Magistrate to whom the Civil in honour to the Clergy hath remitted it till in case of hainous Crimes after degradation from the Sacerdotal Dignity they are returned to the Secular Justice β. β See Canon Apostol 35. Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos primus habeatur quem velut caput existiment § 11 nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant quam illa sola singuli quae parochiae propriae villis quae sub ea sunt competunt Sed nec ille praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aiiquid in eorum parochiis Sic enim unanimitas erit Concil Nicen. Can. 4. Episcopum convenit maxime quidem ab omnibus qui sunt in Provincia Episcopis ordinari Si autem hoc difficile fuerit aut propter instantem necessitatem aut propter itineris longitudinem tribus tamen omnimodis in idipsum convenientibus absentibus quoque pari modo decernentibus per scripta consentientibus tunc ordinatio celebretur Firmitas autem corum quae geruntur per unamquamque Provinciam Metropolitano tribuatur Episcopo Can. 5. De his qui. Communione privantur seu ex clero seu ex laico ordine ab Episcopis per unamquamque Provinciam sententia regularis obtineat ut hi qui abjiciuntur ab aliis non recipiantur Can. 6. Antiqua consuetudo servetur per Aegyptum Lybiam Pentapolim ita ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem quia urbis Romae Episcopo parilis mos est Similiter autem apud Antiochiam ceterasque Provincias suis privilegia serventur Ecclesiis illud autem generaliter clarum est quod si quis praeter sententiam Metropolitani fuerit factus Episcopus hunc magna Synodus definivit Episcopum esse non oportere Sin autem communi cunctorum Decreto rationabili secundum Ecclesiasticam Regulam comprobato duo aut tres propter contentiones proprias contradicant obtineat sententia plurimorum I may spare the recital of any more tho the same is frequently iterated in the following Councils See Conc. Laodic c. 12. 2. Conc. Arelat c. 5. 2. Carth. c. 12. Rhegiense c. 1. Cabilon c. 10. Epist Synodal Conc. Romani sub Siricio Papa c. 1. and see what is said of this matter in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 10. c. See likewise the Cautions used by the Council of Trent Sess 24. De Reform c. 1. And Sess 22. De Reform c. 2. concerning the approbation of such persons as are nominated for Bishopricks by other Ecclesiastical Superiors and so the Collation of these Preferments upon them by the Pope § 12 This Confirmation of all Ordinations by their Ecclesiastical Superiors for preserving the Churches Unity is freely acknowledged by Mr. Thorndike in his Book of the Rights of the Church 5. c. p. 248. Where he mentions also some of the former Canons The fourth Canon saith he of the Council of Nice requireth that all Bishops be ordained by a Council of the Bishops of the Province si fieri potest which Council because it cannot always be had therefore it is Provided there That two or three may do the work the rest consenting and authorizing the Proceeding And this is that which the ordinance of the Apostles hath provided to keep the visible Communion of the whole Church in Unity But when among the Bishops of any Province part consent to Ordination part not the Unity of the Church cannot be preserved unless the consent of the whole follow the consent of the greater part And therefore It seemeth that there can no valid Ordination be made where the greater number of the Bishops of the Province dissent which is confirmed by the Ordination of Novatianus for Bishop of Rome which tho done by three Bishops yet was the foundation of that great Schisme because Cornelius was ordained on the other side by sixteen After which in Application of these things to the Ordinations made in the Church England at the Reformation he hath this Reflection Ibid. p. 250. Now it is manifest saith he that the Ordinations by which that Order of Bishops is propagated in England at and since the Reformation were not made by consent of the greater part of the Bishops of each Province but against their mind tho they made no contrary Ordinations And by the same means it is manifest that all those Ecclesiastical Laws by which the Reformation was established in England i. e. by these new Bishops were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church if we set aside the Secular Power that gave force unto that which was done by the Bishops contrary to that Rule wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth But in other parts the Reformation was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters or any consent which was able to conclude the Church by the constitution of the Church that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot if not worse i. e. detested among them Upon which precedent it sounds plausibly with the greatest part among us that the Unity of the whole being thus dissolved by the Reformation i. e. by the Reformers either being against Bishops or being Bishops made against the consent of the former Bishops the Unity of the Reformation cannot be preserved but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us The like he saith before p. 248. If the Clergy of that time i. e. in the beginning of Qu. Elizabeth's Reformation had been supported in that Power which by the Premises set down and justified in his Book is challenged on behalf of the Clergy this Reformation could not have been brought to pass Yet notwithstanding this Learned man thinks himself still secure in that Communion by imagining first that the Apostolical Succession of the governing Clergy which Canonically concludes the whole hath in several things violated Christ's Laws but quo Judice will any such thing be cleared See below § 37. And 2dly that in any such case the Secular Power may oppose their Authority the this established by the Apostles viz. So often as either the Apostles Ordinance or Christ's Laws must necessarily one of them be infringed γ γ See Conc. Nicen. c. 6. Conc. Chalced. c. 28. And Act. 16. 8. Gen. Conc. c. 10.17.21 Where in c. 17. is mentioned the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council § 13 and thus explained Qua pro causa haec magna sancta Synodus tam in seniori nova Roma Constantinopoli quam in sede Antiochiae Hierosolymorum priscam consuetudinem decernit in omnibus conservari ita ut earum Praesules universorum Metrapolitanorum qui ab ipsis promoventur sive per manus impositionem sive per Pallii dationem Episcopalis dignitatis firmitatem accipiant habeant potestatem viz. ad convocandum eos urgente necessitate ad Synodalem Conventum vel etiam ad coercendunt illos corrigendum cum fama eos super quibusdam delictis-forsitan
of proving that these Kings did reform against the Clergy it be urged that at least they might have done it because no way subjected in matters of Religion to the judgment of the Priest many Texts may be produced evincing the contrary as particularly that Deut. 17.8 9. c. where the Judge named beside the Priest may either respect those extraordinarily sent by God and sanctified in a special manner with his Spirit as Samuel and some others or also in general the supreme Civil Power joined for the Execution with the Ecclesiastical or as for the Decision the one judging for the Civil and Regal the other for God's Laws but however it be the Judge in such a Conjunction is no way authoriz'd to give Sentence in a matter of God's Law without or against the judgment of the Priest Which appears more clearly if this Text in Deut. be compared with those other relating to it 2. Chron. 19.8 9 10. Ezek. 44.24 Haggai 2.11 Mal. 2.7 8. Hos 4.4 or if these Texts will not evince such an Ecclesiastical Supremacy belonging to the Priest in the Old Testament at least other Texts do in the new From which Texts the former Protestant Concessions grant such a Power as to the judging of Controversies of Faith and of Heresy and that without the Civil Power 's having herein a Negative Voice This to the Kings of Judah To β. That urged concerning Aaron To β. I answer That this Sin of his was before his being enstalled High-Priest § 46 and at such time as Moses was appointed by God the supreme Judge in Ecclesiastical Affairs Yet that the Tribe of Levi following Moses remained then not only constant but valiant and zealous Professors of the true Religion for which God afterward chose this Tribe for the sacred Ministery See Exod. 32 27. Deut. 33.8 9. That the High-Priest should be suspected or accused of Idolatry the judgment of this as also of Heresy and the expelling of him found guilty out of the Church by Excommunication belongs to the Clergy united in their supreme Council and the punishing him by other temporal Censures to the Prince To γ. St. Panl's Act To γ. I answer that the supreme Court for deciding Ecclesiastical Controversies in St. Paul's time § 47 was that newly established by our Lord the Council of the Apostles not the Sanedrim of the Jews That St. Paul's Appeal to Caesar was in no such Ecclesiastical Cause but in an accusation of raising Sedition of which he was charged as well as of being a Sectary Act. 24.5.12.18 wherein brought hefore Festus's Tribunal he pleaded Not-guilty and upon his Adversaries seeking to kill him before judgment given appealed to Caesar's i.e. from one Civil Tribunal to another higher To. δ. The Acts of the Emperors To δ. and that especially of Thedosius § 48 I answer That these being mentioned before for Branches of the Royal Primacy in Ecclesiasticals as to confirm those Acts in Spiritual matters which the Church owneth as legal and canonical so to suppress and annul the illegal and uncanonical Acts of any Ecclesiasticks contrary to those of the Church in both which the temporal Powers equally assist the Church those Acting of the Emperors in Church matters that are here urged are only in these two kinds and so are allowed and such in particular was that Act of Theodosius in dis-avowing the Decree of the second Ephesine Council which Decree being opposed by the Bishop of Rome's Legates in the Council and by himself and all the Western Churches and divers of the Eastern Bishops out of it and several of those who voted for it in the Council being with threats forced thereto as appears by their complaint made hereof in the following Council of Chalcedon Contil Chalced. Act. 1. was illegal and not obliging and upon this ground or motive the Emperor's assistance requested by Leo for the nulling of its Acts as may be seen in the beginning of the Epistle he writ to him wherein upon such reasons given he desires the Emperors favour Epist 43. To ε. The Practice of later Christian Princes preceding the times of Henry the Eighth much pressed by Bishop Brambal in Vindication of the Church of England To ε. 5th and 7th Chapters I answer § 49 that all oppositions whatever of Civil States to the Ecclesiastical Power are not denyed to be just or lawful but only those which oppose his Decrees Canons or Government relating to matters purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical that the most of those which the Bishop instanceth in are not so not about matters of Faith and Manners or Church Discipline or the Sub-ordinations of the Churches Judicatures and Execution of her Laws and Censures as to these but Contests either about those things which the Church possessed not by her own right but Princes former Donations or in matters apprehended by Princes some way hurtful or prejudicial to their Civil Rights and Liberties As for Example About the Patronage of Bishopricks and Investiture of Bishops several Revenues and Pensions given to or exacted by the Church and Exemption of Lands and Estates from Tribute Exemption of the Clergy from Secular Courts in Civil or also Criminal matters Appeals made to or Bulls brought from Rome relating to matters the Cognizance whereof belongs to the King's Court and therefore these matters to be considered by the Prince whether not such before that his Subject may submit to them Of which may be used the Bishops forecited § 17. Observation on the 37th Article of the Church of England You see that all here is Political But then granting that some other instances are such as offend against the Churches native Rights as some Contests here in England did for opposing which some holy Bishops here suffered much Persecution yet the proving such Facts to have been done even before the times of Henry the Eighth proves not their lawfulness to be done and next how far soever such Acts may be shewed to have passed in restraining some claims of the Church yet the Bishop confesseth that for Henry the Eighth's abolishing the usurped Jurisdiction as he calls it of the Bishop of Rome or Western Patriarch he finds no Pattern in these former Acts of Christian Princes His words are Vindication of the Church of England p. 184. Lastly Henry the Eighth abolished the usurped Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his it Dominions The Emperors did not so Whether saith he conjecturing at the reasons of that they thought it not fit I add or lawful to leave an old Patriarch or because they did not sufficiently consider the right bounds of imperial power especially being seconded with the Authority of an Occidental Council but no such Council would second them or did Henry the Eighth in this business or because they did not so clearly distinguish between a beginning of Unity and an universality of Jurisdiction for if they had they had wronged this Patriarch or because they had other remedies wherewith
to help themselves I cannot determine By what is said it may appear how improper the foresaid Instances are to prove in Christian Princes a Power to reform the supposed Errors of the Clergy in their Doctrines of Faith or Manners the second thing they have urged § 50 3. Again They urge That it is not fit nor safe that the Clergy should be able by their Constitutions and Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters until the Stamp of Royal Authority be imprinted on them Dr. Heylin Reformation Justified p. 86. Dr. Fern Exam of Champ. p. 295. Where were the Princes knowledge and assent required only on this account relating to the State that so nothing be passed in these Synods prejudecial to his Civil Rights it is willingly allowed but if required on another account relating to Religion that so he may prohibit and suppress so much of them as is not evidenced to him to be juxta legem Christi or as he apprehends is also against it of which thing he is not the Judge yet which hath been the Pretence of reforming Princes medling with the most speculative points in Divinity it seems not reasonable And thus an Heretical Prince will strangle as he pleaseth within his Dominions the Catholick Verities § 51 4. They urge the case of the Act of a National Clergy passing away their Spiritual Authority to a Sccular Prince 4. and investing him or whom he shall nominate and elect with that Power which formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity After which they say the Princes Act or their's he nominates have virtually the power of the Clergy or their Synod and do oblige as much as if they in terminis had agreed upon it To give you it in Dr. Heylin's words Reform Justified p. 89. The Kings of England saith he had a further Right as to this particular which is a Power conferred upon them by the Clergy whether by way of Recognition or Concession I regard not here by which the Clergy did invest the King with a supreme Authority not only of confirming their Synodical Acts not to be put in Execution without his consent but in effect to devolve on him all that Power which formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity amongst which Powers p. 85. he nameth this to reform such Errors and Corruptions as are expresly contrary to the word of God And to this we have a parallel Case in the Roman Empire in which the Supreme Majesty of the State was vested in the Senate and People of Rome till by the Law which they call Lex Regis they transferred all their Power on Caesar and the following Emperors which Law being past the Edicts of the Emperors were as binding as the Senatus-Consulta had been before The like may be affirmed of the Church of England The Clergy had self Authority in all matters which concerned Religion and by their Canons and Determinations did bind all the Subjects till by acknowledging King Henry the Eighth for their supreme Head and by the Act of Submission not long after follwing they transferred that Power upon the King and his Successors After which time whatsoever the King or his Successors did in the Reformation as it had virtually the Power of the Convocation so was it as good in Law as if the Clergy in their Convocation particularly and in terminis had agreed upon it Thus Dr. Heylin And upon this ground and title it was that the XLII Articles since reduced to XXXIX were first introduced into the Church of England being composed by certain Persons appointed by the Prince and then without any review or Confirmation of the Synod published as the Act thereof as appears by Philpot's Plea and arguing in the Synod 10. Mariae when the Clergy questioned these Articles and subscribed that they were wrongfully entitled to the Synod which had never passed them See for this matter Fox Act p. 1282. And Ib. p. 1704 Arch-bishop Cranmer's Tryal And Fuller's Hist Ecclesiast 7. l. p. 420. And Dr. Fern Exam. Champny p. 74. § 52 To all which may be answered That the Canons of the Church permit no such Translation of the Clergy's Authority to the Secular Power neither yet is the supreme Power of composing or changing Articles of Faith and Religion or making other Ecclesiastical Laws as to any Nation vested in the National Synod thereof as appears at length from the Sub-ordinations of Clergy both Persons and Synods in the Catholick Church which in several States is only one for preserving of the Churches Faith and Government for every in unity of which see more Head 6. Thes 1. c. 2 Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies § 24. c. Consid on Council of Trent § 9. c. And so such National Synods cannot give away what they have not Nor were it so have they any Power of Alienating this Authority for which they are personally set a part from the rest of the world by our Lord with a successive solemn Ordination and of which well or ill managed they themselves must give account to our Lord No such Power of Alienation being contained in the original Grant thereof But if without such express Licence they can give away some Part to the Laity where also no necessity is pretended then why not any part of their office and so depute Laicks to ordain Ministers also and consecrate the holy Encharist To which may be added That no part of the Clergy Duty depends more on their personal Abilities and long preparation by study then this we speak of The composing of Articles and Canons the reforming of Errors c. Least of all therefore seems this committable to the Prince either that he himself should perform it whose Regal imployments require a far different Education or that he should delegate it to others by which the Clergy authorizeth they know not whom perhaps some persons heretical if such happen to be Favourites of the Prince to establish in Religion the Clergy knows not what for this Concession is made by the English Clergy without any Reservation of a Revisal § 53 5. They urge to give you it in Bishop Bramhal's words Vindic. of the Church of England 5. p. 257. ' That since the Division ' of Britain from the Empire i. e. since Brittain's being governed by Princes of its own who therefore in their Territories have the same Authority that the Roman Emperors formerly had in the Empire See Dr. Hammond Schism p. 124. No Canons are or ever were of force with us further then they were received and by their incorporation became Brittannick Laws Which as they cannot or ever could be imposed upon the King and Kingdome by a forreign Patriarch by constraint so when they are found by experience prejudicial to the publick Good they may as freely by the same King and Kingdome be rejected And so Dr. Hammond Of Schism p. 125. The Canons of Councils have mostly been set out and received
Succession to St. Peter whereby they say that the Western Provinces do now become released from their Obedience due to him as Patriarch and then that they never owed any Obedience to him as the Universal Head to which purpose thus Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 250. They the Popes quitted their pretended Patriarchal Right when they assumed and usurped to themselves the name and thing of Universal Bishops Spiritual Sovereigns and Sole Monarchs of the Church To be a Patriarch and to be an Universal Bishop in that sense are inconsistent and imply a contradiction in adjecto the one professeth humane the other challengeth divine Institution The one hath a limited Jurisdiction over a certain Province the other pretendeth to an unlimited Jurisdiction over the whole world And so Reply to S. W. p. 69. To claim a Power paramount a Sovereign Monarchical Regality over the Church is implicitly and in effect to disclaim a Patriarchal After the same manner argues Dr. Hammond concerning the Pope claiming a Jurisdiction over England as Patriarch upon the supposed Conversion thereof I add or claiming such Jurisdiction upon Ecclesiastical Constitution and claiming it from his Universal Pastorship that these two are incompatible Because saith he Answer to Catholick Gent. p. 101. compared with Schism p. 107. the one supersedes the other and the same Right cannot be held by two Tenures In all which I see no true arguing § 58 To Bishop Bramhal I say The Pope may have an universal Head-ship by divine Institution as to certain Superintendencies over all the Church and a Patriarchal by humane Institution as to some other extending only to a part of the Church and thus may have limited Jurisdiction as to Place for the one unlimited for the other without any Contradiction As also the same Person hath the subordinate Jurisdictions of a Bishop and also in some poor Bishopricks of the Rector of a Parish too of a Metropolitan and of a Primate all well consisting So one may be by a Prince made Governour of a whole Province in respect of some command which he hath over it all and may be made by the same King or by any other to whom the King hath given the bestowing of such a Dignity Governour also of one City in that Province in respect of some other Offices diverse from the former which Offices he may exercise over that Town only and not likewise over the Province Next suppose the Popes claim of the universal Pastor-ship unjust he cannot cease thereby to be what he is because he claimeth something more than he is no more to be Patriarch still than to be Metropolitan or Primate still nor can the Obedience Canonically due to him as such be with-held because on a wrong Title he claims somewhat more not due or some other way abuseth his Office No more then a Prince's Oppressions or other misdemeanors discharge their Subjects Allegiance To Dr. Hammond The universal Pastor-ship and Patriarch-ship are not one but two Rights and something held by the Patriarch-ship over the West which is not by the other over the whole Church But were it otherwise the same Right may be held by many Tenures A Kingdome by Inheritance and by Conquest supposing Conquest a Good Title against an Heir when these two are in several persons A parcel of Land by Donation and by Purchase By many Tenures I say so that as long as these are inherent in the same person when one is judged to fail the right may be challenged by another and so that no other can dispossess such person unless he prove not one but all his titles faulty § 59 9. If they cannot quit or make forfeit the Roman Patriarchship by one of these two last Allegations 9. Next they seek to dissolve themselves from it by transferring it or erecting a new Patriarch-ship instead thereof which thing they say is in the Power of any Prince at any time to do within his own Dominions and so after this that a National Church is freed from their Obedience to the former Of which thus Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 256. Tho the Roman Bishops had sometimes a just Patriarchal Power and had forfeited it neither by Rebellion nor abuse yet the King and the whole Body of the Kingdome by their legislative Power substracting their Obedience from them and erecting a new Patriarchate within their own Dominions it is a sufficient warrant for all Englishmen to suspend their Obedience to the one and apply themselves to the other for the welfare and tranquility of the whole Body Politick And Reply to Chalced. p. 238. Suppose saith he that the Brittanick Churches have been subjected to the Bishop of Rome by General Councils yet upon the great Mutation of the State of the Empire and the great variation of Affairs since that time it had been very lawful for the King and the Church of England to substract their Obedience from the Bishops of Rome tho they i. e. the Bishops of Rome by claiming the Title of universal Pastor had not quitted their Patriarchate and to have erected a new Primate at home among themselves So He. But much more copiously Dr. Hammond Who relies very much on and frequently recurrs to this Relief for rendring the Church of England's departure from this their former Patriarch free from Schism Schism p. 115. To put this whole matter saith he out of Controversy i. e. concerning the Pope's Supremacy upon the title of Conversion of England it is and it hath always been in the Power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchates or to translate them from one City to another and therefore whatever Title is supposable to be acquired by the Pope in this Island upon the first planting of the Gospel here this cannot so oblige the Kings of England ever since but that they may freely remove that Power from Rome to Canterbury and subject all the Christians of this Island to the Spiritual Power of this Arch-Bishop or Primate independently from any Forreign Bishop And p. 142. Thus certainly the King being the Fountain of all Power and Authority A Supposition unproved and denyed as to Ecclesiastical Authority and so what he builds on it unsound as he is free to communicate this Power to one so he is equally free to recall and communicate it to another And therefore may as freely bestow the Power of Primate and chief Metropolitan of England or which is all one of a Patriarch on the Bishop of Canterbury having formerly thought fit to grant it to the Bishop of Rome as he or any of his Ancestors can be deemed to have granted it to the Bishop of Rome And this takes off all obligation of Obediencs in the Bishops to the Pope at the first minute that he is by the King divested of that Power Which freedome from that Obedience immediately clears the whole business of Schism as that is a departure from the Obedience of a lawful Superior Again p.
132. Upon that one ground the Power of Kings in General and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchates whatsoever can be pretended against the lawfulness of the Reformation in these Kingdomes will easily be answered By these places you see he makes this the Regal Power to remove Patriarchates the main Bulwark for defending the Reformation from Schisme And for proof of such a Power in Kings he instanceth α. α In the Emperor Justinian § 60 his erecting the Bishoprick of Justiniana prima and afterward of Carthage β. β And the Emperor Valentinian before him his erecting Ravenna into a Patriarchship independent in Jurisdiction on that of Rome γ. γ Next he urgeth the 12th and 17th Canons of the Council of Chalcedon 38th of the Council in Trullo mentioning the Emperors Authority to erect new Mother Cities for places of Justice and the Councils ordering the Churches Metropolitan Dignity to follow it Ibid. 6. c. § 14. δ. δ And lastly he instanceth in the Kings of England anciently transferring or dividing Bishopricks and erecting new Ibid. § 15. See in the Author how he prosecutes these They labouring thus by such pretended Power of the Civil Magistrate to free a National Church from any Ecclesiastical Dependency abroad § 61 In Answer to which 1. Let it be conceded That Sovereign Princes may present such persons as they approve for discharging Ecclesiastical Functions within their Kingdomes may join divide Bishopricks transfer Metropolitan-ships or erect new ones c. Provided that the Canonical Ecclesiastical Superiors consent to the introduction of the Persons they present into such places and confer the Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction such persons shall exercise in them and that nothing herein be done contrary to the things established by former Ecclesiastical Canons which Canons if lawfully made by the Church can be dissolved by none save the same Authority The Question therefore here is whether there being already a Subordination of Metropolitans and Primates and their Synods to the higher Patriarchs and their Synods established by the Church Canons concerning which see Consid on the Council of Trent § 9. And The Guide Second Discourse § 24. c. A Prince hath Authority to dissolve this as to its obliging the Clergy that is within his Dominions by setling this Patriarchal Authority on one of his own Metropolitans or Primates which is setled formerly by the Church on another For Example whether a Sovereign Prince of Pentapolis or Lybia can release the Bishops of Pentapolis from their Canonical Obedience to the Patriarch of Alexandria and his Synods and subject them to another Bishop of his own nomination within Pentapolis § 62 And herein 1. Their own Concessions seem against it For Bishop Bramhal thus frees the Church of England from Schisme Vindic. p. 257. Num. 1. Neither the Papal Power which we have cashiered nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by the ancient Canons and by consequence the Separation is not Schismatical And A Power saith Dr. Hammond in Answer to S. W. Answer to Schism disarmed p. 164. Princes have had to erect Metropoles but if it be exercised so as to thwart known Canons and Customes of the Church this certainly is an Abuse And Schism p. 60. The uppermost of the standing Powers in the Church are Arch-Bishops Primates and Patriarchs to whom the Bishops themselves are in many things appointed to be subject and this Power and Subjection is defined and asserted by the ancient Canons and the most ancient even im-memorial Apostolical Tradition and Custome is avouched for it as may appear Conc. Nicen. 1. Can. 4.6 Concil Antioch c. 9.20 Concil Chalced. c. 19. concluding afterward p. 66. That there may be a Disobedience and Irregularity and so a Schisme even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans and of the Authority which they have by Canon and Primitive Custome over them From which All I observe here is That he chargeth Schisme upon the Disobedience of an Ecclesiastical Authority when formerly established by Church Canon § 62 2. If this be the Prince's Right to erect new Patriarchs and null former Ecclesiastical Subordinations 1. Num. 2. Either they must claim it as a Civil Right and then the Councils have been guilty of violating it in meeting and establishing such Subordinations without asking them leave For Example The 6th Canon of Nice the first General Council and 5th of the 2d and 9th and 16th of the 4th would have been an usurpation of an unjust Authority if the Subordination of Episcopal Sees and erecting of Patriarchs had belonged to the Prince or Emperor as a Civil Right Nor could the Bishop of Rome have justly expostulated with the Oriental Bishops in the last of these Councils for passing such a Canon for advancing the Bishoprick of Constantinople into a Patriarchate next to that of Rome without his consent if this thing belonged to the Emperors Civil Power who much desired such an Exaltation of the Constantinopolitan Bishop Nor would the Oriental Bishops have forborn to have pleaded this Title especially this Council being called after the precedent that is urg'd of Valentinian touching Ravenna and in his days yet such Right of the Emperor the Eastern Bishops do not pretend to at all But in their Epistle to Leo earnestly request his consent using this as one argument to obtain it Sic enim pii Principes the two Emperors Valentinian and Theodosius complacebunt quae tanquam legem tuae Sanctitatis Judicium firmaverunt And the Emperors Presidents in the Council do Act. 16th leave the disposal thereof wholly in the Councils hands and to be directed by the former Church Canons Where Conc. Nic. 6. Mos antiquus obtineat is strongly pleaded by the Roman Legates and also afterward by Leo which voids both Justinjan's and Valentinian's or any other Emperors Innovations against the Roman Bishops former Jurisdictions further then his consent is obtained therein Again Since Heathen Princes have the same Title with Christian to all Civil Rights neither could the Church when under them have lawfully practiced such a Jurisdiction 2. Or else Princes must claim it as a thing conceded to them by the Church to change and alter such Subordinations Now any such Concession from the Church we find not but this we find in the 8th General Council 21. c. Definimus neminem prorsus mundi potentium quenquam eorum qui Patriarchalibus sedibus praesunt in-honorare aut movere a proprio Throno tentare sed omni reverentia honore dignos judicare And yet further Si vero quis aliqua seculari potestate fruens pellere tentaverit praefatum Apostolicae Papam aut aliorum Patriarcharum quenquam Anathema sit And 22. Canon Definit neminem Laicorum Principam vel Potentum semet inserere electioni vel Promotioni Patriarchae vel Metropolitae aut cujuslibet Episcopi ne videlicet inordinata hinc incongrua fiat confusio vel contentio praesertim
of God notwithstanding any secular force prohibiting the same must needs maintain by consequence that the Church hath Power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common Service of God and the Unity in it and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it Thus Mr. Thorndike § 16 Dr. Taylor in Episcopacy asserted published by the Kings Authority after that p. 236. he hath laid this ground for the security of Secular Princes That since that Christ hath professed that his Kingdome is not of this world that Government which he hath constituted de novo doth no way make any Entrenchment on the Royalty hath these Passages p. 237. he saith That those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the Republick hath introduced all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals Subordination of inferiour Clergy to their Superiours Rites Liturgies c. As for the Rights of the Secular Power he layeth down this Rule p. 236. Whatsoever the Secular Tribunal did take Cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all Actions civil all publick Visitations of Justice all breach of municipal Laws These the Church saith he hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes these be indulged to it these by their favour then indulged but not so the former Accordingly p. 239. he saith Both Prince and Bishops have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigente of several occasions and have several Powers for the engagements of clerical obedience and attendance upon such Solemnities That the Bishops Jurisdiction hath a Compulsory derived from Christ only viz. Inflictions of Censures by Excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it And that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external Compulsory i. e. as he saith before to superadd a temporal penalty upon Contumacy or some other way abet the Censures of the Church P. 243. he saith That in those cases in which by the law of Christ Bishops may or in which they must use Excommunication no Power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away And p. 244. That the Church may inflict her Censures upon her Delinquent Children without asking leave that Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security And p 245. That the King 's supreme Regal Power in causes of the Church consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by God's law employed for regiment and care of Souls I suppose those he named before p. 237. and in these also that all the external Compulsory and Jurisdiction as he expoundeth 〈◊〉 before p. 239. is the King 's And lastly p. 241. he saith That the Catholick Bishops in time of Arian Emperors made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction that as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray the right which Christ had concredited to them to the encroachment of an exterior Jurisdiction and Power i. e. the Royal. § 17 Bishop Bramhal frequently stateth the Primacy or Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters thus Schisme Guarded p. 61. he saith All that our Kings assume to themselves is the external Regiment of the Church by coactive Power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective branches of it And p. 63. quoting the 37 Article of the Church of England where the King's Supremacy is expressed thus To preserve or contain all Estates and Orders committed to their trust whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in their duties and restrain contumacious offenders with the Civil Sword in which restraining offenders and containing all in their duty with the Civil Sword the Prince is willingly acknowledged by Catholicks the and the only Supreme he comments thus upon it You see the Power is Political the Sword is Political all is Political our Kings leave the Power of the Keys and Jurisdiction Spiritual purely to those to whom Christ hath left them And in answer to another Passage in the 37th Article and also in the Oath of Supremacy wherein the Bishop of Rome is denied to have any Jurisdiction in the Kingdome of England he distinguisheth between a Jurisdiction suppose to excommunicate absolve degrade purely Spiritual governing Christians in the interior Court of Conscience and extending no further and an exterior coactive Jurisdiction exercised in the exterior Ecclesiastical Courts the exterior Coaction of which he saith is originally Political and so belonging only to and held from the Prince His words are Schisme Guarded p. 160. Our Ancestors in denying any Jurisdiction that is Patriarchal to the Pope meant the very same thing that we do our only difference is in the use of the words Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction which we understand properly of Jurisdiction purely Spiritual which extends no further then the Court of Conscience But by Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the exterior Court which in truth is partly Spiritual partly Political The interior habit which enableth an Ecclesiastical Judge to excommunicate or absolve or degrade is meerly Spiritual but the exterior Coaction is originally Political So our Ancestors cast out external Ecclesiastical coactive Jurisdiction the same do we They did not take away from the Pope the power of the Keys or Jurisdiction purely Spiritual no more do we And Ibid. p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and executing of them but with this caution that to make them Laws he means such laws for observance of which secular coaction might be used the confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a coactive Power to execute them the Prince's Grant or Concession was needful So that Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the Kings Dominions and use the Ecclesiastical Censures by their own Authority without the Prince only they can use no Coaction by pecuniary or corporal punishments c. in the Execution of them without his which is granted to him Again Vindic. of the Church of England p. 269. he saith That in Cases that are indeed Spiritual or meerly Ecclesiastical such as concern the Doctrine of Faith or Administration of the Sacraments or the ordaining or degrading of Ecclesiastical persons Sovereign Princes have and have only an Architectonical Power to see that Clergy-men do their Duties i. e. not what he but what their Superiors in Spiritual matters judge to be so And Schisme Guarded p. 136. We have nothing concerning any Jurisdiction meerly Spiritual in all the Statutes of Henry the Eighth They do all intend coactive Jurisdiction in the exterior Court of the Church We give the supreme Judicature of
their Authority by the Emperors I answer All this is true 1. That the Church Canons are not of force as to any Coactive Power to he used in the Execution of them by Clergy or Laity before made the Emperor's or other Princes Laws For which take the same Bishop Bramhal's Exposition when I believe he had better considered it Schism Guarded p. 92. We see the Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors but that was by Authority meerly Spiritual They had no Coactive Power to compel any man against his will And p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and for executing of them but with this caution That to make them Laws the Confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a Coactive Power to execute them The Prince's Grant or Concession was needful 2. That the Church Canons are not of force at all when these Canons relate to any civil Right without the secular Magistrate's precedent admission of them of whose proper Cognizance such Rights are But meanwhile all Ecclesiastical Canons whether concerning the Faith or Government and Discipline of the Church so far as they do not encroach on any such civil Rights as I presume all those made by the Church when under Heathen Governors will be granted to be are in force in whatever Princes Dominions so as to render all the disobedient liable to the Church's Censures tho the Christian Prince never so much oppose and reject them And this granted more is not desired for thus no Members of the Church at any time can be free from the strict observance of such Canons by any secular Authority or Patronage § 54 6. They urge That in any Princes Dominions the Clergy's liberty to exercise actually their Function 6. and the application of the matter on which it worketh viz. of the Subjects of such a Dominion are held from the Crown so that a Christian Prince by denying this lawfully voids the other as he thinks fit We draw saith Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 268. or derive from the Crown Liberty or Power to exercise actually and lawfully upon the Subjects of the Crown that habitual Jurisdiction which we receive at our Ordination And in his Reply to Chalced. p. 291. he makes Ecclesiastical Persons in their excommunicating and absolving the King's Substitutes i. e. as he expounds himself afterward by the King's Application of the matter namely of his Subjects to receive their Absolution from such Ecclesiastical Persons I answer This again if meant of the liberty of the Clergy's exercising their Functions with a Coactive Power or of some persons among that Clergy which the Church owns as Catholick being admitted to exercise their Function absolutely in such Dominions and not others is very true but little to their Purpose that urge it But if understood absolutely as to the liberty of any such Clergy at all to exercise their Function at all in any Christian Prince's Dominions upon his Subjects without his leave in which sense only it besteads them is most false Neither may a Christian Prince be thought to have any priviledge herein which a Heathen hath not And as such Priviledge is most pernicious to the propagation of the Christian Religion where the Prince is Heathen So to the Conservation of the Catholick Religion where the Christian Prince happens to be Heretical or Schismatical § 55 7. They urge For the abrogating Church Canons That Ecclesiastical are only humane Institutions 7. that Authority given by the men and abused may be again suppressed by them So Rivet Grot. Discuss Dialys p. 173. in Answer to Grotius Discussio Rivet Apol. p. 69. who alledged a Jus Ecclesiasticum for the Pope's Primacy to be conceded by Protestants And ' Tho Inferiors are not competent Judges of their Superiors yet as to subordinate Superiors in matters already defined by the Church the Sentence of the Judge is not necessary the Sentence of the Law and Notoriety of the Fact are sufficient So Bishop Bramhal Vindic. of the Church of England p. 253. from whence seems to be inferred the lawfulness for a Prince within his Dominions or for a Church National totally to abrogate the forementioned Canonical Sub-ordination of such Kingdome or Church to the Patriarchal Authority when this abused § 56 To which 1st it is willingly granted That both Ecclesiastical Offices and Canons may be abrogated for abuses happening by them only that this may not be done by Inferiors or by every Authority but by the same Authority that made or set them up 2. Next for Abuses and the Notoriety of them that no Practices may be stiled so where neither Church-Definitions are found against them much less where these found for them nor where a major part of those subject to them acknowledge them as Abuses but continue their obedience therein as their Duty 3ly For such things as are notorious Abuses or most generally agreed on for such and so Obedience withdrawn herein yet none may therefore substract his obedience absolutely from such an Authority for such other matters where their Obedience is due and due it is still that was formerly so till such Power reverse that Authority and its Injunctions as set it up But whilst Obedience in the one is denyed in the other it ought still to be yielded Therefore should the Patriarch make a breach upon the Civil Rights of Princes or their Subjects these may not justly hence invade his Ecclesiastical And if the Priest Patriarch or Bishop would in some things act the Prince therefore may not the Prince justly take upon him to act the Priest or to alter any thing of that Spiritual Hierarchy established by Christ or by the Church much to the good but nothing at all to the damage of temporal States If any thing happen to be unjustly demanded it excuseth not from paying just debts The Office must not be violated for the fault of the Person And herein may the Example of other Nations be a good Pattern to ours who having made resistance to their Patriarch in some Injunctions conceived by them not Canonical yet continue still their Obedience in the rest as appears in the late Contest of the State of Venice and those Opposals both of France and Spain and England before the times of Henry the Eighth of which Bishop Bramhal In Vindic. 3d. Book 7th Chap. hath been a sufficiently diligent Collector but at last found them all to come short of Henry the Eighth's Proceedings See before § 49. Neither indeed need any Prince to fear any Ecclesiastical Tyranny so far as to pluck up the Office by the roots who holding the Temporal Sword still in his own hands can therewith divide and moderate it as he pleaseth § 57 8. The endeavour to void the Pope's Patriarchal Authority and the Canonical Priviledges belonging to it 8. by his claiming an Universal Headship by
only can bestow such an Authority as before Constantine's time so after 2. Whatever Priviledge that was That John Bishop of Ravenna claimed who Dr. Hammond saith was the first that publickly contested his Right with the Bishop of Rome perhaps a Donation of this Pall at once for that Bishop and all his Successors not to be reiterated from the Pope's upon every new Election it appears clearly from St. Gregory 2. l. Ep. 54. that he claimed such Priviledge not singly from the Emperors Rescript but also from a Grant of the Roman Bishop St. Gregory there denying any such Grant And also the same Gregory in 5. l. Ep. 8. in his sending the Pall after this to Maximinianus Bishop of Ravenna and confirming his Priviledges Quae suae pridem concessa esse constat Ecclesiae mentions the Motive to be Provocatus not only antiquae consuetudinis or dine which Dr. Hammond takes notice of Ibid. p. 151. and applies to the Emperors Rescript but first Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia which Dr. Hammond omits Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia antiquae consuetudinis ordine provocatus are the Popes words But such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pretended to be received from the Church Tho St. Gregory saith this Pretence was false no way fits Dr. Hammond's purpose of the Princes bestowing such a Priviledge when the Patriarch opposeth 3. As for the Subjection of the Provinces of Aemilia unto it by the Emperor if this be supposed done by him without the Churches consent it seems contrary to the 12th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon which permits not to Princes the dividing or changing the former Jurisdictions of Prelates Yet were this thing wholly permitted to the Prince so long as the Confirmation of such new-erected Primates is still to be received from their Canonical Superiors no Faction Division or Independency can be hereby introduced into the Church nor the Protestant Cause any whit hereby relieved To γ The three Canons To γ. In the first it appeareth that the Prince attempting to dispose of half the Jurisdictions of a certain Metropolitan to a new Prelate set up by himself the Council prohibits it and reserves still the whole Jurisdiction to the former therefore in this Councils judgment the Prince could do no such thing justly In the two last the Prince changing or erecting a new Metropole or Mother City for the Seat of Judicature the Church not the Prince and so this proves no Right of his to do it orders with very good reason the change of the Seat of the Metropolitan to this Place of greatest Concourse These Canons then which the Dr. urgeth for his Cause are they not to good purpose for the contrary I pray you view them But meanwhile concerning the Point so much driven at the Princes making new Patriarchs I must remind you here again of the Canon of the 8th General Council Can. 21. Definimus neminem prorsus Mundi Potentium quenquam eorum qui Patriarchalibus sedibus praesunt in-honorare aut movere a proprio Throno tentare sed omni reverentia honore dignos judicare praecipue quidem Sanctissimum Papam Senioris Romae c. To δ. The Kings of England transplanting Metropolitanships To δ. dividing Bishopricks erecting new ones exempting Ecclesiastical Persons from Episcopal Jurisdiction c. Such things are denyed to be justly transacted by the Prince's sole Authority without the consent of Church Governors general or particular of which see the 8th General Council Can. 22. about Election Nor doth the Negative Argument of the Church's consent to this not mentioned prove such Facts to have been without it especially as to the confirmation of Persons so promoted by the Prince in their Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Which thing being once taken from the Ecclesiastical Canonical Superiors and this power of Erecting Patriarchies and Primacies and by consequence of the bestowing and transferring the several Priviledges thereof solely cast into the hands of a Secular Prince and then this Prince supposed to be not Orthodox a supposition possible and what confusion and mischief must it needs produce in such a body as the Church strictly tyed in Canonical Obedience to such Superiors and subbmitting to their judgment and decisions in Spiritual matters By which means this seduced Prince may sway the Controversies in Religion within his own Dominions what way he pleaseth so long as there be some Ecclesiasticks of his own perswasion whom he may surrogate in the places of those others that gainsay Remember the times of Constantius Meanwhile if the Churches Rights of a Canonical Subordination of all the Clergy be strictly observed I know not what other Indulgment about Clergy Preferments may not with sufficient preservation of the Churches Catholick Unity be conceded to the Prince This from § 59. of their Ninth Plea the Prince's Power to erect new Patriarchs § 68 10. In the last place they say That a National Church hath within it self the whole Subordination of Ecclesiastical Power and Government 10. See Dr. Fern's Case between England and Rome p. 26. in which a Primate is the highest and thus far only ascends Dr. Hammond and so hath a supreme and independent Power in managing all Ecclesiastical Affairs within it self and delegating its Power to others To which I think there needs no further Answer the Subjection of these Primates or lower Patriarchs to higher sufficiently appearing from frequent ancient Church Canons and being conceded by other Learned Protestants For which not often to repeat the same things I must refer you to what is said before in γ. And in Consid on the Council of Trent § 9. c. as also their Subjection to Patriarchal or General Councils in that it hath been ordinary to execute their Censures upon such Primates or also Patriarchs when Heretical or otherwise faulty HEAD X. Concerning the Vnity of the Church Catholick in respect of Heresies and Schisms and other intestine Divisions Concerning the Unity of the Church Catholick in respect of Heresies and Schisms and other intestine Divisions 1. CAtholicks do hold That one holy Catholick and Apostolick Church mentioned in our Creed is not always a Body coextended to the Christian Profession or involving all Christian Churches if I may so call them or Congregations or Sects But that some Christian Churches or Societies there are or may be that are no part of it but do stand contradistinct to it 2. They willingly grant That not all differences or divisions in Spiritual matters between particular Persons or Churches where there is no Subordination between them do render one or both of them guilty of such Schism as to become thereby no Members of the Church Catholick But 3ly they maintain that all such Division wherein a particular person or Church departs from the whole or wherein a Subordinate Person or Church from all their Spiritual Superiors for such matters wherein Obedience is required from them by all these or by the whole is such Schisme as
great soever But 3ly that there are some greater crimes and offences against God which are inconsistent with and destructive of the State of Grace which do so break God's Commandments as that if not worthily repented of they make us actually liable to eternal Damnation after the committing of which expelling us from the Grace and Priviledges of our Baptisme we cannot be reconciled to God nor restored to our former condition without the help of the Keys of the Church where-ever this may be had Lastly from which Sins by the Grace of God the Regenerate Person may totally abstain and totally reform his life and in respect of them may through his whole life perfectly observe all God's Commandments 4ly That there are other lesser Sins which are well consistent with the State of Regeneration From committing of which one or other of them no man tho Regenerate abstracting from God's special Priviledge can for any long time live free nor in respect of these can be said perfectly to observe God's Commandments Bellarm. de amiss Gratiae upon Matt. 5.22 Si quis leviter irascitur which he calls a Venial Sin is jam recedit a perfecta observatione legis Si quis autem manifestum convitium in proximum jactat is demum non a perfecta observatione sed simpliciter ab observatione legis recedit Which Sins however they do or do not offend against God's Laws or also in their nature do or do not merit eternal punishments yet all agree on this that no Regenerate person at all by committing them doth actually fall from God's favour or his former righteousness nor actually incur external punishments and that the Regenerate committing them have always at least an habitual repentance of them Next Concerning a Possibility to the Regenerate of fulfilling God's Laws and freedome from either Mortally or Venially offending him Next Concerning a Possibility to the Regenerate of fulfilling God's Laws 1. Catholicks do believe that some good thought word or work may be performed by the Regenerate and God's Commandments be observed therein perfectly and without any contagion or adherence of any Sin But 2ly that none can certainly know of himself 1. Cor. 4.4 when any work is so purely done 3ly They also willingly concede that the most or very many of the good works of the Regenerate are not done without some Sin or defect in some smaller Circumstances thereof by reason of concupiscence negligence and that no Regenerate person abstracting from the Divine special Priviledge can for any long time keep all God's Commandments as these Commandments are understood by any to involve the Prohibition of lesser and those commonly called Venial Sins But 4ly they maintain that many have kept and may keep them all thro the Grace given us by Christ at our Regeneration in the abstaining from greater or those commonly called Mortal Sins HEAD XVIII Of Works commonly called of Supererogation Counsels Evangelical or Works of Supererogation COncerning Evangelical Counsels or Precepts of Perfection and the Observance of them called Works of Supererogation 1. Catholicks disclaim any such Works taken in such a sense as Protestants explain and impose on them viz. That all things be performed and fulfilled that the Divine Law commandeth i. e. in living free as well from all those called Venial as from Mortal Sins α α. Bishop White Answer to Fisher p. 522. To the Definition and being of Works of Supererogation Two things are required First That all be performed and fulfilled which the Divine Law commandeth he meaneth without any Sin at all incurred Venial or Mortal See p. 525. but if without Mortal Sin and such as excludes from Grace were only meant by this Bishop so he must grant That all persons whilst in the State of Grace do thus fulfil God's commands He goes on But if just men have any Sin they perform not all which the Divine Law requireth Again p. 527. Supererogation implies these things 1st A perfect and exact performance of all commanded Duties without omission of any c. But saith he supposing the perfection of the Divine Law and presupposing all men to be Sinners in part i. e. as to Sins Venial the former is impossible So Perkins Demonstrat Problem p. 117. Of the Fathers Volunt Supererogationem fieri non quod officium aliquod praestari possit ultra legem moralem integram as now the Papists hold sed quod fit 1suo Ultra negativam partem ut non furari c. 2suo Ultra actus externos 3suo Unum aliquod mandatum 4suo Ultra mandatum caeteris hominibus commune Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. 8. c. p. 196. Quis nescit fieri a nobis multa libere quae a Deo non sunt imperata voveri reddi In hoc tamen Supererogandi vis tota non est Erogare prius oportet summam integram quae imperata est nobis Erogare quicquid debitum a nobis Id ubi jam factum tum ultra illud amplius quid Supererogare Peccavit in praecepta quis quae debuit facere non fecit sed votivum nescio quid vel voluntarium praestitit Hoc jampraeter erogare est forte non super Where his Answerer Discovery of Dr. Andrews Absurdities p. 363. long ago observed That he would have Works of Supererogation to be such good works only as are done after the Precepts are fulfilled or fully observed and so quite changed the question as it is stated by Catholicks And 2ly beyond this That something more be performed by us than is any way due to God from us β. β. See the Reason given in the Fourteenth Article of the Church of England why the Doctrine of Works of Supererogation is arrogant and impious For saith the Article by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do i. e. absolutely in respect of all the Divine Precepts but that they do more ' for his sake than of bounden duty is required Whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are commanded you say We are unprofitable Servants Vossius Thes de bonis Operibus Quest 3. Thes 1 2. Cum nemo in hac infirmitate vitae praestet ea quae debet impia est eorum sententia qui plus aiunt proestare quam debet Refellit hoc etiam Christus apud Lucam 17.9 10. Bishop White 's Answer to Fisher p. 526. out of St. Bernard By the obligation of Gratitude we owe to the Almighty omne quod sumus possumus c. And 3ly As some Protestants add γ. γ. Dr. Hammond Of Will-worship § 52. vindicating himself in the holding Evangelical Counsels yet from maintaining works of Supererogation The Romanists saith he mean by Supererogating that after having sinned and so become debtors to God they have paid that debt by satisfaction i. e. done something else which may satisfy God for their former sins Which satisfaction they say they may perform so far as