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
19 2 Cor. 12.12 1 Cor. 2.4 Mark 6.20 required belief and submission to their doctrine and universal Tradition upon which the Church also requireth belief to the Scriptures the same Tradition that delivered the Scriptures delivering also such doctrines and expositions of Scriptures as are found in the Church So that a Pharisee searching and not finding in Scriptures by reason indeed that he searched them not aright such testimony of Jesus being the Messias as was pretended yet ought to have bin convinced and to have believed his doctrines from seeing his miracles and from hence also to have blamed his faulty search So a Berean searching and not finding in Scripture such evidence of S. Panl's doctrine suppose of the abrogation of the Judaical Law by Christ as was pretended yet ought to have believed it from the mighty works he saw done by S. Paul or from the authority he or the Council at Jer salem Act. 15. received from Jesus working Miracles and raised from the Dead as universal Tradition testified And the same may be said for the Churches Doctrines And therefore as there are some Scriptures that bid us search the Scriptures because if we do this aright we shall never find them to disagree from the Doctrines of the Church and beause some doctrines of the Church are also in the Scripture very evident so there are other Scriptures if those who are so ready to search them on other would search them also on this point that bids us hear the Church because our searching of Scriptures is liable sometimes to be mistaken and because in some things the Scriptures may seem difficult In which case God having referred us to the judgment of those whom he hath appointed to be the expounders thereof Deut. 17.8 9 10. Matt. 18.17 Luk. 10.16 cannot remit us again to the same Scriptures to try whether their expositions be right Therefore that Text Gal. 1.8 9. is far from any such meaning If the Church or Churchmen shall teach you any thing contrary to the Scriptures as you understand them let these he Anathema to you but rather it saith this If an Angel or I Apostatizing as some shall Act. 20.30 shall teach any thing contrary to the doctrines ye have received that is from the Church let him c. which makes not against but for the Churches Authority very much § 61 To the former Texts then mentioned § 56. this briefly may be returned To the three first Texts That a search of Scriptures concerning our Lord's or his Apostles doctrines is both allowed and recommended because the Scriptures rightly understood and these doctrines perfectly agree But a dissent from these doctrines if upon a search thought to be disagreeing which the Objectors would infer is not allowed from the reasons formerly given In the fourth Text the Apostle speaks of private Spirits to be tried whether of God by their conformity to the common doctrines of the Scripture and of the Church See 1 Cor. 14.29 32. The 5th includes a general trial as well by the directions and expositions of the Spiritual Guides as dictates of the Scriptures the Rule The 6th is expounded before If an Angel shall teach you any thing contrary to the doctrine you have received from Christ's Ministers or from the Church confirmed with Miracles let him be Anathema § 62 As for those things which are urged for the failing of the visible Church or at least of the major part of the Guides and chief Professors thereof under the Gospel As in the Scriptures die Prophecies of our Saviour Matt. 24.11 12. 24.38 Luke 18.8 compared with 7. Luk. 17 25 26 27 c. 21.35 and of the Apostles 2 Thes 2.3 1 Jo. 2.18 2 Tim. 3.1 1 Cor. 11.19 2 Pet. 2.1 c. Rev. 20. c. 13.20.8 9. and other places speaking of the power of Antichrist and of his sitting in the Church of God and in the Church-story the prevalency of Arrianism In answer to the former the Scriptures It is granted that it seems in these latter times of the world there shall be a great falling away from the faith but that it is from Christianity it self and from the Church as indeed we have already seen all those flourishing Churches of Asia and other Eastern and Southern parts once Christian now over-run by the Doctrine of the Great Prophet of God as he stiled himself Mahomet who sits and triumphs in those same places which were once the chiefest Churches of God and the love of many to Christ waxen cold by the abounding of iniquity and the terrible persections of the Turkish Empire the Image of the former Persecutor the Heathen Roman Empire to which Imago Mahomet's doctrine hath given life and vigor and this decession we have seen and what more shall be seen hereafter God knoweth But this argues not that Truth shall fail in all or the major part of the Doctors who remain still in the Church and profession of Christianity but that the Church it self shall sail of having so great an extent in the world or her Guides of being so many at some times as at others yet at all times sufficiently apparent § 63 Again In answer to the prevalency of Arrianism it seems that in these later times there shall be a falling away too within the profession of Christianity from the faith i.e. from that faith which is orthodox by many dangerous Heresies and Schisms from time to time arising in the Church whilst many formerly members of it shall separate from it 1 Jo. 2.19 but shall always apparently be known by their departure from it but it follows not that any of these Sects within shall ever have so great or so long a growth as to be able to out-number the Body of the Church or the true Teachers Concerning which many are of opinion that the Orthodox Communion in all times shall exceed not Infidels but yet any other Sect especially of one Communion as it is professing Christianity both for the multitude of people and extent of several Nations See Tryal of doctrines § 30 31 c. and particularly concerning Arrianism in 2. Disc conc the Guide in Controversy § 26. As for Antichrist the story of whom hath given occasion of a contrary fancy especially amongst the Reformed I shall elsewhere I think sufficiently clear to you that he shall profess an Antichristianity and oppose the Gospel in general or if at some time such Sect shall out-number the Church it self yet as was said before it shall stand in an external Communion separate from the Church and also formerly expelled by the Church when these did not outnumber it and tho afterwards these shall grow never so numerous yet the remnant of Orthodox Believers how small soever continuing in the same body will not cease to be truly and only Catholick without them neither have these any right or will be permitted to vote in her Councils which Councils to be truly General need to be no larger than the Church
c. concluding Nec enim ignoramus unum Deum esse unum Christum unum Spiritum Sanctum unum Episcopum in Catholica Ecclesia esse debere Vnum i. e. I suppose unum supereminent in power to the rest the better to preserve the Church's Unity § 33 Lastly The passages of those Ancients who were in some difference with the Bishop of Rome which upbraid him for challenging such power seem to me good arguments that such power and authority over other Churches and Bishops was then so early assum'd by him So Tertullian de Pudicitia c. 21. living in the beginning of the third Age when now a Montanist and rigidly opposing the Absolution and restitution to the Church of lapsed Christians tho penitents which thing was practis'd by the Bishop of Rome mentions there in Irony his Titles of Pontifex Maximus and Episcopus Episcoporum and thus expostulates with him Vnde hoc jus Ecclesiae i. e. of absolving such sinners usurpas Si quia dixerit Petro Dominus super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam Tibi dedi claves regni Coelorum vel quaecunque alligaveris c. Qualis es evertens atque commutans manifestam Domini intentionem personaliter hoc Petro conferentem c. But note that Tertullian here in the Protestants judgment errs absolution of sinners penitent being not personal to Peter or the Apostles but common not only to the Roman Bishop but all the successive Clergy for ever So Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea Cappadociae in his Epistle to St. Cyprian the 75th amongst Cyprian's when very passionate in the matter of Rebaptizing those formerly Baptiz'd only by Hereticks and as it seems by Eus Ec. H. l. 7. c. 4. either punish'd or threaten'd with Excommunication by Stephen Bishop of Rome for it and also being his opposite in the controversie about Easter thus inveighs against him Ego in hac parte juste indignor quod qui sic de Episcopatus sui loco gloriatur se successionem Petri tenere contendit super quem fundamenta Ecclesiae collocata sunt multas alias Petras inducat Ecclesiarum multarum nova aedificia constituat dum esse illic i.e. Heretical Churches baptisma sua authoritate defendit Stephanus qui per successionem Cathedram Petri habere se praedicat nullo adversus haereticos zelo exeitatur c. i.e. in disallowing and nulling their Baptism Eos autem qui Romae sunt non ea in omnibus observare quae sint ab origine tradita frustra Apostolorum authoritatem praetendere scire quis etiam inde potest c. where he blames their keeping of Easter differently from others in the Asian Churches Qui gloriatur qui praedicat qui praetendit therefore such titles and such gloriation there was and such authority challenged by the Roman Bishops which he calls in that Epistle ruptio pacis long before the Nicen Council and the judgments and the pretended Apostolical traditions of these Bishops tho by these mistaken men censured and opposed yet by the orthodox followed and embraced § 34 As for the two places urged out of S. Cyprian against the acknowledgment of any such power or superiority of one Bishop over another and consequently of the Bishop of Rome the one out of the Council of Carthage in his works wherein being President he saith Neminem judicantes aut a jure communionis aliquem si diversum senserit amoventes Neque enim quisquam nostrum Episcopum se esse Episcoporum constituit aut tyrannico terrrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adigit quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentia libertatis potestatis suae arbitrium proprium tamque judicari ab alio non possit quam nec ipse potest judicare Sed expectemus universi judicium Domini nostri Jesu Christi qui unus solus habet Potestatem de actu nostro judicandi And the other in the close of his and the Councils Epistle to Stephen Epistle 72. where he saith Haec ad conscientiam tuam Frater Charissime i.e. Stephane pertulimus credentes etiam tibi pro religionis tuae fidei veritate placere quae religiosa pariter vera sunt Caeterum scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint nolle disponere nec proposstum sâ—um facile mutare sed salvo inter collegas pacis concordiae vinculo quaedam propria retinere Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus cum habeat in Ecclesiae administratione voluntatis suae arbitrium iberum unusquisque Praepositus or Bishop rationem actus sui Domino redditurus In the first of these places the Father speaks of all Bishops having their free votes in the Council none lording it over the rest nor they to give account of such vote save to God alone This seems clear from the words immediately preceding Superest ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus proferamus neminem judicantes c. which words they are pleased not to mention with the rest In the second he only saith of himself and the Council That they did not vim facere nor legem dare cuiquam Collegarum By which colleagues he means not Stephen the Bishop of Rome or any foreign but only some African Bishops who having no such former custom of rebaptizing any dissented from that Council's judgment as may be collected both from the words preceding here credimus tibi placere and from the former Epistle 71. to Quintus where he saith Nescio qua praesumptione ducuntur quidam de collegis nostris ut putent eos qui apud haereticos tincti sunt quando ad nos venerint baptizari non oportere this being spoken of his collegues Et qui hoc illis patrocinium de authoritate sua praestat cedit illis consentit c. this being spoken of Stephen who countenanced his African collegues But be these collegues whom they please of them I ask Were they subordinate and subject to this Council or not If they were then legem non damus must not be made equivalent to non licet dare And in doubtful matters as this must needs be on Cyprian's side going against the former general practice of the Church except that of his Predecessors t is many times great prudence legem non dare where there is a legislative power or if they were not subordinate then indeed non licuit legem illis dare But this rule non licet c. cannot be extended to other Governors where there is a subordination of others to them Now as there are Bishops and Councils coequal who therefore may not give the law to one another as the Bishop of one Diocess or one Provincial Council cannot regulate another so there are Bishops and Councils superior to others as above an ordinary Bishop are Metropolitans Primats Patriarchs above Councils Provincial are Patria chal General Therefore either S. Cyprian's words must not be so far extended as to assert
obey whilst meanwhile he believeth God to have commanded the contrary and that hence only he thinketh it lawful for him to do it not because God hath commanded it or hath not commanded the contrary but because God hath commanded him to obey his Superiors tho erring and decreeing a thing sometimes contrary to God's command Let it be so This sufficeth our purpose so that constant obedience be allowed to these Judges and that what they command we ought to do not only in matters of Penalty but of Duty Thus Schism is excluded thus Peace is preserved perpetually in God's Church § 10 To make things a little plainer by an instance Suppose that a controversy arose between a bounden Servant and his Master whether he were to obey his Masters commands in watering his cattel on the Sabbath day the servant arguing from Exod. 20 10. in it thou shalt do no manner of work that this is by God prohibited The matter upon this is brought before these Judges and decided for the master here the servant is bound to water the cattle of his master and therefore bound to think it not unlawful to do since none may do what they think must law and if he think it not unlawful to do so he must either now change his former opinion and think God's law not to have prohibited it or at least God to have bound him by another law to do some thing sometimes he thinks but is not certain that God's law prohibits namely so often as these Judges who are appointed God's substitutes to expound his law do mis-intepret it For in the judgment also of Protestants God hath upon some suppositions obliged us to believe and give assent to the determinations and injunctions of an erring Guide namely of our Spiritual Governours in matters Theological where ever we our selves doubt of the truth and have no certain evidence of the contrary to what they enjoin us yet in which injunctions they do grant these Governours both may and do sometimes err So likewise an erroneous conscience is granted to oblige us and that from the Divine command who hath made it sin to do otherwise which conscience also sometimes errs faultlesty i. e. out of an invincible ignorance Take therefore of the two former ways which you will the duty of the servant rectifying his opinion or of obeying the Judge and acting contrary to his-opinion where note that in such obeying he still follows his conscience for he obeys here because he first thinks that he ought to obey Obedience is the product but Obedience in the former notion is an act of more humility and charity § 11 Having faid this to explain the quality of the obedience required in this place I will set you down what Mr. Hooker hath commented upon it in his Preface sect 6. writing against Puritans and so speaking much of subordination of private opinion to the determination of Ecclesiastical authority God saith he was not ignorant that the Priests and Judges whose sentence in matters of controversy he ordained should stand both might and oftentimes would be deceived in their judgments howbeit better it was in the eye of his understanding that sometimes an erroneous sentence definitive should prevail till the same authority perceiving such oversight might afterwards correct or reverse it than that strifes should have respit to grow and not come speedily unto some end Then answering the Objection of doing nothing against Conscience ' Neither wish we saith he that men should do any thing which in their hearts they are perswaded they ought not not to do but we say this perswasion ought to be fully setled in their hearts that in litigious and controverted causes of such quality here what exceptions Mr. Hooker makes matters not for the Text makes none ' the Will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of Judicial and Final Decisions shall determine yea tho it seems in their private Opinion to swerve utterly from that which is right as no doubt many times the sentence among the Jews did unto one or other party contending and yet in this case God did then allow them to do that which in their private judgment it seemed yea and perhaps truly seemed that the Law did disallow Thus Mr. Hooker Whose last words seem to me to say either that we are to submit our private opinion or judgment i. e. those reasons that we have from the thing to think the contrary to the judgment of this Court i. e. to another reason which we have drawn from Authority Of which is spoken largely elsewhere in Obligation of Judgment § 2 c. Or else that retaining still our private Opinion yet we ought to practice contrary to what it dictates by reason of God's commanding us absolute Obedience to this Court. Which tho it doth err sometimes perhaps in matters less necessary yet much oft'ner should we err if not thus restrain'd and subjected to it And of two evils or human infirmities the lesser is to be chosen Therefore also in Secular affairs the Soldier is punished when he doth that which is better if he doth this against his General 's Command because indeed by such a liberty indulg'd how much oft'ner would he do that which is worse § 12 To this place of Deuteronomy upon which you will excuse my long stay for the freeing it from several faulty restrictions may be added many more Texts of the Old Testament to the same purpose See Ezech. 44.24 where the Prophet in the end of his Prophecy describing typically under the ancient Ceremonies the restauration and flourishing condition of God's Church at last amongst other recites this Law Deut. 17. In controversie they the Priests shall stand in judgment and they shall judg it according to my judgments See Hag. 2.11 Thus saith the Lord of Hosts Ask now the Priests saying If one bear c. According to which command the Prophet consulted them and receiv'd an answer from them ver 12 13. See Mal. 2.7 where chiding the Priests causing many to fall in the Law the Lord faith The Priests lips shall keep knowledg and they the People shall seek the Law at his mouth For he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts If he therefore err no remedy but the People must fall See Deut. 33.9 10. comp Eccl. 45.17 And see Hos 4.4 where when God would express the extream perverseness and obstinacy of his people he compares them to those that contend with and shew disobedience to their Priest Likewise the Priest's putting difference between holy and unholy clean and unclean and accordingly admitting men to or separating them from the Congregation and in the readmission of these exercising the Ceremonies of their Cleansings for which see Lev. 10.10 11 Ezech. 44.23 Lev. ch 13. 14. are only Metaphors of the Church's Authority in Judging what is and what is not sin and trespass against God's Law in Excommunicating those whose continue in sin and in
unity therein One Lord one Faith one Body one Spirit an unity of the Spirit kept in the bond of peace v. 3. see Heb. 13.7 9 17. The like obedience commanded to be given to these Church-rulers in respect of Doctrine and Faith Remember them who have the rule over you and who have spoken unto you the Word of God whose faith follow Jesus Christ the same for ever Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines Obey them c. for they watch for your souls as they that must give account Account for the Precepts they give you and for the Doctrines they teach you Add to these those Texts of the Apostle charging Christians to be all of one judgment to speak the same thing not to be wise in their own conceits 1 Cor. 1.10 Rom. 12.16 15.5 6. Phil. 1.27 3.16 where the Apostle seemeth not to mean their condescendence for opinion one to another for which rather who shall so yeild will still be in debate but their union in the doctrine of their Spiritual Superiors in which he would have them all to acquiesce See 1 Cor. 4.16 17. 11.1 2. Phil. 3.17 Rom. 16.17 2 Thes 3.14 the succeeding Ecclesiastical Superiors being commanded still to retain and continue the doctrine of their Predecessors 1 Tim. 1.3 2 Tim. 1.13 2.2 After the forenamed mission Eph. 4.11 see 1 Cor. 14.29.32 where the Apostle amongst other things submits also the doctrines of the Prophets to the judgment of the Prophets let the other judge and 1 Tim. 4.11 6.3.5 and Titus 1.11 and 3.10 11. where he gives order to the Church-governours Tim. and Titus that touching error and heresy in matter of faith such persons if any discovered after due admonishment should be withdrawn from should be excommunicated and silenced by him their persons rejected c. 3. their mouths stopt c. 1. § 44 See for the 3d. Act. 15.2 c. where a controversy riseing in the Church of Antioch by reason of some teaching there that the Gentiles were to be circumcised and to keep the Mosaical Law without any such commandment from their Superiors Act. 15.44 who were opposed by Paul and Barnabas the Antiochians tho many amongst them having eminent gifts of the Spirit do repair for a final decision thereof to the judgment of the Apostles at Jerusalem where after an Assembly called v. 6. we find a consulting and disputing on this matter from the believing Pharisees still zealous of their law and then a giving of their several votes and a deciding of it not from pretence of immediate inspiration or revelation but from arguments 1. Of Gods converting the Gentiles shewed in several instances and giving them the Holy Ghost as to the Jews without any previous using such Jewish ceremonies And 2ly from the Predictions of the Prophets concerning the calling of the Gentiles in the latter days as a distinct people not to be translated by circumcision c into the Jewish Religion but to be transplanted and counited together with the sews into the Christian v. 7 12 13 19. After this the sending of their Constitutions to the particular Churches under this stile It seemed good unto the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you c. v. 28. See again 1 Tim. 1.20 compared with 2 Tim. 2.17 18. and 4.14 15. the Apostle excommunicating Hymeneas Alexander and others for their false doctrines and see Rev. 2 2 14 15 20. the Lord Jesus commending the Angel i.e. Bishop of the Church of Ephesus for trying and not tolerating or bearing with the false Apostles and reprehending the Angels of the Churches of Thyatira and Pergamas for the contrary for their suffering the false Prophetess Jezabel to teach and seduce his servants and for their tolerating the Nicolaitans who indulged the Christians more liberty 2 Pet. 2.18 19. in complying with Heathen Religions and held it lawful to eat of their sacrifices and to commit fornications like them some unnatural ones also which usually accompanied Idolatry See 1 Kings 14.24 15.12 2 K. 23.7 § 45 Thus have I shew'd you 1. That by the Church Mat. 18.17 which is to be complain'd and repair'd to in matters of trespasses unreform'd and to be heard and obey'd upon pain of being reckon'd as an Heathen and Publican of Excommunication and being bound both in Earth and Heaven Mat. 18.18 that by this Church I say is meant the Clergy 2. The Clergy of one Age as well as another 3. This Clergy to be heard and obey'd as well in matters of Theological Controversies and of Doctrines as in any other matters as well in these if not more Now 4ly That this Hearing and Obedience due to them is not only an obligation of non-contradicting but of assenting to such their Doctrines and Decisions of Controversies so far as they require assent appears likewise from the aforenam'd Texts as likewise those following Because these Church-Officers are call'd Teachers and Guides which have reference to Truth as well as Judges and Rulers which have reference to Peace and we charg'd to hear them as Christ who also have receiv'd from Christ a Spirit leading them into all Truth and a promise that the Gates of Hell shall never prevail against them c. Of which more anon Again Because they are said to be set over the Church that there may be in it an unity of faith Eph. 4.13 and one faith ver 5. and not only a bond of peace but an unity of the spirit and of judgment and speaking the same thing c. Eph. 4.13 3. 1 Cor. 1.10 That their Subjects may not be carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men not carried about with them i.e. not believe them Now he who by these Superiors may be restrain'd from believing them is hereby enjoin'd to believe the contradictories of them namely the Positions of the Church and if the people are enjoin'd to believe this then also their Seducers But were the people oblig'd only to the obedience of non-contradiction and not of assent toward such Superiors then whereas some Tenents are exclusive of Salvation and many more having dangerous effects upon the lives and manners of Christians see Act. 15.24 2 Pet. 3.16 and wherefore are the Teachers prohibited if the Doctrines were not pernicious and to be renounc'd Yet is there no Church-authority which can afford any remedy to this great evil It can indeed provide for its own peace but not its subjects safety whilst it must tolerate the liberty of all tho destructive opinions and may exact no more than a non-gainsaying Again Because it is clear that these Church-Guides may not only reject and excommunicate false Teachers and Seducers but the Heretical also when any way they come to be discover'd guilty thereof consider Tit. 3.10 11. where observe ver 11. that their autocatacrisie or being condemn'd by their own Conscience tho there be no endeavour by divulging their Heresie of infecting other men's Consciences therewith is render'd a
not also after this be reasonably deduced that they are so too for all other truths that are so far necessary as that the error contrary to them some way hazards salvation or by some consequence overthroweth any absolutely necessary truth I say may not this also reasonably be concluded for these Reasons 1. Because we find no restriction of our Saviour's promise of assistance only for these absolutely necessary fundamentals and there must be granted need of this his assistance further so long as there is granted further danger 2. Because if we confine the non-failing guidance of these Church-guides only to absolute necessaries this will not extend so far as the points of the three Creeds a very few Articles of which are by the Learned thought Truths absolutely necessary 3. Because those of the Church-Doctors will not consent to an universal inerrability of these Church-guides but restrain it only to some truths whereas the Scriptures make no limitation but do it on such pretences as these 1. Because those wherein they say these may err are by-and unnecessary truths to which the Churches curiosity or weakness may carry her beyond her Rule See Bishop Laud § 21. n. 5. 2ly Because they are unprofitable curiosities and unnecessary subtilities for which the Promise was not made because Deus non abundat in superfluis Because they are such points as may be variously held and disputed without hurt or prejudice to faith See Dr. Potter § 5. p. 150. c. 3ly So then in all dangerous points as well as in absolutely necessary the Divine assistance and the Church-guides infallibility I hope will be still allowed 2ly They say the Church errs not in absolutely Fundamentals because the Word of God in all such points is so plainly and manifestly delivered unto Her that it is not possible that she should universally fall from it or teach against it See Bishop Laud § 21. n. 5 But then there seems also to be good reason why other points dangerous to salvation or undermining fundamentals should be delivered clearly in the same Word of God or if not clearly there is the more reason still that the Churches-guides should be infallibly assisted in these which both are dangerous and the Churches Rule the Scriptures in them obscure See more of this in Ch. Government 2. part § 32. 7. If these Church-guides have at least a Promise to be infallible in Necessaries § 50 this again setting aside now those forementioned texts which enjoin it will infer the obedience of Assent at least to some of their decisions namely those made in Necessaries for who can deny assent to a granted infallible Proponent And if assent must be granted to them in necessaries then as Mr. Chillingworth most acutely observed to all that they shall judge a Necessary If saith he p. 150. the Church be an infallible Director in Fundamentals then must we not only learn fundamentals of Her but also learn of Her what is fundamental and take for fundamental which she believes to be such In performance whereof saith he if I knew any one Church to be infallible I would quickly be of that Church This will hold at least for so many of Christians as will not pretend the skill themselves of separating necessaries and not-necessaries And these Church-guides judging what is necessary especially if they take it in such a larger sence as we have shewed but now that they have reason to presume of our Saviour's assistance therein then perhaps so many of their decisions will receive from them the denomination of Necessary as that we shall not think meet whilst assenting to all these to dissent from them in the rest But however if we yeild assent to all these good reason there is why we should also in all the rest abstracting from matters of fact and matters not Spiritual only putting in this exception unless any happen to be infallibly certain of the contrary to what they decide for whosoever is so I grant cannot yeild assent but how any one should be so debarring new revelations and his having any Divine evidence which the Church-guides have not as well as He I do not see especially when also having proposed to these Church-guides all the reasons and grounds of his infallible certainty yet he hath not made them so § 51 But if any one be so infallibly certain yet I say all the rest of Christians who have not attain'd such certainty have good reason to yeild assent to these Church-Guides also in all their Decisions even touching non-necessaries 1. Seeing that if I may transfer the Apostle's argument 1 Cor. 6. 3. from persons to things these being set over us to regulate our Judgment in the greatest matters how can they be conceiv'd unfit to do it in the lesser 2. Seeing that by our not-yeilding assent to all their Decisions even those also in non-necessaries so long as they have made no distinct partition of these two we may incur a peril of with-drawing our assent in some thing necessary but by assenting to all we are sure to have a right perswasion in all necessaries wherein these Guides have a Warrant not to fail but not so private men undertaking to Guide themselves 3. Seeing that in our erring together with our Guides who are thus also to give an account for our errors Heb. 13.17 so long as it is in non-necessaries our condition is not dangerous but on the other side there may be a great fault in us in denying due obedience tho in small matters 4. Seeing that those who most vindicate the liberty of their own judgments do to make these Guides the more liable to fallibility in non-necessaries plead the Scriptures to be in such points less perspicuous but on the contrary this imperspicuity of them in the Scriptures argues the more need in them of Guides 5. Seeing that private men have reason to presume that the Judment of so many so learned so ancient as these Ecclesiastical Courts use to consist of is where not absolutely infallible yet much to be preferr'd before their own i.e. that of one single person or of a few not so learned not so experienc'd So Children wisely follow their Parents and Scholars their Masters tho fallible Judgments Or putting our selves equal every-way in parts in learning c. to all these yet what help or means have we or what diligence do we use to discern Truth which these do not Consult we former Church and Tradition so do they And since the Writings of the Fathers as well as the Divine are liable to divers constructions and misunderstandings doubtless their exposition of these as well as of the Scriptures is to be preferr'd to private men's Again these present Church-Guides in any opposition or difference from the former Church-Guides having as high an authority as they if we pretend to yeild obedience to the one so we must to the other Consult we the Holy Scriptures and what Scriptures have we which they
honestis or the like licitis I mean lege divina But if we have any doubt concerning this we are to repair from him not to our own judgment but to the Spiritual Magistrates and according as they shall declare the lawfulness or unlawfulness hereof we are to yeild or withdraw our active obedience to the Civil neither can this Civil Magistrate justly punish us for not observing his Laws when pronounc'd by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate opposite to the Divine And in such case we may answer to them as the Apostles who were then the chief Ecclesiastical Judges twice answer'd to the Sanedrim which was then exauthorized that we ought to obey God rather than men But to the Ecclesiastcal Magistrate we owe an obedience advanc'd beyond the former limitation being not only to do what they command if it be lawful or subscribe or swear to what they require if it be true but to believe that to be lawful or unlawful that to be truth or error I say in these Divine matters what they tell us is so without repairing concerning these to any other Judg. We are to yeild the same obedience to these Delegates of Christ our Lord touching Divine Laws as to a Temporal Supreme Legislator concerning his own Laws that are made in things left purely indifferent by the Divine Laws The Commands of which Temporal Legislators in the foresaid matters we are to obey not only when we our selves judg that they do accord with his Laws but also when we doubt of the meaning of his Laws we are to learn their true sense from him to obey him in all his Laws and to know from him what are his Laws For as he or his Delegates have authority to determine Controversies concerning the Secular Laws to put an end to contentions so have I shew'd the Church Magistrates to have to determine Controversies concerning the Divine Laws § 56 Against this so absolute Obedience and Submission of Judgment to the Church-Governors under the Gospel there are several Scriptures urg'd and necessary to be explain'd before we proceed further which Scriptures seem to licence all men lest perhaps they should be misguided to try and that by the same Scriptures their Teachers Doctrines that so if not finding their Doctrine according with these Scriptures they may so far withhold their assent to them For this are urg'd first Joh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life and they testifiâ— of me 2ly Act. 5 17.1â— These the Bereans were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they receiv'd the word that Paul preach'd to them with all readiness of mind and search'd the Scriptures daily whether those things were so 3ly 1 Cor. 10.15 I speak as to wise men Judg ye what I say 4ly 1 Joh 4.1 Try the Spirits whether they be of God 5ly 1 Thes 5.21 Prove all things hold fast that which is good 6ly Gal. 1.8 9. Though we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel to you then that which we have preach'd unto you let him be accursed To which Texts is added the utter uselesness as to Spiritual matters of private Judgment in such an universal submission requir'd to a Judg. § 57 In Answer to these Texts First it is to be noted in general That trial of Doctrines by Scriptures is either of the Doctrines of private Teachers made by the Church-Governors of which trial no question is made Or of the Doctrines of private Teachers made by private men And these also they may try by the Scriptures so that they guide themselves lest our trial be mistaken in the sense of these Scriptures according to the Exposition thereof by the Church i.e. in her General Councils or in the most unanimous consent of those whom our Saviour departing left to be the Guides of the Church and Expositors of the Scriptures And if thus searching we find the Doctrines of our Teachers contrary to the Scriptures so expounded we may and ought to with-draw our belief from them Or this trial 3ly by Scriptures is of the doctrines of the Church i.e. of those doctrines which are deliver'd not by a private Teacher but by a general consent of the Church-guides at least the fullest that we can discover Or by General or other Superior Councils or by the Apostles or by our Saviour himself 1. Now the allowance of such a trial may be understood in two senses 1. Either in this sense Search or try my or our Doctrine by the Scriptures for you will surely find my Doctrine agreeing thereunto if you do search right and as you ought and in this sense the trial by the Scriptures of the Doctrines of the Church nay of the Apostles S. Paul's by the Bereans nay of Christ himself Whether the Old Testament as he urged testified of him is both allowed and recommended for since there is no difference of the teaching of Christ or of S. Paul or of the Church from the teaching of the Scripture the one will never fear but freely appeal to a trial by the other if it be rightly made § 58 2. Or 2ly it may be understood in this sence Search and try my Doctrine by the Scriptures and if you in the search do not perceive it agreeable unto them I declare that you have no reason to believe or that you are excusable in rejecting my Doctrine Now in this sence our Saviour or St. Paul or the other Scriptures never recommended private mens searching or gave any such priviledge to it unless you put this clause that they have searched aright But if you put in this clause then is the searcher after his searching not yet at liberty to disbelieve the Apostles or the Churches doctrine till he is sure first that he hath searched aright I say our Saviour or the Scriptures cannot recommend Searching in such a sence or upon such conditions § 59 1. First because such a Searcher or Tryer by the Scriptures there may be as is prejudiced by passion or interest or miseducation or as searcheth negligently and coldly or as hath not a sufficient capacity to understand the Scriptures he searcheth when perhaps it is in some difficult point wherein they are not so clear as if he should search the text of the Old Testament in the point delivered by St. Paul of the abrogating of Circumcision under the Gospel neither can any body be secure of his dis-engagement from all such letts of using a right judgment in searching § 60 2. Because however the Search or the Searcher prove there are other means and m diums by which is proved to men the truth of such doctrines and by which not bearing witness to a falsity one may discover himself to have made his search of Scripture amiss so often as he thinks it to contradict them Such mediums are Miracles and other mighty operations done by the power of the Holy Ghost upon which our Saviour Jo. 5.36 and elsewhere and S. Paul Rom. â—5
Catholick is of which declared Hereticks are no part And thus the Church shall still be to the end of the world a City upon a Hill and united within it self even in its greatest persecutions conspicuous to those who sincerely bend their course to it Again it seems that near the time of the worlds dissolution from this total Apostacy through great persecutions from the faith in some and from the sound doctrines of the Orthodox faith in others because both false Religions and such Heretical doctrines as the Apostles speak do all tend some way or other to vitiousness of life to libertinism and inducements of the flesh See 2 Pet. 2.3 10 18 19. Phil. 3.18 19. 1 Tim. 6.5 2 Tim. 3.2 7. c. see Trial of Doctrines § 32. there shall abound very great wickedness and much security amongst the then heavy oppressors of God's Church much what like to the days of Noah and of Lot when God shall come upon them unexpectedly to judgment But this is no failing of the Church which shall then remain an Holy City at unity in it self see Rev. 20.9 And if also within the Church it self the vitious shall out-number the pious neither is this any prejudice to the truth of the Churches doctrines since the same thing happens less or more in all ages that the wicked here-in are more than the good as St. Austin hath taken notice and much pains to prove to the Donatists urging some of the former texts De unitate Ecclesiae 12. 13. c. § 64 Thus much of the first head proposed before § 1. viz. The Clergies being delegated by our Lord departing hence the infallible preservers of all Truth and Necessary faith and supreme Judges in all controversies arising therein Now to proceed to the 2d Next this Authority to secure it for ever from any decay or interruption thereof is given them to the end of the world without dependance on any save the Lord Jesus they being Embassadors of salvation from the King of Kings to all Nations and so to be every where free from all violation For which there is the greatest reason since their constitutions are such as cannot do the least wrong or hurt to any secular dominion nay brings great security to it and since this their Ministery because without a Sword can be no Government or Discipline comes armed only with a Spiritual sword and not a Temporal and lastly since Christianity the Doctrine they plant gives no man any priviledge interest or advantage by it in this world or for Secular matters but maintains every Kingdom and State in the same condition wherein it finds it and only obligeth men to pray always for such State 1 Tim. 2.2 and to yeild all strict obedience to it Rom. 13.1 1 Pet. 2.13 and upon no pretence of maintaining Religion to use or to advise to use the material Sword or any otherwise to defend the truth than 1. by confessing it 1. in practising its Precepts at all times among which yet one necessary-one is publick assembling together to worship God c. Ecclesiacticos coetus humanis legibus interdictos ob divinum praeceptum Christiani intermittere non possunt Grot. sum Imp. circa sacra and 2ly by suffering for it The Christian profession therefore never troubles the Civil peace which cannot be broken but by Arms and therefore whatsoever disturbs the civil peace may be lawfully punished on any person whatsoever by the temporal Sovereign power for it is not the Christian profession I say lawfully purished unless in respect of some persons such temporal Magistrate make over this power to another which thing doubtless may be lawfully done if for example the Prince shall not think it so decent c that he should sit in Judgment and inflict corporal punishment upon a Bishop his Spiritual Father by whom he is to be guided and corrected and if need be censured and Spiritually punished concerning greater matters see 1 Cor. 6.3 Or That the Priest one day should summon the Civil Magistrate to his Tribunal the next the Magistrate Him or upon other reasons And perhaps This remitting of the Trial of Clergy-men even in Civil matters to their Spiritual Superiors so that the Secular power only useth the Temporal sword upon them when the other deliver them up to it as it may preserve more reverence in the people toward the Ministry so may it conduce to a more severe animadversion from such Judges supposing the Fathers of the Church to be of that sanctity and integrity which they do profess upon such Malefactors than any other way could And whether it was upon these or some other motives t is plain that such Concessions by several Emperors and Princes have bin made to the Church § 65 And the Judgment also when such disturbance is shall belong to his not to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal So Solomon confin'd Ahiathar the High-Priest 1 Kin. 2.26 27 compar'd with ch 4 v. 4. whom had he pleas'd he might also have put to death see 1 King 2.26 27. not for Error but for Rebellion not that the King may meddle or hath any power or Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical affairs over or in opposition to the Priest to do any thing save the assisting the Spiritual Sword with his Temporal and the using his Civil power for the service of the Church See Calv. Instit l. 4. c. 11. s 15. For the Priest having lawful power to excommunicate the Civil Magistrate for Heretical Opinions How can again the Civil Magistrate have a lawful power for the same cause to depose the Priest But over Ecclesiastical persons medling without his leave and beyond their Lord's Commission in affairs Temporal But then if the Secular power in his taking care of the Commonwealth's safety is pleas'd to Decree the Church's Religious Assemblies either for worshipping God or composing Laws for the Church to be Conspiracy or make their Preaching or coming within his Territories Treason only because they possibly may for how can any be sent by Christ to whom this may not be objected not because it is proved that they do any hurt to it or provoked by some particular persons who transgressing their Commission from Christ do some acts or hold some opinions prejudicial to the safety thereof should therefore condemn and execute all others of the same Order against whom the same fault cannot be prov'd and who abjure such horrid Tenents should he interpret any their medling with his Subjects whom our Saviour sends unarm'd like Lambs among Wolves to be subverting of his State and their Spiritual Sword inconsistent with or frustrating his Temporal he now usurps upon our Saviour's Authority and they must go on through all his Torments by way of the Cross which shall certainly conquer at last not of the Sword with which those Ministers shall perish that take it up Mat. 26.52 against those powers to which only it is committed Rom 13.14 to do their Office with that answer to him Act.
for a false Religion we find this done in wicked Jeroboam and consequently we read of his making for his new Religion also new Priests § 69 Thus I say the Temporal authority may much advance and further the Spiritual but no Secular power hath the least authority in Spiritual matters to act contrary to those who are Ministers of Christ's power and unreasonable it is to think that he may do more against them who is part of their flock than the Heathen Princes might do who had no relation and if Christianity entring into any country changeth not any laws thereof but confirms all obedience thereto then neither may the civil Government admitted into Christianity abridge any of its priviledges which priviledges may as well subsist with a Christian Sovereignty as they have done with a Heathen But if they offer any violence unto it the Church to whom not to them God hath committed his flock may and ought as it also often hath with the weapons Christ hath given her to oppose them and tho not to fight yet to speak to profess to suffer and die for the cause See the opposition the Priests made to Vzziah generally a good Prince 2 Chron. 26.18 and that of Athanasius and Alexander Bishops of Alexandria and Constantinople to Constantine requiring the restoring of Arius Excommunicated and that of Ambrose to Theodosius Neither can the Bishops at any time excuse their not governing and defending and patronizing the flock of Christ under pretence either of the care that Christian Princes their Sovereigns have of it or enmity they have to it For either these Princes second their authority and then they have all encouragement to exercise it or else they oppose and persecute it and then they are to do no less than their Predecessors did in the Primitive bloody times taking up their Cross and following Christ and their Leaders which had they not done Christianity had not descended so far as us and if these do not the same it cannot be propagated to posterity See more of this subject in Church-government part 1. § 70 Obj. But what if all or the much greater part of the Clergy run into error may not the Temporal Magistrate then Reform it I answer 1. That concerning points or truths necessary to salvation the Supposition is impossible until our Saviour shall cancel his promise of their indefectibility in such necessaries 2ly That for any other Spiritual matters wherein perhaps they may err yet the Temporal Magistrate may not reform because he that in Spiritual things is to learn of them what is truth and what error can never judge when they err unless they first tell him so What you will say cannot judge when as he hath the Holy Scriptures left to demonstrate to him truth and error I ask were they left to him alone or hath he any evidence therefrom which the Clergy hath not Or doth the Secular man study them more than they who make this their employment and trade Yes but their eyes are blinded in many things with self-interest namely in those which some way concern their own priviledges c. 1. Then in all Doctrines no way advancing the priviledges of the Church the Prince may not swerve from its judgment Well it were if but so much were observed But 2ly For these matters of interest it were something that were said if where the Ecclesiastical power were interested on the one side of the controversy the Secular power which claims right to judge were not as much on the other and whatever priviledges were taken from the one were not devolved upon the other For example If Henry 8th and his Lords had took the Supremacy in Church-affairs from the Pope and not transferred on themselves it were something tho not sufficient that were said but in such concernments men being equal judge in which we have reason to expect the more integrity that they will not claim more than their due But 3ly Suppose that our Saviour had granted his Church some great priviledges as such a thing is possible either these priviledges by them must not be maintained or such a cavil cannot be prevented But methinks this is enough to preserve truth in their sentence who are most accounted men of conscience tho in matters concerning themselves That by a false judgment a greater interest hereafter is lost than is for the present gained § 71 But here observe of those who upon many such-like pretences rob the Church of her Legislative power for Spiritual matters that they cannot place it else where tho they try several ways nor yet deny any such power at all but with great absurdities and mischief sometime or other to truth and the Christian profession Some of them bestow it on the Civil Magistrate without limitation so as to oblige all men without disputing to obey whatever in these things he determines as a Country-man of ours But this is so gross a tenent I need spend no labour to shew the many horrible consequences thereof Some again bestow it upon the same supreme Magistrate so as to oblige men only to obey him I mean actively in what they think not contrary to the Divine Laws and for other things which they think contrary not to resist any punishment inflicted on them for not obeying actively i. e. in believing and practising as that Magistrate appoints Thus G. Vossius H. Grotius Jus Imp. circa Sacra and ordinarily Protestants Vossius represents the matter briefly thus in an Epistle inserted in Praestantium Virorum Ep. p. 167. Synodi falli possunt Magistratus non debet iis credere propter se sed quia consentiunt cum Scripturis Canonibus antiquis Et haec Synodus et ille errori est obnoxius sed hoc non impedit quo minus Synodi Officium sit dirigere intellectum in cognitionem veri tum magistratus imperare quod rectum est salutare Quodsi illa dirigit male non ideo hic imperabit male si hic imperet malum non ideo subditi parere debent in malo Sed Magistraetus subditus unusquisque aget quod sui esse officii Scriptura Ecclesiae Catholicae consensus recta ratio persuaserit i. e. what Scripture Church or Reason seems to him to perswade But may the Magistrate then punish here those that disobey his commands Yes saith he Rex illud imperare debet quod in verbo jussit Deus paenarum comminatione obstringere ad illud subditor potest nec in his imperium detrectare cuiquam licet In his if he means which both Prince and Subject are agreed to be God's Word this is certain But mean-while if the Subject apprehends that contrary to God's Word which the Magistrate saith is not and commands as his Word here the Subject may and ought to disobey him And upon this the question still proceeds How the Magistrate may justly punish the Subject for not doing a thing where the Subject
also may lawfully disobey and not do it One would think either the Magistrate ought to be certain that what he commands is right before he may punish any for disobeying his command or the Subject ought to be certain that what he commands is not right before he may disobey it But yet neither is the one or the other held any certain Judg in these matters we speak of Nor yet do these men leave any third person that being so may guide and regulate them But the one lawfully commands and punishes him for that which the other lawfully disobeys Where in effect every one in things Spiritual is finally committed to his own Judgment whilst they leave none at all above others that may so decide what is contrary to God's Law what not as to constrain submission thereto further than their private judgment concurs And the only absolute obligation we have to any of their commands is to non-resistance of the punishment But then suppose one thinks this also namely that we should be bound in all cases even where we are innocent or also truly religious to non-resistance c. to be a thing contrary to Scripture as there want not many of late who have been so perswaded then their commands will oblige such an one in no sense at all and so indeed will be no commands as to such a person for effectus imperii est obligatio Lastly the authority these men do give to the Church is except that which she derives from the Civil power only regimen suasorium or declarativum and so sine obligandi jure But this is making our obedience to her if it may be so call'd at all no more than that we give to any other private man administring as we think good Counsel to us which is sufficiently confuted before Only in all this you may observe That whilst these wary Factors for Truth are afraid to acknowledg such an obedience enjoin'd to the Church as to believe that to be the meaning of the Divine Law or not to be truth or error that she tells them to be so then much less can allow such an obedience to Secular power they in avoiding these two yeild this judgment of what is truth what is not in these matters of highest concernment to be left by God to every one which exposeth the Christian world to far more and grosser errors as daily experience thereof sheweth than would in probability either of the other But yet this pleaseth because thus the staters of the question make themselves also Judges See more of this subject in Ancient Church-Government c. § 72 Christ therefore to avoid such confusion hath establish'd his Church for guiding the World for ever in his truths upon such firm Laws and Canonical Orders that no Civil Authority may be admitted at any time to meddle in stating any Church-affairs against the major part of the Clergy and its Governors And if secular Princes anciently in a Council even when they generally agreed in opinion with the Bishops had in Ecclesiastical affairs no defining but only a consenting suffrage how come they enabled to define any thing in these when they are against the Bishops See St. Ambrose his words l. 2. ep 13. quoted by Dr. Field l. 5. c. 53. when he was cited to be judg'd in a matter of Faith by Valentinian the Emperor which conclude it cannot be without usurpation of that which no way pertaineth to them that Princes should at all meddle with the judging of matters of Faith neither had it been heard of but on the contrary that Bishops might and had judg'd Emperors in matters of Faith Quando saith he speaking to Valentinian audisti clementissime Imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicasse Ita ergo quadam adulatione curvamur ut sacerdotalis juris simus immemores quod Deus donavit mihi hoc ipse aliis putem esse credendum Si docendus est Episcopus a Laicis quid sequetur Laicus ergo disputet Episcopus audiat Episcopus discat a Laico At certe si vel Scripturarum seriem divinarum vel vetera tempora a tractemus Quis est qui abnuat in causa sidei in causa inquam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare Pater tuus Valen. sen Imp. vir maturioris aevi dicebat non est meum judicare inter Episcopos See the like in Athanasius Epist ad solitariam vitam agentes Quando unquam judicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritatem habuit See many more like testimonies collected by Champney De Vocatione Minist c 15. And see the Concessions of Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. p. 29 332. And of Calvin no zealous Vindicator of the Church's Authority Inst l. 4. c. 11. § 15. And of many others cited in Church-Government Par. 5. And see more of this matter in Church-Government Par. 1. And if the Church to use some of Mr. Thorndikes words subsisted before any secular power was Christian extended beyond the bounds of any one's Dominion in one visible Society with equal interest in the parts of it through several Dominions endow'd with such power in Spiritual matters as is set down before what Title but Force can any State have whilst this Body continues to exercise its power not only without but against it Dr. Field in Answer saith That such power belongs to the Clergy regularly but may be devolv'd to Princes in cases of necessity In what case i.e. If the Clergy through malice or ignorance fail c. That the Prince having charge over Gods people c. may condemn them falling into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians or into Heresie formerly condemn'd l. 5. c. 53. formerly condemn'd For saith he we do not attribute power to a Prince or Civil state to judge of things already resolved on in a general Council no not if they err manifestly and intolerably but only to judge in those matters of faith that are resolved on and that according to former resolutions From which I gather That Princes can define nothing against the Clergy i. e. the more considerable part thereof else there was never any thing so absurd a Prince can propose but that he may find or make some of the Clergy to join with him but protect what is already first defined by the Clergy in a former General Council But if so then his power with hardly extend to the points of Reformation since how few are those Heresies amongst the many points of the Roman Church from which the Reformed have departed which are solemnly condemned some of them they say are defined by General Councils I suppose therefore we must found the Princes Ecclesiastical authority on the other member if the Clergy err against the common sence of Christians or as Mr. Thorndike expresseth it when the Ecclesiastical power abolisheth any of matters already determined by our Lord and his
so far of it as that they may not ordain others against that wherein they grant is preserved the unity of the Faith tho I think that simply an unjust Excommunication never made such a manner of division in the Church but that those who have set up new communions have still disallowed some Tenents or practices of the former for which they would not if permitted return to communicate with her tho they seem to justify their new communion chiefly upon the pretence of being cast out of the former Now Schism as the former times understood it is any relinquishing and departing upon what pretence soever from the former external communion of the Church when we cannot shew that it hath departed from the former external communion of its Predecessors where we must grant was before the unity of the faith because there was no Christian communion at all besides it and in that faith salvation undeniably to be had and its judgment in all controversies of faith and interpretations of Scriptures to be obeyed Now who depart thus are also easily discerned 1. By the paucity of their number if we look not at the Succession but at the beginning of the Breach tho afterward in some places at least it may outnumber the Orthodox So Arianism was easily discerned for Faction at the Council of Nice when it was but new planted tho not at that of Syrmium or Seleucia afterward And 2ly By their plea one alledging Truth only the other also Tradition § 76 3. By the constitutions of the Church Ordinations are unlawful not only where not such persons as the Canons of the Church have appointed do ordain as one no Bishop or not such a number as for making a Bishop less than three where cannot be shewed an irremediable necessity which necessity where truly it is and not pretended to be if you please we will suppose Presbyters also may do the Office or propagate the Order of Bishops or the Christian people create all these to themselves or in practising the duties and retaining the faith of Christianity be saved without such Ecclesiastical Administrations but what will this avail those who pretend such necessities when they live in the middle of the bosom of the Church of God and the original ministery thereof but also where-ever a greater part of the Bishops of such a Province oppose than consent to it See Mr. Thorndikes concession Right of the Church p. 148. 250. 147. The Reason because Ordinations were to have bin made only by the Provincial Councils which were to be held frequently twice a year in defect of these the execution of it was committed to three or in a case of necessity to one but presupposing the consent and that by letters of the rest or the major part of them See Conc. Nic. 4. Can. Conc. Nicen. can 6. Apost can 1.36 38. Ap. Const l. 8. c. 27. Else the unity of the Church can no way be preserv'd Therefore Novatianus ordain'd for Bishop of Rome by Three was forc'd to yeild to Cornelius Ordain'd by Sixteen Again it was caution'd That all the Bishops of a Province might do nothing in these Ordinations without the Metropolitan's consent Conc. Nic. Can. 4 6. And again these Metropolitans were subjected to a Council And what is said here of Bishops in respect of a Provincial Council the same may be said of all those of a Province or also Patriarchy in respect of a General For as in a Province disagreeing those are only to be accounted Successions lawful i. e. such as all are only to submit to which the Provincial Council allows so in greater rents of the Church only those which the General Council allows which disauthorizing of some if it be not allow'd there can be no Unity in the Church nor suppression of Heresies Schisms c. If it be allow'd there can never be two Successions opposing one another both lawfully by such Clergy exercis'd and submitted to by the people after this exauthorizing one of them by a Council And this is the reason why we find the Canons of the ancient Councils not so much busied in debating Opinions as about setling Peace and Unity and perfect Subordination amongst Ecclesiastical persons knowing that upon this more than evidence of Argument and Reason which in most men is so weak and mis-leadable depended the preservation of the Unity of the Church's Doctrines and requiring in any division of these Governors Obedience still to the major and more dignified Body of them Christ's promises of indefectability belonging to a City set on an Hill and to a Light set on a Candlestick that we should not leave this City so eminent to repair to some petty Village nor this Light that shines over the whole House to follow a Spark glistering for a while in some corner thereof § 77 Two great Divisions or Separations of external Communion there have been in Christianity before this last made after the Christian Church was fifteen hundred years old The Sect of the Arians and afterward the Division of the Eastern Churches from the Latin or Roman Now for the first of these which seemed for a time to eclipse the Church-Catholick and to be set higher on an Hill than it very small it was at first when censur'd and condemn'd in a General and unanimous Council and tho afterward it grew much bigger by being promoted by the Secular power yet it never grew to a major part as is shew'd in the Discourse Of the Guide in Controversies Disc 2. § 26. and the violence of it vanish'd in fifty years i. e. when the Secular power fail'd it and the former Church-Communion hath out-liv'd it And for the time also in which it most flourish'd the Catholicks valiantly kept both their Bishops and Communion distinct there being two Bishops at Rome at Constantinople c. one Catholich and the other Arrian and two external Communions one containing that of the former times and adhering to the General Council of Nice the other deserting and deserted by the former Communion nor admitted to any Fellowship with it till at last many of the penitent members thereof return'd to the Catholick Communion and the new Sect expired See before § 62. § 78 For the second the Division of the Greek Churches from the Western it is granted that two Churches co-ordinate may upon several pretences moving them thereto if such as are not determin'd by the Superior to them both abstain from one another's external Communion without incurring any such Schism as to cease to be still both of them true Members of the Church-Catholick But if one of these Churches either desert or be deserted by and excluded from the Communion of the other for a matter once determin'd by an Ecclesiastical Authority Superior to both and such Superior Authority be embrac'd and adher'd to by the other rejected by it Here the Church that disobeys its Superior and departs from such other Churches as are united to them is Schismatick
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
l. 37. c. p. 551. Without the Patriarch's assent none of the Metropolitans subject unto them might be ordained And What the bring saith he proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome had the right of confirming the Metropolitans within the precinct of his own Patriarchship as likewise every other Patriarch had and that therefore he might send the Pall to sundry parts of Greece France and Spain as Bellarmin alledgeth being all within the compass of his Patriarchship See Bishop Bramhal vindic 9. c. p. 257. c. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterwards Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority in ordaining their Metropolitans for with inferior Bishops they might not meddle or confirming them in imposing of hands or giving the Pall in convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them c when Metropolitical Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent differences or difficulties Thus he Neither might any Metropolitan upon any cause separate himself from the communion of his Patriarch before the examination and sentence of a Council first passed in his behalf See 8. General Council 10. c. whose words are Nullus Clericus ante diligentem examinationem Synodicam sententiam a communione proprii Patriarchae se separet licet criminalem quamlibet causam ejus se nosse praetendat nec recuset nomen ipsius referre inter divina mysteria Idem statuimus de Episcopis erga proprios Metropolitas similiter de Metropolitis circa Patriarcham suum Qui vero contra fecerit ab omni Sacerdotali operatione honore decidat Ante Synodicam sententiam i. e. of a Council superior to the Metropolitan for the lower cannot judge the higher no not tho assembled together in a council See Dr. Field l. 5. c. 39. p. 567. as an Episcopal Synod cannot judge the Metropolitan And the firmlier to bind and confine the inferior to the judgment of the superior orders of the Clergy the Church made frequent Canons against their starting aside by appeals to the judgment of Seculars whether of others or also of the Emperor himself See Concil Antiochen 11. c. 12. c. Concil Sardica 8. c. Concil Chalced. 9. c. Si Clericus adversus Clericum habeat negotium non relinquat suum Episcopum ad saecularia judicia non concurrat c. Conc. Melevitanum 19. c. Placuit ut quicunque ab Imperatore cognitionem judiciorum publicorum i.e. Ecclesiasticorum petierit honore proprio privetur c. And see Conc. Generale 8. c. 17. 21. This for Patriarchs superiority over and their cotfirmation of Metropolitans Next amongst the Patriarchs themselves § 10 it seems the lower received no ordination from the higher But yet some confirmation or approbation they seem ordinarily to have had from their Superiors or at least from the Roman Patriarch by those words of Leo Ep. 54. ad Martianum the then Emperor concerning Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople Satis est quod praedicto vestrae pietatis auxilio mei favoris assensu Episcopatum tantae Vrbis obtinuit And custodire debuit ut quod nostro beneficio noscitur consecutus nullius pravitatis cupiditate turbaret Nos enim vestrae fidei interventionis habentes intuitum cum secundum suae consecrationis authores ejus initia titubarent benigniores circa ipsum quam justiores esse voluimus quo perturbationes omnes quae operante Diabolo fuerunt excitatae adhibitis remediis leniremus Thus discourseth the Pope to the Emperor conscious of all those proceedings concerning his establishing of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch and by the suit made to the Pope concerning the settlement of Flavianus in the Patriarchy of Antioch of which see Theodoret hist Eccles 5. l. 23. c. Likewise concerning the confirming of superior Patriarchs by the inferior that is true which Dr. Field 5. l. 37. c. p. 551. saith in answer to such places urged by Bellarmin That the manner was that the Patriarchs should upon notice given of their due Ordination and Synodal letters containing a profession of their Faith mutually give assent one to another Therefore Cyprian Antoniano Ep. 52. speaks thus concerning the legitimate election of Cornelius Bishop of Rome whom Novatianus endeavoured to supplant Factus est Cornelius Episcopus cum Fabiani locus vacaret quo loco occupato de Dei voluntate atque omnium nostrûm consensione firmato quisquis jam Episcopus Romae fieri voluerit foris fiat necesse est c. But that which Dr. Field adds there viz. That the confirming of the great Bishops of the world pertained no otherwise to the Bishop of Rome than the right of confirming Him pertained unto Them cannot justly be defended even from his own concessions elsewhere 5. l. 34. c. p. 528. c. of which see more below § 24. For no other Bishop could be a lawful Patriarch without the approbation of the Bishop of Rome the prime Patriarch whose withdrawing his communion from any was withdrawing the communion of the whole Church which hath always continued united to this Apostolick chair and yet the Bishop of Rome was lawfully such without the approbation of every other Patriarch so long as his election is not disallowed by the conjunct Hierarchy or the whole representative of the Church gathered togegether in a Council as it happened in the Council of Constance He may have an authority over other Bishops or Patriarchs single which none of them singly hath over him and yet all of them conjoin'd may have the same authority over Him as he hath over any of them single one singulis major may be minor universis Of which see more below § 22. n. 2. and in 2. Part. § 20. § 11. n. 2. Likewise Appeals were permitted from inferior Ecclesiastical to superior Judges and Courts but not of all causes and persons whatever to the supreamest Court lest so should be no end of contentions So the inferior Clergy in their differences might appeal from their Bishop to their Metropolitan and his Council Provincial or National who were finally to determine such controversies and such persons to acquiesce in them Again Bishops might appeal from their Metropolitan or from any inferior Courts to their Patriarch and his Council whose final decision in ordinary contests they were to rest in and who from the remotest of his Provinces upon appeal might either bring the cause to be heard by himself if the moment of the business so requir'd or send e latere suo presbyteros to use the expression of the 7th can of Sardic Conc. or depute some other Bishops of that or some other neighbouring Province to hear the matter where it was acted Or lastly command the Appealant to acquiesce in the former sentence given See for both these the Appeals of inferior Clergy and also of Bishops Conc. Chalced. can 9. compar'd
Novelae Const 123. c. 22. Lastly see Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 2. c. 24. confessing a restraint of some appeals not allow'd to be made to the Patriarch where he saith Quaestio de Apellationibus ad Romanum Pontificem non est de appellationibus Presbyterorum minorum Clericorum sed de appellationibus Episcoporum c. Therefore in that ' foremention'd contention between Zosimus Bishop of Rome and the African Bishops met in the 6th Council of Caerthage about the appeal made to Rome of one Apiarius an African Presbyter who had a controversie only with his Bishop the deciding of which by Canons is referr'd to the Metropolitan and his Council or to the Episcopi finitimi Conc. Sard. can 17. it may be made a question whether the Pope was not mistaken in it if he contended not only for appeal of Bishops having controversie with their Metropolitans but also countenanc'd that of Apiarius considering what was deliver'd in the Canons above-cited § 18 Those not subjected to any Patriarch for Ordination yet subjected for decision of Controversies and what is also conceded by the Cardinal As for those Churches who were under no Patriarch i. e. in respect of their Metropolitan's receiving his Ordination from any Patriarch as Cyprus is conceiv'd by some to be from Conc Ephes can 8. and Conc. Const in Trullo can 39. If these Canons do not prohibit rather the Patriarch of Antioch from hindering the Metropolitans of Cyprus to ordain other Bishops without his concurrence or consent as the Rem novam in the beginning of the 8th Canon of Ephesus and other expressions seem to import see below § 19. Yet 1. They were not free and exempt from all foreign judgments when any differences and contentions arose in any such Churches but to them or at least the principal of them were when question'd to give account of their Orthodox Faith and Canonical Obedience if they meant to retain any Communion with the rest of the Church Catholick and to receive communicatory Letters as testimonials thereof See for this St. Aug. Epist 162. where he hath discours'd it at large 2. Neither were they free from the jurisdiction of some Patriarch or other so far as the Canons of any General Council subjected them thereto For example That 7th Canon of Sardica Si Episcopus c. being deliver'd indefinitely oblig'd the Cyprian Bishops as much as any other For the Law of a Legislator who hath power to oblige all obligeth all if none be therein excepted Now General Councils have just authority of decreeing a subordination as they please of Ecclesiastical Persons and Courts for the unity and peace of the Church or else their common practice hath mistaken the right The same may be said of the obligation of the 9th Canon of Chalcedon c. According to which Canons since experience hath shew'd and you may see it in Dr. Field's concessions that many of those whom the Protestants make independent Primates as those of Carthage Millain c. have yeilded to the Patriarchal jurisdiction the practice of these Primates if allow'd by them infers the duty of the rest if disallow'd they must charge such Primates not to have known or maintain'd their own privileges But 3ly such non-subordinate Churches can plead no more privilege than absolute Patriarchs have being if equal to yet not advanc'd above these But amongst Patriarchs themselves in matters of difference and appeal the inferior were liable to the judgment of the superior Patriarchs as shall be shew'd presently therefore must the Cyprians or other be the like there being the same reason of all the preserving of the unity and communion of the whole Church Catholick in which one Church is not more concern'd than others Therefore Dr. Field l. 5. c. 30. p. 513. where in answer to Bellarmin's pretending a Monarchical Government of the Church as necessary he goes to shew how her unity might well be and was anciently preserv'd without it by several subordinations which were in the Church discourseth thus If a Synod consisted of the Metropolitans and Bishops of one Kingdom or State only the chief Primate was Moderator If of many Kingdoms one of the Patriarchs and chief Bishops of the whole world was Moderator every Church being subordinate to some one of the Patriarchal Churches and incorporate into the Unity of it 3ly The actions of a whole Patriarchship were subject to a Synod Oecumenical And l. 5. c. 39. p. 563. he quotes the Emperor's Decree Novel 123. c. 22. that Bishops being at variance were finally to stand to and not to contradict their own Patriarch's judgment And Gregory's l. 11. ep 54. addition to it That if there be no Patriarch then the matter must be ended by the Apostolick See the Head of all Churches And accordingly we find in the Patriarchal Councils of the West all the Western Churches whatever I dispute not here whether subject or no to the Patriarch assembling in them and subject to the prevailing Votes and Decrees § 19 Against what is said above is much urged by the Reformed the second and third Canon of the second General Council of Constantinople Every Province not supreme for finally determining the differences arising therein The words are these Episcopi qui extra Dioecesim sunt ad Ecclesias quae extra terminos earum sunt non accedant neque confundant permisceant Ecclesias Alexandriae quidem Episcopi solius Orientis Aegypti saith another Translation curam gerant servatis honoribus Primatus ecclesiae Antiochenae qui in regulis Nicaenae Synodi continentur Sed Asianae Dioecesis Episcopi ea quae sunt in Asia quae ad Asianam tantummodo Diaecesis habeant curam Thraciae vero c. And c. 3. Non invitati Episcopi ultra Dioecesim accedere non debent super ordinandis aliquibus vel quibuscunque disponendis Ecclesiasticis causis Manifestum namque est quod per singulas quasque Provincias Provincialis Synodus administrare gubernare omnia debeat secundum ea quae sunt in Nicaea definita 5. c. Veruntamen as it is in one Translation Constantinopolitanus Episcopus habeat honoris primatum post Romanum Episcopum c. The title to which Canons being all joined into one in one Translation is De ordine singularum Dioeceseon de privilegiis quae Aegyptiis Antiochenis Constantinopolitanisque debentur These Canons are urged to prove That all Provinces are for power absolute and supreme That every cause and controversy between any persons should be determined finally within the Provinces where the matters did lie and that by the Bishops of the same Provinces from whom might be no further appeal and That no Bishop should exercise any power out of his own Diocess or Province and consequently neither the Roman Bishop out of his Province in Italy And because here follows some preeminence granted to the Constantinopolitan Bishop post Romanum that this may not be thought to contradict
nor discipline That where both the Council and this prime Patriarch agree not no new law no change can be made but all things must remain in statu quo prius which state of things is no way alterable by the Bishop of Rome for this Canon if it give him a negative power against what is to be established it doth not so for what hath bin established as well by the former Bishops of Rome as former Councils See the concession of Zosimns to this purpose apud Gratianum 25. q. contra statuta Contra statuta Patrum condere aliquid vel mutare nec hujus quidem Sedis potest authoritas Apud nos enim inconvulsis radicibus vivit antiquitas cui decreta Patrum sanxere reverentiam Which former Synods if he shall happen to trespass against and incur the guilt of heresy upon evidence of the fact he is condemnable and deposable by the Council of which see more 2. part § 20. So we find a Pope Honorius condemned of heresy as a Monothelite by the 6th General Council but this was done by the Pope as well as the Council Hear what a Bishop of Rome Adrian the 2d saith concerning this matter in the 8th General Council Act. 7. Romanum Pontificem de omnium Ecclesiarum Praesulibus judicasse legimus de eo vero quenquam judicasse non legimus Licet enim Honorio ab Orientalibus post mortem anathema sit dictum sciendum tamen est quod qui fuerat super haeresi accusatus propter quam solum licitum est minoribus majorum suorum motibus resistere vel pravos suos sensus libere respuere quamvis ibi nec Patriarcharum nec caeterorum Antistitum cuipiam de eo quamlibet fas fuerit proferre sententiam nisi ejusdem primae Sedis Pontificis consensus proecessisset and what that Council saith Can. 21. Sed ne alium quenquam conscriptiones contra Sanctissimum Papam senioris Romae ac verba complicare vel componere liceat c quod nuper Photius Patriarch of Constantinople whom this Council deposed fecit multo ante Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria Quisquis autem tale facinus contra Sedem Petri Principis Apostolorum ausus fuerit intentare aequalem eandem quam Illi condemnationem i.e. deposition recipiat Porro si Synodus Vniversalis fuerit congregata facta fuerit etiam de Sancta Romanorum Ecclesia quaevis ambiguitas aut controversia oportet venerabiliter cum convenienti reverentia de proposita quaestione sciscitari solutionem accipere aut proficere aut profectum facere non tamen audacter sententiam dicere contra summos Senioris Romae Pontifices Thus that Council in opposition to Photius his former violences toward the Roman See and thus much of that old Canon mentioned in the Epistle of Julius to the Orientals assembled at Antioch Who since they made an Arrian Creed contrary to the Nicene and condemned Athanasius and some other Orthodox Bishops which things were done if not by the major party yet by the prevailing it is as reasonable to affirm That the same persons only that did these things writ that Letter to Julius so invective against the authority of the Roman See and not the major part whom Spalatensis to add the more authority to this Letter contends to have bin Catholick See his 3. l. 8. c. 3. n. c. 4. l. 8. c. 11. n. c. However it is clear that Julius his proceedings are justified against them both by the Occidental Orthodox Bishops and by Athanasius and other orthodox Bishops of the East and by the Council of Sardica and by the Ecclesiastical Historians See Sozomen 3. l. 7. c. and 9. c. where the same persons that writ to Julius the Historian saith contra Concilii Nicaeni decreta res gesserunt and were accused by Julius 9. c. quod clam contra fidem Concilii Nicaeni novas res moliti fuerunt See Socrates 2. l. 7. c. their changing the Nicene Creed Thus much concerning the meaning of the ancient Canon Now to go on See in Athanas Apol. 2. and Socrates 2. l. 19. c. and Epiphan Haer. 68. Valens and Vrsatius § 23. n. 1. two Bishops one in Mysia the other in Pannonia both very gracious with the Emperour Constantius and leaders of the Arrian faction upon repentance of their error and also calumnies against Athanasius repairing to Rome and delivering to Julius libellum poenitentiae and begging pardon and reconciliation tho afterward they relapsed See the 3d 4th and 7th Canons of the Council of Sardica set down before § 11. in which great Council are reckoned by Athanasius one present in it in 2. Apolog. some Bishops present from our Britanny Episcopi Hispaniarum Galliarum Britanniarum c. Neither is this any wonder since they were also at Conc. Arelat 11 years before that of Nice see Hammond schism p. 110. which canons seem to confirm appeals to the Bishop of Rome and to authorize him to hear and decide the causes by himself or his Legats of those Bishops also who were not under his Patriarchy For it is not limited to the Western Patriarchy but generally proposed Si in aliqua Provincia Episcopus c. Can. 3. and the motive proposed by Hosius formerly President of Nice is general not more concerning one part of the Church than another the honouring of S. Peter's memory and these canons were made by that Council not long after Athanasius a Bishop not subject to the Roman Patriarchy but himself a Patriarch his appeal to Rome and the judgment of his cause by witnesses brought out of the East and his adversaries counter-plea there which judgment and sentence as the Eastern Bishops at Antioch much slighted and undervalued so this Sardican Council approved and if these canons respected all in general then since the Bishops of our Britanny also were there this was their act as well as of the rest and obliged Britanny to the same subordinations with the rest See the Epistle of St. Basil Epist 52. to Athanasius § 23. n. 2. about the suppression of Arrianism in the East wherein he saith Visum est consentaneum scribere ad Episcopum Romanum ut videat res nostras decreti sui judicium interponat authoritatem tribuat delectis viris qui acta Ariminensis Concilii secum ferant ad ea rescindenda quae illic violenter acta sunt c. See the two Epistles of St. Hierom to Damasus Bishop of Rome desiring to know what he should hold concerning the word Hypostasis applied to the Three Persons of the Trinity and with whom communicate in the East wherein thus he Quoniam vetusto Oriens inter se populorum furore collisus c. ideo mihi Cathedram Petri Rom. 1.8 sidem Apostolico ore laudatam censui consulendam Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum servatur haereditas Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri
the Eastern Bishops at Antioch judged or excommunicated Julius the Bishop of Rome who communicated with Athanasius they might justly have incurred the like censure Neither could they justly say so as they do in their Epistle to Him inter decreta Julii if it be not forged contraria celebrabimus vobiscum deinceps nec congregari nec vobis obedire volumus sed per nos quicquid melius elegerimus agere conabimur nor urge the 5. Can. of Nice against him supposing his a superior Court. He proceeds That no other particular Church or See may judge the Church of Rome seeing every other See is inferior to it but that the See of Rome i. e. the Bishops of Rome and the Bishops of the West may judge and examine the differences c but neither so peremptorily nor finally but that such judgment may be reviewed and re-examined and revers'd in a General Council Let this be agreed-to but I ask Is it no power that this See hath over the rest because this power is subordinated to a General Council But if it be granted to have the supremest power next to that of a General Council then when no General Council is in being is it not actually pro tempore the supremest and do not its determinations stand good and oblige till a General Council be assembled Else what will this mean which the Dr. saith The first See must judge and examine the differences of all others but none it if it judging and examining none are bound to submit or obey And from this namely that the first may judge i. e. excommunicate for this is the thing which is meant by judging above in the case of John Antioch and Dioscorus Alexand. inferior thrones not they it it will appear that the excommunications of the first See are either authoritative and privative in respect of other Sees i. e. rejecting them from the communion of the Church Catholick or if they are negative only i. e. withdrawing her self only from the communion of others of which two sorts of excommunication see Dr. Field 5. l. 38. c. p. 558. Bishop of Derry's vindicat 8. c. that no other Church may use a negative excommunication towards the first See i.e. may not withdraw themselves from the communion thereof but only it may do so toward others For some excommunication is granted here to die first See toward others which others have not towards it I ask therefore John Antoch excommunicating the second See and Dioscorus Alexand. excommunicating the first disallowed by two General Councils was it negative only by way of Christian caution or privative and authoritative by way of Jurisdiction Take which you will yet t is clear both by the Councils and Dr. Field's concession that in such manner the second or third See might not excommunicate the first and that in such manner the first might excommunicate the second or third But indeed it is manifest That the excommunication both of John and Dioscorus was authoritative neither would they have presumed singly to have done it but as having a party of a Council of other Bishops who were not subject to them joined with them Yet thus also were they by the Oecumenical Synods censured for making themselves heads of a Council against their Superiors the second and first See And as manifest it is that the Bishop of Rome's censures were authoritative many times deposing as well as excommunicating Bishops not under the jurisdiction of his Patriarchy as also John Antioch deposed Cyril Alexand. As for Dr. Field's very cautiously every where joining the Western Bishops with the Bishops of the first See in his exercising such judgment over other Sees he must either mean the Bishops of his ordinary Council and such others as according to the exigent he can conveniently advise with which may be conceded to Dr. Field or he must mean all the Bishops of the West assembled in a Patriarchal Council But if so their ordinary practice anciently in judging such appeals and causes shews it was otherwise and reason tells us it could not be thus unless so great a body could be so often convened as such appeals were necessary to be terminated Thus much of Dr. Field's answers Now to go on in our quotations out of Leo. See his Epistle to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria §25 n. 1. Quod a Patribus nostris propensiore cura novimus esse servatum a vobis quoque volumus custodiri ut non passim diebus omnibus Sacerdotalis ordinatio celâ—bretur sed mane ipso die Dominico Vt in omnibus observantia nostra concordet illud quoque volumus custodiri ut cum solennior sestivitas Conventum populi numerosioris indixerit sacrificii oblatio indubitanter iteretur Epistle 46. to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople written to him about receiving some Bishops and others in the East followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus upon their penitence to the peace of the Church Licet sperem dilectionem tuam ad omne opus bonum esse devotam ut tamen efficacior tua fieri possit industria necessarium congruum fuit fratres meos Lucentium Episcopum Basilium Presbyterum ut promisimus destinare quibus tua dilectio societur ut nihil in his quae ad Vniversalis Ecclesiae statum pertinent aut dubie agatur aut segniter cum residentibus vobis quibus executionem nostrae dispositionis injunximus ea possint agi cuncta moderation c. De his autem qui in hac causa gravius peccavere si forte resipiscunt horum satisfactio maturioribus Apostolicae Sedis Conciliis reservetur ut examinatis omnibus c quid constitui debeat aestimetur And afterward Si de aliquibus amplius fuerit deliberandum celeriter ad nos relatio dirigatur ut pertractata qualitate causarum nostra quid observari debeat solicitudo constituat And see the Rescript of the Emperour Valentinian the Third quoted by Baron Anno 445. inter Novel Theod. tit 24. in the time of Leo a little before the Council of Chalcedon sent to Aelius his Vicegerent in France about quieting the difference between the Archbishops of Arles and Vienna after that the cause upon appeal had bin decided by Leo against Arles Wherein the Emperour hath these words Cum Sedis Apostolicae primatum S. Petri mâ—ritum sacra etiam Synodi firmarit authoritas ne quid praeter authoritatem Sedis illius inlicitum praesumptio attentare nitatur hinc enim demum Ecclesiarum pax ubique servabitur si Rectorem suum agnoscat Vniversitas Haec cum hactenus inviolabiliter fuerint constituta Hilarius contumaci ausu c. His talibus per ordinem religiosi viri urbis Papae cognitione discussis certa in eundem Hilarium lata sententia est Et erat ipsa quidem sententia per Gallias etiam sine Imperiali sanctione valitura Sed nostram quoque praeceptionem haec ratio provocavit ne ulterius cuiquam Ecclesiasticis rebus arma miscere as it
mox idem Decessor meus i.e. Pelagius ut agnovit directis literis ex authoritate Sancti Petri Apostoli ejusdem Synodi acta cassavit Cujus ego quoque sententiam sequens similia praedicto consacerdoti nostro scripta transmisi And 2. l. 10. Indict 37. Ep. Episcopo Salonitano an African Bishop Quod autem vos fatemini Ecclesiasticos ordines ignoran non posse valde contristor quia cum rerum ordinem scitis in me quod pejus est sciendo deliquistis Postquam enim ad Beatitudinem vestram Decessoris mei mea in causa Honorati Archidiaconi scripta directa sunt tunc contempta utriusque sententia praefatus Honoratus proprio gradu privatus est Whose cause tho only an Archdeacon upon appeal Gregory having heard cleared him and ordered him to be restored to his place Quod si quilibet ex quatuor Patriarchis fecisset sine gravissimo scandalo tanta contumacia transire nullo modo potuisset Tamen postquam fraternitas vestra ad suum ordinem rediit nec ego meae nec decessoris met injuriae memor sum By which it seems Gregory's orders at last were obeyed And 2. l. Indict 11. Ep. 32. to the same Archdeacon Honoratus he writes thus A cunctis tibi objectis capitulis te plenius absolventes in tui te ordinis gradu sine aliqua volumus alteratione permanere ut nihil tibi penitus mota a praefato viro i.e. Episcopo Salonitano quaestio qualibet occasione praejudicet 11. l. Ep. 42. Episcopo Panormitano in Sicily Illud autem admonemus ut Apostolicae Sedis reverentia nullius praesumptione turbetur tunc enim status membrorum integer manet si caput fidei this must needs be Apostolicam sedem nulla pulset injuria canonum manet incolumis authoritas l. 7. epist 64. Episcopo Syracusano Nam quod se dicit i.e. Primas Byzancenus an African Primate of whom Gregory saith a little before that in quodam crimine accusatum piissimus Imperator eum juxta statuta canonica per nos voluit judicari Sedi Apostolicae subjici si qua culpa in Episcopis invenitur nescio quis ei Episcopus subjectus non sit cum vero culpa non exigit omnes secundum rationem humilitatis aequales sunt Nescio quis ei Episcopus subjectus non sit i. e. saith Dr. Field l. 5. c. 34. p. 534. of those Bishops only within his own Patriarchship § 28 alledging Greg. Epist 54 11 where Gregory quotes and seems to acquiesce in the the Emperor Justinian's Constitution Novel 123. c. 22. Si autem a Clerico aut Laico quocunque aditio contra Episcopum fiat propter quamlibet causam apud sanctissimum ejus Metropolitanum secundum sanctas regulas nostras leges causa judicetur Et si quis judicatis contradixerit ad beatissimum Archiepiscopum Patriarcham referatur causa Ille secundum canones leges huic praebeat finem I may add out of the Nov. it self nulla parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente Whence thus much is yeilded to Dr. Field That the Bishops of his own Patriarchy have some subjection to the Bishop of Rome and his Courts as he bears the Office of a Patriarch over them which others of another Patriarchate have not And therefore we see his Letters most frequently directed to the Bishops and negotiating the affairs Ecclesiastical within this Circuit which Bishops as the Doctor rightly notes he calls Episcopos suos l. 4. c. 34. To the Empress sed ut Episcopi mei me despiciant c. id peccatis meis deputo But yet this I suppose is yeilded by the Doctor see before § 20. that both the Bishops of other Patriarchies and the Patriarchs themselves in some cases also but not in all wherein the rest were subjected to the judgment and sentence of the first See And in such sense might he say Nescio quis Episcopus c. As for the place of Gregory and the Imperial Constitution urg'd First concerning Gregory observe that he writ this to the Emperor 's Prefect in the behalf of one Stephanus a Bishop qui invitus ad judicium trahebatur qui ab Episcopis alieni Concilii i. e. who were not his proper Superiors but of a distinct Province from him quos hab bat suspectos judicabatur In his behalf therefore Gregory quotes this Imperial Constitution wher 's Patriarcha prabeat finem is oppos'd by Gregory as likewise by Justinian to Episcopi alieni Concilii or also to any Civil Judges medling therein who according to Novell 123. c. 21. might not hear Ecclesiastical Causes at all the words are these Si autem Ecclesiastica causa est nullam communionem habeant judices civiles circa talem examinationem sed sanctissimâ—s Episcopus secundum sacras regulas causae finem imponat To which effect see the Constitution quoted in the beginning of Gregory's Epistle Si quis contra aliquem Clericum c. After which Constitution urg'd Gregory goes on thus Contra haec si dictum fuerit quia nec Metropol tanum habuit nec Patriarcham take Patriarch here in what sense you please dicendum est quia a Sâ—de Apostolica quae omnium Ecclesiarum caput est this is his reason for it causa haec audienda ac dirimenda fuerat sicut praedictus Episcopus petiisse dignoscitur qui Episcopos alieni Concilii judices habuit omnino suspectos Secondly For the Imperial Constitutions of Justinian they so far as they concern Ecclesiastical matters are only Ratifications of the Church's Canons and no way opposite to them who every where commands proceedings and judgments to be made secundum sacras regulas and in the beginning of his Codex to shew his submission in these things to the Church tit 1. l. 8. writes thus to the Pope in particular Nec enim patiemur quicquid quod ad Ecclesiarum statum pertinet quamvis manifestum indubitatum sit quod movetur ut non etiam vestrae innotescat sanctitati quae caput est omnium sanctarum Ecclesiarum To whom also when the Emperor sent his Creed Agapetus the Pope answer'd Firmamus c. non quia Laâ—cis authoritatem praedicationis admittimus sed quia studium fidei vestrae patrum nostrorum regulis conveniens confirmamus atque roboramus Agapet Ep. 6. Now if you examine those Constitutions Novell 123. c. 22. they are only these That two Bishops ejusdem Concilii under the same Metropolitan being at variance are referr'd to the judgment of their Metropolitan and the Council Provincial If this refused then to that of the Patriarcha Dioeceseos illius nulla parte ejus sententiae contradicere valente The same course is appointed if a Clergy-man have any thing against his Bishop or Bishop or inferior Clergy-man against his Metropolitan But in the differences between a Bishop and his Patriarch or also between two Patriarchs he ordereth nothing Now what thing is there in all this
of that Church for such priviledges on the See of Rome and with the Emperor's conferring these priviledges to all succession without any joint authority of the Pope and bringing in provocatus antiquae consuetudinis ordine without mentioning the words immediately before Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia atque antiquae consuetudinis ordine provocatus he makes these words refer not to the Popes but to the Emperor 's former grant But meanwhile judge you if the Emperour might of his own accord erect Patriarchies or confer such priviledges without the Bishop of Rome's authority whether authoritate nostra firmamus illibata decernimus c and Apostolicae Sedis benevolentia be not not only needless but also ridiculous But if the Patriarch of the West's authoritate nostra firmamus was necessary to what the Emperour did then are all such instances rendred useless to the Doctor who can shew no such firmamus to the late erected Patriarchats And were not such testimonies extant yet the rescript of the same Emperour Valentinian quoted before p 86. seems a sufficient proof that no such priviledges as were prejudicial to the Roman See were granted by him 2. For the Bishop of Justiniana 1ª that he continued to receive the Pall as other Primats from the Bishop of Rome and that he had locum Apostolicae Sedis not the place of a but of the Apostolick See namely as the Pope's standing delegate for those parts subordinate to him the phrase being frequently used in this but I think never in the other sence lastly that the Bishop of Rome deputed the judgment of causes to him and for some misbehaviour in his place passed Ecclesiastical censures upon him I say for these things see 4. l. Indict 13. Ep. 15. Johanni Episcopo 1 ae Justinianae newly elected Pallium vero ex more transmisimus vices vos Apostolicae Sedis agere iterata innovatione decernimus Iterata innovatione which argues the first concession that he should have locum Apostolicae Sedis was from the Roman Bishop which Baronius Anno 535. saith Justinian with much importunity obtained of Vigilius after Agapetus his Predecessor had made a demur to grant it as being a thing too prejudicial to his Neighbour-Metropolitans And see 10. l. 5. Indict 34. Ep. where he refers the cause of Paulus Bishop of Dyaclina to the examination of the Bishop of Justiniana 1a. And see 2. l. Indict 11. Ep. 6. to the same Bishop where reprehending him for a singular act of injustice he saith Quod vero ad praesens attinet cassatis prius atque ad nihilum redactis praedictae sententiae tuae decretis ex Beati Apostolorum Principis authoritate decernimus triginta dierum spatio sacra te communione privatum ab omnipotenti Deo nostro tanti excessus veniam cum summa poenitentia ac lachrymis exorare Quod si c contumaciam fraternitatis tuae cognoscas adjuvante Deo severius puniendam After these see Justinianan's Constitution it self Novell 131. cap. 3. which runs thus Per tempus autem Beatissimum 1 ae Justinianae Archiepiscopum habere semper sub sua jurisdictione Episcopos Provinciarum Daciae c. in subjectis sibi Provinciis locum obtinere Sedis Apostolicae Romae secundum ea quae definita sunt a sanctissimo Papa Vigilio Which last words how reasonably Dr. Hammond Reply to Cath. Gentl. p. 96. interprets that Vigilius defin'd that the Bishop of Justin 1ª should be for ever after an absolute and free Patriarch independent on the Bishop of Rome or why the Emperour should require such a definition from Vigilius who as the Doctor holds had no right to hinder it I leave to your judgment after that you have well considered what is here alledged And see likewise this confessed by Dr Field 5. l. 38. c. p. 561. The same may be said of the Bishop of Justiniana the first who was appointed the Bishop of Rome's Vicegerent in those parts upon signification of the Emperour's will and desire that it should be so Thus he And hence was this power conferred upon him finally to determine causes namely as the Pope's Delegate for that purpose and this exclusively not to Rome but to other Metropolitans within those Provinces newly subjected to him from whom to him not so from him to them might be Appeals 3. As for the third Primate of Carthage he is pretended only to be admitted to the like priviledges with Justiniana 1a. Thus have I set you down to save you the pains § 31. n. 1. or to prevent the usual neglect of searching them in the Authors some of the most notable passages for the first 600 years wherein you may find Calvin's confession Instit 4. l. 7. c. true nullum fuisse tempus quo non Romana Sedes imperium in alias Ecclesias appetiv rit but I add more obtinuerit too shewing as I think several ways not only the honour and dignity before but the authority and power of the Roman See over other Churches not only those under its Patriarchy but the Eastern also the Eastern not only single but joined in Councils power not only which Roman Bishops claimed but which Councils allowed testified confirmed and established and the greatest Bishops in the world repaired to for justice the most of those Roman Bishops whose authorities I have cited being eminent for sanctity and having the same title and reputation of Saints as the other ancient Fathers and the two last of them being quoted by Protestants as inveighers against an Universal Bishop as a forerunner of Antichrist that you may fee how much authority even the most moderate have assumed and all these transactions being before the times of the Emperour Phocas who by some Reformed see Dr. Hammond reply to Cathol Gentl. 3. c. 4. s. 14. n. is said to have laid the first foundations of the modern Roman Greatness in declaring him Episcopum Oecumenicum Caput omnium Ecclesiarum tho indeed Phocas his act was only in a quarrel of his against Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople adjudging the stile of Oecumenicus before much disputed between those two Bishops as you have seen not fit to be used by the Bishop of Constantinople and due only to the Bishop of Rome and that Paulus Diaconus de gestis Romanorum 18. l. quoted by Dr. Hammond meant no more see what the same Paulus saith de gestis Longobardorum 4 l. 37. c. and being of those ages wherein Dr. Field thro his 5th book denies to have bin any Roman Supremacy of power If it be said that the Roman Bishops out of whose writings many of these authorities are produced then claimed what others denied I think some other quotations intermingled out of those who were no Roman Bishops will shew this to be untrue Besides §. 31. n. 2. In the chief causes of all other divisions from the Roman Church excepting that of the late Reformation the Roman Church in the judgment of the Reformed the
That no one Bishop nor Council hath any power over another but all Bishops left to their supreme liberty only rationem reddituri Domino of their actions contrary to the universal practice of the Church such superior Councils ordinarily censuring and also anathematizing Bishops or in the judgment of the Reformed who also maintain such subordinations S. Cyprian must be in an error Now in the vacancy of any General or Patriarchal Council the Patriarch at least for his own Patriarchat as Cyprian was within the Roman Patriarchat is the supreme Judge and therefore Cyprian not exempt from all subjection or subordination to Him See for this Dr. Field's concessions before § 18. Supreme judge for the executing of the former Ecclesiastical Canons and preserving of the doctrines formerly established and determined by Councils Supreme Judge thus over Provincial not only Bishops but Councils for from these may be made appeals to him and a confirmation of their decrees is fought for from him See that of Milevis and of Carthage in S. Austin's time before § 23. n. 4. neither ought they to promulgate any doctrine not formerly determined by former Councils against his approbation and consent See before § 22. Therefore Cyprian might not make a contrary Decree to the Western Patriarch so as to necessitate those under his Primacy to the obedience thereof as neither he did But how far on the other side they stand obliged to conform to the judgment of him or also of his Provincial Council when defining any such new point against theirs the case here between Stephen and Cyprian I determin not Especially considering the liberty Cyprian took to dissent from Stephen and considering what Bellarmin de Concil 2. l. 5. c. and before him S. Austin grants that by such dissent he ceased not to be a good Catholick and considering also the liberty S. Ambrose took at least in a ritual of practising contrary to the custom of the Roman Church See de Sacram. l. 3. c. 1. Non ignoramus quod Ecclesia Romana hanc consuetudinem i.e. de lotione Pedum non habeat cujus typum in omnibus sequimur formam In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam in omnibus that is which I can reasonably assent to sedtamen nos homines sensum habemus Ideo quod alibi rectius servatur nos recte custodiamus ipsum sequimur Apostolum Petrum c. But neither is Cyprian's authority whatever he did in this matter nor any decree of an African Council as Dr. Hammond Schism 6. c. p. 128. urgeth a canon of an African Council in Anastasius his time A.D. 401. the 71. in Balsamon the 35. in Crab and Binnius which imports thus much That laws made at Rome do not take away the liberty of another National Church to make contrary laws thereunto a sufficient argument clearly to decide this point namely that the African Churches being subject to this Patriarch might promulgate a Doctrine contrary to his judgment For there is no more reason we should justifie Cyprian's or an African Council's authority against the Bishop of Rome and his Council than this Bishop's and his Council's against theirs where if Cyprian for his person were a Martyr for Christ so was Stephen too Especially when we find Cyprian so much erring in the matter of this controversie whilst he saith Epist 74. Pompeio Qui Stephanus haereticorum causam contra Ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur And when we consider the modest and safe grounds Stephen went upon Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est having the former custom of the Church on his side to which St. Cyprian pleads Consuetudo sine veritate est vetustas erroris and Epist 71. Quinto Fratri Non est consuetudine perscribendum sed ratione vincendum Whereas in this contest it had bin an happy thing for the Church and had sav'd St. Austin many sheets against the Donatists had he and his Council acquiesc'd in the judgment of their Patriarch Thus much to those places objected out of Cyprian § 35 As for that pretended Canon of the African Council I find the passages in Binnius with whom the Dr. saith Balsamon agrees in setting down this Canon but indeed there is some difference and Balsamon's Translation hardly intelligible otherwise then the Doctor in his Reply to Schism Disarm'd p. 209. relates them The business there consulted upon was about the re-admission of the recanting Donatists not only to the Unity of the Catholick Church but also to the former Dignities which such had held in the Church concerning this a Council had been held already in Italy by Anastasius and his Bishops wherein it was decreed that such Donatists should not be admitted to their former honours and places and a Letter was to this purpose sent to the Africans by Anastasius Concerning which Letter first this Council saith Recitatis epistolis beatissimi Fratris consacerdoti nostri Anastasii quibus nos paternae fraternae charitatis solicitudine sinceritate adhortatus est ut c Gratias agimus Domino nostro quod illi optimo ac sanâ—â—o Antâ—stiti suo tam piam curam pro membris Christi qâ—amvis in divâ—rsitate terrarum sed in una compage corporis const tutâ—s inspirare dignatus est Then in Can. 33. they say onsideratis omnibus c. eligimâ—s cum memoratis hominibus the Donatists leniter pacifice agere upon this reason that so they might reduce together with them many others seduc'd by them Lastly in c. 35. which is the Canon urged they say Itaque placuit ut literae mittantur ad fratres coâ—p scopos nostros i. e. those of the Council which Anastasius had held in Italy maxime ad sedem Apostolâ—cam in qua praesidet memoratus venerabilis Frater Collega noster Anastasius quo noverit habere Aphricam magnam nec ssitatem ut ex ipsis Donatistis quicunque transire voluerint c. in suis honoribus suscipiantur si hoc paci Christianae prodâ—sse visum fuerit i. e. as they explain themselves afterwards in the same Canon that such Clerks of the Donatists should be admitted to their former Dignities upon whose reconcilement depended the gaining and reduction of a multitude also of other Souls who were their followers This then they were to write to the Pope and the Bishops of the Italian Council that such Donatist-leaders might be readmitted not only into the Church's bosom but to their former places They go on Non ut Concilium quod in transmarinis partibus de hac refactum est who had decreed the contrary dissolvatur sed ut illud maneat the Council stand good cirea eos qui sic transire ad Catholicam volunt ut nulla per eos unitatis compensatio procuretur i. e. who do not procure the uniting of many others per quos autem adjuvari manifestis fraternarum animarum of those under the Donatist Clergy's Spiritual Conduct lucris Catholica unitas
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
indeed with application thereof to the Pope as guilty therein To rebel against the Catholick Church and its representative a General Council which is the last visible Judg of controversies and the supreme Ecclesiastical Court either is gross Schism or there is no such thing as Schismatical pravity in the world To rebel against such a Council i. e. against the constitutions thereof in affairs meerly Spiritual therefore if their Canons establish such and such Patriarchates to rebel against these will be Schism So p. 269. he saith 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 I add or those mention'd but now § 38. which relate not to the Civil State but meerly to the well governance of the Church Soveraign Princes have and have only an Architectonical power to see that Clergy-men do their duties i. e. according to such Church-decrees Else had Princes in such matters a negative or destructive power this would be the right of Heathen Potentates also and the primitive Church guilty of Rebellion in disobeying in these things their strictest prohibitions Again p. 257. he saith Thus neither the Papal power which we have cashier'd nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by the ancient Canons and by consequence the separation is not Schismatical Therefore it seems it had been Schismatical had such power been given him by the Canons § 40 Now to view Dr. Hammond c. 3. p. 54. he saith It is manifest that as the several Bishops had Praefecture over their several Churches and over the Presbyters Deacons and People under them such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schism so the Bishops themselves of the ordinary inferior Cities were for the preserving of unity and many other good uses subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropolitans Nay we must yet ascend one degree higher from this of Archbishops or Metropolitans to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs the division of which is thus clear'd c. And p. 60. The uppermost of the standing powers in the Church are Archbishops Primates and Patriarchs to whom the Bishops themselves are appointed in many things to be subject and this power I add and the particular Sees to whom it shall belong and subjection defin'd and asserted by the ancient Canons and most ancient even immemorial Apostolical tradition and custom is avouch'd for it I add especially for the eminency of the Roman See as may appear Conc. Nicaen Can. 4 6. Conc. Antioch c. 9. c. 20. Conc. Chalc. c. 19. c. After all which p. 66. of the same Chapter the Title of which is Of the several sorts of Schism he concludes That there may be a disobedience and irregularity and so a Schism even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans and of the Authority which these have by Canon and primitive custom over them Which was therefore to be added to the several species of Schism set down in the former Chapters Where tho the Doctor is pleased not to name particularly Patriarchs yet the quotation p. 54. We must yet ascend c. and p. 60. shews you that he upon the same reason of Church-Canons and primitive Custom doth and must hold that there may be a Schism also in the Metropolitans and consequently in all those under the Metropolitans in respect of their Patriarch The uniting as of several Diocesses in one Metropolitan and of several Provinces and Metropolitans in one Primate so of many Nations and Primates in one Patriarch exceedingly conducing to the peaceable government and cohesion of the Church Catholick and suppression of Heresies and Schisms oft'ner National than Diocesan only or Provincial Quae vero est causa saith Grotius in his first Reply upon Rivet ad Art 7. cur qui opinionibus dissident inter Catholicos maneant in eodem corpore non rupta communione contra qui inter Protestantes dissident idem facere nequeant utcunque multa de dilectione fraterna loquantur Hoc qui recte expender it inveniet quanta sit vis Primatus Which Primacy St. Hierom observes even amongst the Apostles themselves adversus Jovinianum l. 1. c. 14. Super Petrum fundatur Ecclesia licet id ipsum in alio loco super omnes Apostolos fiat cuncti claves regnorum Coeli accipiant ex aequo super eos Ecclesiae fortitudo solidetur tamen propterea inter duodecim unus eligitur ut capite constituto schismatum tollatur occasio Capite that is not only in dignity but also in some authority else can such Head not remedy Schisms Patriarchs therefore as well as Metropolitans much conducing to the removing of Schisms and preserving the Church's unity I suppose whatever the Prince or Emperor should attempt against such Metropolitan or Patriarch either to oppose him in the managing of those spiritual matters and to deny him to exercise either by himself or his Ministers his jurisdiction in any Province which is by Church Canons subjected unto him or to depose him from his See or to transfer his authority and jurisdiction on some other whom he more approves of as if Valentinian much affected to the Arrians should have transferr'd St. Ambrose his Archiepiscopal jurisdiction upon Auxentius an Arrian Bishop whom he much affected as his Mother Justina I think actually did wanting only possession of the Church which Ambrose assisted also by the people stoutly resisted yet still according to Dr. Hammond's judgment as long as the Canons of the Church remain the same it would be Schism in any to disobey such Metropolitan or to side with the Prince and Schism in the Prince himself as well as in the rest Again S. W. replying thus upon these words of his Schis p. 125. the Canons of Councils have mostly been set out and receiv'd their authority by the Emperors That never was it heard that an Emperor claim'd a negative Voice in making a Canon of a Council valid which concern'd matters purely spiritual nay not disaccepted them decreed unanimously by the Fathers but all the world look'd upon him as an unjust and tyrannical Encroacher To this Dr. Hammond Ans to Schism Disarmed p. 203. speaks thus For the appendage c. I need not reply having never pretended or seem'd to pretend what he chargeth on me concerning the Emperor's negative Voice in the Council what I pretended I spake out in plain words that the Canons have bin mostly set out and receiv'd their authority by the Emperors and this receiving their authority is I suppose in order to their powerful reception in their Dominions and this he acknowledgeth and so we are Friends Thus Dr. Hammond Now all that which S. W. there acknowledgeth is That the supreme Secular power is oblig'd to see that the Church's Decrees be receiv'd and put in execution By Dr. Hammond's consent then a negative
Emperor after 1080 what is establish'd by such a Synod not General is too weak to overthrow any former rights of the Church Neither is Balsamon's a later Greek Writer's authority much to be stood upon in this controversie Neither speaks he home in this point whether the Patriarch is to admit what the Emperor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after he hath represented to the Emperor that it is against the Canons Thus much of the 12th Canon In the 17th Canon and the 38th in Trullo Here is only upon the Emperor's building a new City or perhaps upon his transferring the Civil right and priviledges of having the seats of Judicature c. from one City in a Province unto another and upon this subjecting some other inferior Cities or Towns call'd Parochia's when being the jurisdiction of an ordinary Bishop see Hammond Schism p. 57. unto it the subjecting also of the Bishops of those Parochiae under that City to the Bishop of that City Where note First that these Canons speak only of the subjecting of Parochial Bishops to new Metropolitans where new Cities are builded and not of altering any thing in the jurisdiction of old which the 12th Canon of the same Council so expresly opposeth Secondly Only of subjecting Parochial Bishops to new Metropolitans not of subjecting Metropolitans to new Patriarchs nor yet to new Primates For 't is most clear that this very Council that made this Canon never dreamt of any power the Emperor had to erect a new Patriarch as I have shew'd before § 43. and much less Leo the Bishop of Rome who confirm'd these Canons yet vehemently opposed the Council seeking to erect Constantinople into a Patriarchy much more would he have opposed the Emperor Thirdly Whatever priviledge the Emperor here receives methinks their ordering that such a thing should be done subsequatur is far from sounding that they yeilded such a thing to belong to the Emperor by right as Dr. Hammond expounds it Schis p. 119. But then if the Emperor hold such priviledge from the Church the Church when they please may resume this power for so himself argues concerning any priviledges which Secular Princes have formerly conceded to the Bishop of Rome and then hear what the 21th Canon of the 8th General Council saith if we will trust later Councils not far distant in time better to understand the concessions of former Definimus neminem prorsus mundi potentium quenquam eorum qui Patriarchalibus sedibus praesunt inhonorare aut movere a proprio throno tentare Sed omni reverentia honore dignos judicare praecipue quidem sanctissimum Papam senioris Romae c. § 45 As for the things mention'd afterward by the Doctor p. 120 c. the power of changing the seat of a Bishop or dividing one Province into many as likewise the presenting of particular persons to several Dignities in the Church which also private Patrons do without claiming any superiority in Church-matters some of which seem of small consequence as to Ecclesiastical affairs Yet are not these things justly transacted by the Prince's sole Authority without the approbation first of Church-Governors But the same things may be acted by the Church alone the Prince gain-saying if he be either Heathen or Heretick which also shews his power when orthodox in the regiment of the Church to be only executive and dependent on the Ecclesiastical Magistrate's No persons are or at least ought to be put into any Church-dignities without the authoritative consent and concurrence of the Clergy who if they reject such persons tho presented by Princes as unorthodox or otherwise unfit they cannot be invested in such Offices Hear what the 8th General Council saith of this matter Can. 22. Sancta universalis Synodus definit neminem Laicorum principum vel potentum semet inserere electioni vel promotioni Patriarchae vel Metropolitae aut cujuslibet Episcopi ne videlicet c. Praesertim cum nullam in talibus potestatem quenquam potestativorum vel caeterorum Laicorum habere conveniat Quisquis autem saecularium principum potentum vel alterius dignitatis Laicae adversus communionem ac consentaneam atque Canonicam electionem Ecclesiastici ordinis agere tentaverit Anathema sit The transplanting of Bishopricks and division of Provinces probably was never order'd by Princes but either first propos'd or assented-to by the Clergy see that instance of Anselm Hammond of Schis p. 122. or upon some more general grant indulgently made to some pious Princes from the chief powers of the Church Tho Historians commonly in relation of such facts mention only the King's power as by whose more apparent and effectual authority such things are put in execution in which things negative arguments that such persons as are not mention'd did not concur especially when they are mention'd to concur in some other acts of the same nature are very fallacious But imagine we once the power of erecting Patriarchies and Primacies and by consequence of the bestowing and transferring the several priviledges thereof solely cast into the hands of a Secular Prince and then this Prince not orthodox a supposition possible and what confusion and mischief must it needs produce in such a body as the Church strictly tyed in Canonical obedidience to such Superiors and submitting to their judgment and decisions in spiritual matters by which the King may sway the controversies in Religion within his own Dominions what way he pleaseth unless we will imagine there shall be no Ecclesiasticks at all of his own perswasions whom he may surrogate into the places of those who gainsay Such were the times of Constantius And by such violent and uncanonical expulsion and intrusion of Prelates the face of Religion was seen changed and re-changed so often here in England within a few years according to the fancies of the present Prince as if there were in her no certain form of truth And the same thing we have seen done before our eyes in our own days The removing inducting deposing promoting Ecclesiastical persons as the Secular power pleaseth being also a changing of the Church's Doctrine as it pleaseth Thus much to what Dr. Hammond hath said Schis p. 120 c. § 46 Lastly Schis p. 125. he makes three instances in the fact of the Kings of Judah in the fact of St. Paul and in the fact of the Christian Emperors tending to this purpose that their authority is supreme in Ecclesiastical causes as well as Civil and therefore may erect Patriarchies His words there are The authority of Kings is supreme in all sorts of causes even those of the Church as well as Civil as appears among the Jewish Kings in Scripture David ordering the courses of the Priests Solomon consecrating the Temple Hezekiah 2 Chron. 29. 2 King 18. and Josiah 2 King 22. ordering many things belonging to it And so St. Paul appeal'd from the judgment of the chief Priests to the Tribunal of Caesar So in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole third Book is made up of Justinian's i. e. the Emperor's constitutions De Episcopis Clericis Sacris And the Canons of Councils have mostly bin set out and receiv'd their authority by the Emperors Concerning the first instance here of the Kings of the Jews I must remind you of what Dr. Hammond hath conceded set down before § 40. That Kings are so Supremes in Ecclesiastical matters that they have no negative voice in the decrees of Councils so that David Hezekiah c if we speak only of their Kingly not of a Prophetical power did nor could lawfully do nothing of all that they did about the Priests or the Temple contrary to the orders and rules of the Priests but only according to these in which they had always the Priest not opposing but concurring with them in all their new models or reformations as is shewed elsewhere in Authority of Clergy derived from Christ p. 47. tho the King as the chief Executioner and perhaps first motioner also of such designs is singly named But if Dr. Hammond callenge to the Prince more authority than this for some Ecclesiastical matters namely those of external order as he calls them Answ to Schis disar p. 187 and 195. and urgeth Schis p. 124. a saying of Constantine's to that purpose Euseb de vita Constant 4. l. 24. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he translates Ye are Bishops of the Church for those things which are celebrated within it but for external things I am constituted Bishop by God As if Princes may govern and administer these without or against the judgment of the clergy then I demand Whether erecting Patriarchates subordination of Bishops Metropolitans Primates c ordering of their Councils how often to be kept by whom called directing of Appeals Fasts Festivals c be reckoned by him such things of external order If they be then General Councils in ordering these things for example the Nicene Council in composing their 6th Canon either were only the Prince's deputies and instruments and all such canons were void without his ratification or else they usurped an authority not belonging unto them for their canons we find full of such orders But if they be not then Dr. Hammond's external orders will be nothing to the matter he is discoursing of As for the words of Constantine it seems plain to me by the chapter preceding that he speaks here of his playing the Bishop over those persons who were without the Church both gentes subjectas Romano imperio legiones quibus saith Eusebius by the Emperor's injunctions Idololatriae fores clausae erant repressumque quodvis idolis sacrificandi genus c over which persons the Bishops of the Church had no authority and I conceive the words ought to be rendred thus Ye are Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for or amongst those persons I say S. W. saith affairs which are within the Church but I am Bishop for the persons or affairs without the Church But the Doctor 's translation seems forced both to the words and to the context in which I appeal to any that will take the pains to consider the words and to view the place Besides that I see not how the Emperour can call the prohibition of sacrificing to Idols the observing of the Lord's day c things of external order as the Doctor will have them Concerning the second S. Paul's appeal from the the High-Priest and the Sanedrim to Caesar by which the Doctor seems to justifie such Supremacy of the Prince above the clergy that from the highest court of Ecclesiasticks in matters Ecclesiastical appeals may be made to him and to him tho an infidel I demand Whether the H. Priest and Sanedrim were the highest Ecclesiastical Court or Council by God at that time appointed for deciding the controversies of Religion such as S. Paul's is by him supposed to be or no. If it were then ought the controversy at Antioch to have bin brought before them and not before the Council of the Apostles If it were not then the Doctors instance fits not his purpose But the Apostle here accused of sedition and before any judgment given laid wait for to be killed by his very Judges who justified him in some part for his religion the tenent of the resurrection appeals to the Sovereign power for his necessary protection from the violence of those who in Spiritual matters had no reason to judge him As for any appeal in these matters from the highest Ecclesiastical court to secular Princes it hath bin often prohibited to the clergy in several Councils see before § 9. and is so as I conceive by S. Paul 1 Cor. 6.1 6. to unbelieving Princes such as Caesar was To the third the Emperors constitutions such as are in matters purely Ecclesiastical t is sufficient to say that such never were contrary to any laws of the Church or when they were so were so often void in Dr. Hammond's judgment who grants the Emperor to have no negative voice in Councils i.e. to annull any of their constitutions but surely he annulls them who lawfully enacts contrary Such therefore were his Ecclesiastical constitutions so far as lawful as that the clergy consented to or at least dissented not from them Which shews the legislative power primarily in them not in him For there cannot be two Lawgivers in the same matters over the same persons both whom they shall be obliged to obey unless they can obey contradictions Therefore if the Emperor in these Church-matters have no negative voice in respect of the decrees of Councils they must needs have a negative voice in respect of the decrees of Emperors and so how much of his laws they disallow or deny is cancelled As for the other expression that Canons of Councils mostly receive their authority by Emperors see before § 40. how S.W. hath caused the Doctor to explain himself in his answer to Schism disarmed § 47 Thus much from § 38. concerning that proposition That whatever Authority the Church Canons and Customs have given to any Ecclesiastical person That obedience due may not be withheld upon Governors undue claims cannot be annull'd c. by Seculars and That it is Schism to oppose any authority so established Next This proposition also I think undeniable That none may substract obedience from any in matters where it is due because such person requires also obedience in matters where it is not due But that whilst the one is opposed the other ought to be yeilded Therefore should the Patriarch make a breach upon the Civil rights of Princes or their Subjects these may not 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 establish'd by Christ or by the Church much to the good but nothing at all to the damage