten call'd by Socrates who writ in the fifth Age Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 8. Patriarchs call'd so as well as by the name of Primates in respect of some other Bishops or also Metropolitans subject to them yet which Patriarchs had also a subordination and subjection to some of these prime or major Patriarchs of whom we here speak as appears in the Church-History and especially in Conc. Chalced. Act. and Act. 16. And we find also in the West after A. D. 500. several Primates in France Italy Spain call'd Patriarchs as the Primate of Aquileia Gradus Lions see Conc. Matiscon 2. in praefat Priscus Episcopus Patriarcha dixit c. See Greg. Turon 5. hist 10. Paul Diacon l. 2. c. 12. Greg. Epist l. 11. ep 54. yet over whom the Roman Bishop the major Patriarch of the West exercis'd a superiority and Patriarchal jurisdiction both before and after that we read this name given to them as will appear hereafter in this discourse and more particularly in the matter of the Letters of Leo and Gregory and other Popes written upon several occasions to divers of them This I note to you that the commonness of the name may not seem to infer an equality of the authority Now to go forward § 3. n. 1. The first of these the Bishop of Rome The first and chief of these was the Bishop of Rome whose Patriarchship the Bishop of Derry Vind. Ch. Eng. c. 5. p. 62. and Dr. Hammond of schism c. 3. p. 51 52. following Ruffinus Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 6. one less to be credited in this matter because by the Bishop of Rome formerly excommunicated see Anstasius 1. ad Johan Hierosol make very narrow and much inferior to that of the two other Patriarchs whereof one had subjected unto him all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and the other all Syria and the Oriental Churches allowing to the Bishop of Rome only regiones suburbicarias in the Eastern parts of Italy and the Islands of Sicily Sardinia The extent of his Patriarchate and Corsica near adjoining to it But over these Churches that Bishop might have some more immediate superintendency and Metropolitan or Primat-ship contradistinct to other Metropolitans as to that of Millan c. So the Primat of all England hath yet a particular superintendency over one Diocess more than over the rest of which more particular superintendency over the regiones suburbicariae as he was their Primate or Metropolitan Ruffinus seems to speak and perhaps the 6th canon of Nice Mos antiquus perduret in Aegypto vel Lybia Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habet potestatem quoniam quidem Episcopo Romano parilis mos est Similiter autem apud Antiochiam caeterasque Provincias honor suus unicuique servetur Ecclesiae may be thought partly to intend it for which consider those words in that 6th Canon caeterasque Provincias compared with Concilium Constantinopolitan 2. Can. and Conc. Ephes 8. can Yet do not these Canons therefore abrogate and superior rights of any Bishop quae prius atque ab initio sub illius seu antecessorum suorum fuerit potestate to use the phrase of the forementioned 8th Canon of Ephesus but confirm them not only the Metropolitan but also whatever Patriarchal Rights they held formerly as appears in those first words of the 6th Nicene Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which see more below § 19. from which the Roman Primacy was both urged by Paschasius a Legat of the See Apostolick in the 4th General Council and also acknowledged by the Council in their Epistle to Leo. See below § 25 n. 2. And again on the other side as Bellarmin de Rom. Pontif. 2. l. 18. c. observes the Pope's being Caput Ecclesiae universae supposing him to be so in some general way of superintendency or for some particular acts and offices as suppose for receiving appeals deciding controversies between the chief Governors of the Churches admitting them to and deposing them from their places obliging them pro tempore with his decrees hinders not but that he may be also a Patriarch a Metropolitan a Bishop in respect of some other more immediate super-intendencies and offices divers from the former which he doth actually exercise over some particular Church or Churches but doth not so over others or which also he cannot exercise over the whole as he doth over those particular Churches as suppose for ordaining the inferior Bishops and Presbyters and hearing their causes personally officiating in the Word and Sacraments receiving and distributing the Ecclesiastical revenue thereof c. Nor again e converso as Cardinal Perron in answer to K. James observes doth his governing only the Roman Province as their Metropolitan or only Italy as their Primate hinder that he should govern the West also as their Patriarch Nor again doth his governing the West as their Patriarch because he was Bishop of Rome the chiefest city of the West hinder that he may not also as S. Peter and S. Paul's Successor there to one of whom the Jew and to the other the Gentiles were committed Gal. 2.7 9. have some special superintendency over all the Church Jew and Gentile I know § 3. n. 2. it is earnestly pleaded by Bishop Bramhal Vind. 8. c. p. 251. and Rep. to S.W. 10. s. p. 69. That to have an universal Headship over the Church and to have a
Patriarchal authority or headship over only some part of the Church to have a limited jurisdiction over a certain Province and to have an unlimited jurisdiction over the whole world To challenge the same thing from divine and from humane institution as Patriarch to be subject to the Canons as Universal Head of the Church to be above them are contradictions And in Schis guarded 4. sect p. 304. t is again urged by him that Sovereign government and Subordinate government of the same person in the same Society is inconsistent where he hath also these words When I did first apply my thoughts to a sad meditation on this subject I confess ingeniously that which gave me the most trouble was to satisfy my self fully about the Pope's Patriarchate but in conclusion that which had bin a cause of my trouble proved a means of my final satisfaction For seeing it is generally confessed that the Bishop of Rome was a Patriarch I concluded that he could not be a Spiritual Monarch T is urged likewise by Dr. Hammond in Schis 6. c. 2. s. That he that supposed in gross to have by Succession to S. Peter that original title to all power over all Churches cannot be imagined to acquire it afterward by way of retail i.e. by any other ways and means over any particular Church He that claims a reward as of his own labour and travel must be supposed to disclaim donation which is antecedent to and exclusive of the other as the title of descent is to that of conquest Thus Dr. Hammond But to these it is easily answered 1. To Bishop Bramhal §. 3. n. 3. That nothing consists better together than contradictories if they be not understood secundum idem To have a headship Universal over the whole Church given him by God or by the Church if God hath left to it the disposal thereof for some things and to have a headship Patriarchal only over some part of the Church given by the same authority or the first given by God the second by the Church i. e. the first by divine the second by humane institution for some other things contradict not To have an unlimited power if he means for place for some things and limited for place for other things contradict not To hold the same power or authority both by divine and humane institution or title or laws which are all one contradicts not unless this term only be added One may hold the same thing both from the donation of our Saviour and from the donation of the Church too and from the donation of the Prince too quantum in illis est which is only a consenting to Christ's donation if they acknowledge it Neither will these latter donations be needless or useless ad homines tho the former donation be good if the former be at any time questioned as many good titles have bin Again it doth not contradict that one as Patriarch be subject to some thing to which in another consideration i.e. as head of the Church he is not subject for the respect is changed Christ the same person as Man was subject to laws to which as God he was not So Sovereign government and Subordinate government of the same person in the same Society are consistent The government of a city is subordinate to the office of a Prince in the same civil society yet may the Prince that rules over all the Kingdom be governor also of some particular city thereof if so he pleaseth for his more security and may execute in that city all those under-offices himself which his Substitutes do in the rest or also formerly did there by his authority A Rectorship of a Parish is subordinate to that of a Bishop in the same Ecclesiastical society and yet the Bishop may also be the Parson of some Parish within his Diocess and officiate therein as is usual in some poorer Bishopricks One may be made by the King governor of a whole Province in respect of some command which he hath over it all and may be made by the same King or by any other to whom the King hath given the bestowing of such a dignity governor also only of one city in that Province in respect of some other offices divers from the former which he may exercise over that town and not likewise over the Province Thus much to Bishop Bramhal Only I must tell you that he may put his propositions in such a sence as they shall point-blank contradict but then he will not be able to shew that in such a sence the Roman Church affirms them 2. To Dr. Hammond I answer That no man can acquire the possession of a thing anew which he already possesseth but he may acquire a new title or right to what he already rightly possesseth i. e. he may do something upon which another law which now doth not shall give him right to the same thing supposing that his present right faileth or is questioned Neither needeth he when such titles are questioned adhere to one and renounce the other but may successively plead both one after another Indeed when these two titles are in several persons one voids the other the former the latter because the same thing cannot at the same time be possessed by several persons as Dr. Hammond rightly argues in Rep. to Cath. Gent. 6. cap. 1. s. but seems to me to apply it amiss to two titles remaining in the same person that the one of these will spoil the plea of the other So one may receive a possession from a Prince by free donation and afterward fearing some cavil at this title may acquire another right to the same thing by purchase either from the same Prince or from any other person of his Subjects who pretends to have the just disposal thereof And this person may afterward plead as he seeth cause either of these titles the donation from the Prince or purchase from the Subject which Subject whether he had a right power to dispose of such a thing or no yet the purchaser's plea is good against him and against all those who are bound by his act so that they cannot resume such possession from him So to come nearer our business Suppose a donation by our Saviour of such a Supremacy for ever over the whole Church and so over Britain to S. Peter's Successor and suppose a donation quo jure I need no here enquire by the Church of the same Supremacy to the Patriarch of the West over all the West and so over Britain and suppose 3ly a donation or consent by the inhabitants of Great Britain of the same Supremacy over them to the first author of their conversion I say here the same person being S. Peter's Successor and Patriarch of the West and converter of England may challenge such Supremacy over it by which of these titles he pleaseth they being obliged to all to our Saviour's Act of whom they are subjects to the Act of the Church whereof
of Temporal States If any thing happen to be unjustly demanded it excuseth us not from paying justs debts The Office must not be violated for the fault of the Person Neither can never so many examples brought for such things done by Princes § 48 That Ecclesiastical Councils may change their former Eccl. Laws tho Lay-Magistrates may not be a sufficient warrant to any Prince to do the like much less to advance beyond such patterns and do something more See before § 42. After these a third proposition must also be granted That tho Seculars Princes or others cannot yet Councils may change some former Ecclesiastical Laws and Customs and when they do so are to be obey'd in their change Therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Nicene Council and Jura quae jam inde ab initio habent serventur and nullus invadat Provinciam quae non prius atque ab initio sub illius fuerat potestate in the Ephesine Council frequently press'd by Dr. Hammond see Sch. p. 61 65 100. so far as these refer not to Apostolical traditions but Ecclesiastical constitutions must be understood to oblige all the Church's subjects only so long till the Church shall think fit to change any thing in them Nor did they hinder but that afterward she advanc'd the Roman Church at last yeilding also her consent the See of Constantinople contrary to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 both before Alexandria and Antioch into a Supremacy the next to Rome In whose power it is as in Secular Law-givers to alter her Laws at pleasure Nor can any G. Council decree that no General Council after them in matters of humane institution shall change their Decrees § 49 Nor can any particular Church claim that liberty unto them by any former Canons That Prelates and others stand obliged to those Church-Canons which in a superior Council are made with the consent of their Predecessors till such Councils shall reverse them of which by later Canons made by the same authority they receive a restraint The truth of this fourth proposition also I think ought not to be doubted of That where the Bishops or Metropolitans suppose subjected to no Patriarch yet are present in Councils presided in by one or more Patriarchs and do consent to the Decrees thereof such Provinces and the Prelates thereof stand obliged to those Decrees and cannot afterward at pleasure reverse them and restore to themselves their former liberty Else Metropolitans who are under no Patriarch will be liable to the Decrees of no Councils at all no not of such wherein they appear wherein they vote wherein they oblige themselves But supposing they are as free as Patriarchs themselves yet where in Councils many Patriarchs meet the vote of the major part obligeth all Review what is said before § 18. § 50 Now to make some Reflections if you have not made them already upon what hath been discoursed here Reflections on what hath been said in relation to the Church of England § 51 1. It cannot reasonably be denied that supposing she had not receiv'd her Conversion from the See of Rome That the Church of England seems obliged in as much observance to the Roman See as the former instances have shewed the Orientals to have yeilded to it nor the Nicene or other Canons had constituted the Bishop of this City sole Patriarch of the West of which thing review what is said before § 3. yet she is bound to render so much not only honour but submission also to that See for what cause soever it was that such was given to that last Seat of the two great Apostles Peter and Paul as it hath been shew'd by the instances made above in those primitive times that the whole Church of God the Oriental Churches and Bishops the Patriarchs themselves and even Cyprus so much pleaded concerning which review § 18. have render'd unto him in appeals decision of controversies approbation of Prelates Ecclesiastical censures c. For example If the rule spoken of § 22. praeter or sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum have any obligation upon the Oriental the same it will have upon the English Bishops or Synods And the same power the Roman Bishop hath of receiving or hearing Appeals suppose from Alexandria as in Athanasius his cause review § 21. the same he hath in those from England For what exemptions can England plead more than Alexandria § 52 2. Yet farther There seems to be the same ground of her submission to him as Patriarch however this submission be founded as of other Western Provinces That the Church of England seems obliged to yeild the same observance to the Roman See as other Western Provinces upon the 6th Nicene Canon her Neighbours who still continue obedience to that See And the Mos antiquus obtineat seems to put all the Occidental coast of the world who ever were then already or whoever thenceforward should be converted under his jurisdiction see § 3 In which Canon as not Brittain so no other Western Province is particularly nam'd tho it appears from some instances above that before Nice both Spain and France and Africk were Christian and subject to the Roman See see § 6. And then was the Brittish Nation also already Christian three of its Bishops being present at the Council of Arles in France ten years before this of Nice see Hamm. Sch. p. 110. and many suffering Martyrdom here in Dioclesian's days amongst the rest the famous St. Alban And the Arms of Lichfield representing many mangled Bodies are said to be born in remembrance of the many Christians who in that persecution suffer'd there Christian yet higher before Tertullian's and Origen's time who testifie so much of it Orig. in Ezech. Hom. 4. Quando terra Britanniae ante adventum Christi in unius Dei consensit religionem Quando terra Maurorum c. Nunc vero propter Ecclesias quae mundi limites tenent universa terra cum laetitia clamat ad Dominum Israel Tertull. adv Judaeos c. 7. Cui Christo crediderunt jam Getulorum varietates Maurorum multi fines Hispaniarum omnes termini Galliarum diversae nationes Brittannorum inaccessa Romanis loca Christo vero subd ta see also his Apologet. Christian in the days of Eleutherius Bishop of Rome A. D. 183. saith Venerable Bede Hist Ang. l. 1. c. 4. At which time Christianity by the late favourable Edicts of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius enjoying much tranquillity one Lucius or Leuer Maur a King of some part of Brittain bearing some affection to the Religion or Christians from their good conversation which recommended it and also for the miracles which confirm'd it is said to have sent two learned men Elvanus Avalonius or of Glastenbury and Medvinus de Belga or of Wells to the Bishop of Rome to desire from him some holy men to instruct him in Religion and some Roman Imperial Laws to direct him in his Civil
of Easter was contrary to the usage receiv'd at Rome see Ham. Sch. p. 113. Bramh. Vind. p. 104. seems of no force 1. Because the observation of the Orientals those of Asia minor only excepted was the same with the Roman see Euseb Eccl. Hist. l. 5 c. 21. and it is to be presumed Joseph or Simon had they founded this Church did celebrate this Feast on no other day than Peter and James and Paul did But 2ly Tho the Brittain's observation when Austin the Monk came hither was found contrary to the Roman yet so it was also contrary to the Quarto-Decimans of Asia For the Brittains observ'd it on the Lord's day only as well as the Romanists only their Lord's day was that which happen'd from the 14th day of the Moon in March inclusively to the 20th day but the Lord's day of the Romanists was from the 15th to the 21th the 14th day tho it were also the Lord's day being avoided because it was the Judaical observation or indeed rather because as Ceolfrid the Abbot discourseth it at large to Naitan King of the Picts in Bede l. 5. c. 22. with the Jews also the first day of the Paschal Feasts or of unleaven'd Bread was not the 14th but the 15th day of the Moon to which 15th day as in all other Festivals the even preceding wherein the Paschal Lamb was eaten is reckon'd to belong as the beginning thereof and not to the 14th therefore this Even also began the use of Bread unleven'd Exod. 12.18 So that the Britain 's kept it a week sometimes before the Romanists namely when the Lords day fell on the 14th Of this thus Bede Hist 3. l. 4. c. Quem tamen diem Paschatis non semper Luna 14 ma cum Judaeis ut quidam rebantur sed in die quidem Dominica alia tamen quam decebat hebdomada celebrabant and so he saith hist 3. l. 25. c. that Oswy King of Northumberland observing the Britain and Scotch mode brake up his Fast and solemnized the Feast when the Queen with Prince Alkfrid continued their Fast and kept that day their Palm-Sunday Therefore to Colman in a dispute before these Princes urging as the Asian Churches had done the practice of S. John the Evangelist desiring in their variance from the Western Churches to adhere to those in the East Wilfrid returns this answer That the Scots and Britains neither followed the example of S. John i. e. according to the Asian Churches nor S. Peter according to the West nor did their celebration of Easter agree either with the Judaical Law or the Gospel because they kept not Easter but on a Sunday See Bede ib. This Error perhaps was propagated to the Britains not long before from the Scots §57 n. 2. Or both Britains and Scots might incur at first a mistake therein from the rudeness and ignorance of those times over-run with civil wars which Bede also hinteth Hist 3. l. 4. c. Sciebant enim resurrectionem Dominicam prima Sabbati esse celebrandam sed ut Barbari rustici quando eadem prima Sabbathi venerit minime didicerunt Or it might arise as Bede ib. 3. c. saith it did from some of their Doctors misunderstanding the Egyptian computation or Cycle of Anatolius Whose writings also Colman the Scotch Bishop urgeth in their defence in the disputation had before K. Oswi about this matter and Wilfrid there also shews them to be orthodox and mistaken v. Bed 3. l. 25. c. But upon what ground or in what time soever this erroneous custom began here since we find those Bishops which were sent from Rome see before § 54. n. 2. from time to time so welcomly entertained and so readily submitted to by these two Islands and in particular find S. Germanus who came hither two several times solemnly keeping his Easter here with the Britain clergy see Bede 1. l. 20. c. it follows either that their observation of Easter was then altogether catholick or that if it was otherwise yet by reason that the difference happeneth not every year but only then when the Lord's day chanceth to be on the 14th of the Moon i.e. only once in many years it was then by these Bishops not taken notice of till the coming hither of Augustin who first appears about A.D. 604 to have observed and endeavoured to have reformed it in the Western Church of Britain and afterward his Successors and others well-instructed in the Churches practice to have endeavoured the same in the North and in the Scots concerning which controversy letters being sent to Rome to consult the Pope several answers also were directed from thence to the Scots condemning their practice v. Bede 2. l. 19. c. Yet was it still retain'd for some time both by them and the Britains till after a fuller conviction about A.D. 700 or not long after both were at last reduced to the Catholick observance See Bede 5. l. 16 19 22 c. as the South Irish were by the Pope's admonition long before Bede 3. l. 3. c. Meanwhile many Saints and holy men there were who so observed it as their Ancestors had misled them in this observation also being much more tolerable than the 14 mani Neither doth it seem any great fault in them but only in those of later times in whom obstinacy after due information of the Church's decrees made it so 3. After this decree of the Church Catholick § 57. n. 3. whenever manifested to them it cannot be denied that the Britains became now schismatical as offending both against the canon of Arles mentioned before where were present some of their own Bishops and afterward against that of Nice This business being one of the two causes of the meeting of that famous Council and being by them unanimously setled all the world over Whose words are these in their Epistle to the Church of Alexandria Socrat. Hist 1. l. 6. c. Quod autem ad omnium consensum de sacratissimo festo Paschatis celebrando attinet scitote quod controversia de re suscepta prudenter commode sedata est ita ut omnes Fratres qui Orientem incolunt jam Romanos nos omnes vos sunt consentientibus animis in eodem celebrando deinceps sedulo secuturi And hence it was that in those later times when the Churches orders were well known here in England the Ordinations by the British or Scotch Bishops were accounted unlawful and several of the Saxon Kings to preserve themselves from the Schism sent their clergy to be consecrated Bishops into France amongst whom S. Wilfrid was one and to be consecrated Arch-Bishop to Rome See Bede Hist 3. l. 17. c. 28 29. c. 4. l. 1 2. c. and elsewhere Where also S. Chad the holy Bishop of Lichfield having bin consecrated in the vacancy of the See of Canterbury and some other orthodox Sees by three Bishops two of which were Britains and unconformable to the Church tho the third Wini Bishop of Winchester was ordained in France