Truth 's perpetual presence with and assistance of them as I shall now shew you § 41 After therefore those taken away who sate in Moses his chair to guide the people in matters of the law that there are others placed in Christ's Chair to guide God's people in all matters of the Gospel whose judgment and sentence in all their decisions the subjects of the Church ought to follow and obey appeareth 1. from many texts of Scripture See first that text in the Gospel Matt. 18.15 c. answering to that other formerly urged in the law Deut. c. 17. v. 8. c. If thy brother shall trespass against thee i.e. either by way of personal offence or by way of scandal of which our Saviour had bin speaking before v. 6 7. whereby any great offence of our brother against God against his neighbour or himself becomes matter of our cognisance as fellow-members of the same Body and who should be always so charitably affected to him as not to suffer sin upon him Lev. 19.17 go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone c. If he will not hear thee then take with thee two or three more c convent and arraign him as it were before some neighbours If he shall neglect to hear them tell it his fault and neglect unto the Church but if he neglect to hear the Church let him be unto thee as an Heathen and a Publican as a person excommunicated and not to be a companied with Luk. 15.2 Verily I say unto you whatsoever ye before whom such matters are brought shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever ye shall upon such offenders penitence loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven Again I say unto you that if two of you any small assembly shall agree together on earth as touching any thing that they shall resolve on and ask to have it ratified it shall be done for them of my Father For where any such assembly tho but two or three are gathered together in my Name and by my authority delegated to them see 1 Cor. 5.4 2 Cor. 2.10 there am I whom the Father heareth always in the midst of them § 42 In which Scriptures 1. That by Church Tell it unto the Church v. 17. is to be understood Clergy is clear from what follows v. 18. whatsoever ye shall bind c. comp with Mat. 16.19 Jo. 20.23 and from what follows v. 20 comp with Mat. 28.19 20. And 2. That here is meant the Clergy not only that were then in being the Apostles but that should succeed them through all following Ages is clear both from the same occasions of repairing to the Churches Tribunal v. 15. occurring in all ages and from the power of binding and loosing as necessary in one age as another and unquestionably exercised by the Apostles Successors concerning which matter I refer you to what is said before § 36. n. 1 2. and below and Church-Government part 2. § 27. c. 3ly That the Order for telling and the Precept of hearing this Clergy the Church of all Ages is to be understood not only concerning some injuries or wrongs done to us by our brother but concerning other faults and evil manners whereby our brother offends God and the Christian Society whereof he is a member appears from that expression v. 15. If he shall hear thee thou hast gained thy brother not gained thy loss in receiving satisfaction but gained thy Brother in procuring his reformation Again that is to be understood not only concerning trespass of Manners neither but also of Doctrines and Opinions much more as it seems deduceable from the context v. 6 7. mentioning scandals of which false doctrines and opinions are the chiefest and as it seems clear a minori ad majus if others our Brothers trespasses be matter of complaint and of the Churches cognisance much more these any corruption in a matter of faith being generally far more dangerous and pernicious than a corruption in manners See Jo. ◠11 Gal. 5.20 evil deeds heresies c. and Rom. 2.8 the contentious not obeying the truth 2 Pet. 3.16 Wresting Scriptures to their own destruction Tit. 1.11 Rom. 16.17 Act. 15. Subverting mens souls and deceiving the hearts of the simple Jud. 1. perishing in gainsaying And our zeal to God's truth and honour being much to be preferred before that to our own wealth honour or security So is it evident and put out of doubt by many other Scriptures which may be brought in illustration of this 1. In which Scriptures both the members of the Church are warned to mark and avoid such false teachers and doctrines And 2ly The Church-governours are authorized to judge controversies and proceed in their censures against such teachers and such tenents as are contrary to the Doctrines formerly delivered by our Lord and his Apostles And 3ly in which Scriptures also are contained several instances of such judgments and proceedings § 33 See for the first Rom. 16.17 2 Thes 3.14 2 Jo. 10. where we are bidden to mark to note those that obey not those that cause divisions contrary to the Doctrines received from the Apostles to avoid not to have company with not to salute them i. e. to carry our selves toward them as Heathens and Publicans here Matt. 18.18 and to avoid such in like manner as the Corinthians the incestuous person 1 Cor. 5.11 compared with 7.13 that is by Excommunication and Church-censures Whence also was the custom in the Primitive Church of Christians that travelled to carry with them Letters commendatory from the Bishop of the place that so they might be admitted to the prayers and communion in those Churches whither they went scrupulous of joining with any Hereticks See for the 2d Eph. 4.4 5 11 c. There is one Body and one Spirit One Lord one Faith When he ascended up on high he gave gifts unto men And he gave some Apostles c. some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the Ministery for the edifying of the Body of Christ till we all come in the unity of the faith unto a perfect man That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the slight of men c. This then is one office of the Churchmen to edify the Church in the unity of the faith and to keep them steddy in its Doctrines that they be not carried about now one way now another and that they be not thus carried about not only before the Gospel or other Books of the N. Testament were written but also after nay also that they be not carried about with several false glosses and misintepretations of these Writings of which very Writings S. Peter saith 2 Pet. 3.16 that some wrested them to their own destruction therefore the members of the Church to submit to their Doctrines and to conform to their Faith that there may be a
Apostles for all such are law given to the Church c. But alass who must judge when the Ecclesiastical power abolisheth any of matters c for the Pastors of the Church at the same time affirm and will die for it that neither against the Scriptures neither against Traditions of former Church have the transgressed nor do abolish but establish them and as for the people whom should they rather follow in matters of Divinity their Pastors or their Prince God hath given charge to the Clergy over the flock but where hath he committed the charge of the Clergy to the Prince Perhaps the common sence of Christians shall judge But are the Guides of the Church then only void of it and that in their own faculty Common sence of the Christian Laity what if they differ then in their common sence are we not then to follow the major part of them But so also the Reformed are cast the major part of Lay-Christians entertaining the Roman Tenents Again we have given up this right of the Church to the Prince where now shall we stay If one Prince may do the office of a Council and if need be decide matters of Faith for the Clergy why may not the next if need be Ordain for the Bishop or depose that Order obstinate in error Is this a dream are there not also those who claim this But then again if where the Clergy fails the Prince may take our Saviour's Chair and judge then supposing the Prince also through malice or ignorance c may fail too Is there not some Common-wealth that hath been lately under God's judgments in this condition I would gladly know whether an Ecclesiastical power may not review his Acts and reform his Errors and then why not both reform both at the same time according to their differing judgments But God is the God of order not of such confusion Thus much of the 2d thing proposed before § 1. the independency of the Ministers of Christ on any Secular power Now I shall consider the Third § 73 Next as the Ministry of Christ is secured for the perpetual continuance of their Spiritual power and office against all foreign force of Seculars which shall often rise against it by their Spiritual sword toward those Temporal Governors who fear God and by their fortitude being strengthened by Christ both in doing their duty and in suffering patiently toward Secular Governors Infidel or the Heretical so is it secured for ever for the unity of the Faith and of the Profession of it Eph. 4.5 13. against all intestine divisions amongst the Clergy which divisions often shall happen in it but shall never remain of it For it is as true that no Heresy or Schism within as that no Secular power without being only several Gates of Hell shall ever prevail against it § 74 To clear this point we must know that where ever any division happens in the Church and that one Communion which was at first established in a perfect not co but sub-ordination divides into two and each ordain Successors to their party one is to be counted no lawful succession Else since some Teachers there shall be that will differ from the rest and in all sects we may find some Clergy or other for us to follow the Church will have neither any such property as unity of her faith nor will there be any such crime as Schism from it Therefore the Church may and ought for the preservation of her purity and unity to excommunicate exauthorize and separate her self and her children from such as are false Teachers and walk disorderly that she might not be partaker of nor countenance them in nor encourage more to follow their sin according to the frequent commands of Scriptures forequoted see 2 Jo. 10 11. Matt. 18.17 1 Tim. 6.5 Tit. 3.10 1 Cor. 5.13 2 Tim. 2.19 21. compared with 18. Iniquity i.e. errors Gal. 1.8 9. Rev. 2.6 15 16. texts abused by some to justify a separation from the Church it self therefore also none can lawfully communicate both with the true and with an Heretical or Schismatical Church who tho they hold sufficient truth yet are to be refused and avoided for the breach of unity and that without respect to the numbers of the revolted or to the liability of the Church they desert to some nondestructive errors And this practice the Church hath always observed and the persons so disauthorized by it if afterward using their functions were in the Primitive times esteemed guilty of sin and sacriledge and so those also by them ordained And when returning to the Catholick faith as many Arian Bishops did they might not officiate till by a Declaration and reabilitation of the Church they were restored to the exercise of that authority of which they were by her formerly deprived For we must know that tho according to the common Tenent of die Church see Conc. Nice 8. Can. none that is ordained according to the right form of Ordination by a Heretick or Schismatick may be reordained no more than one baptized by such may be rebaptized or the Eucharist consecrated by such reconsecrated but when he recants his Heresy or Schism he being only relicensed by the Church dischargeth his function by vertue of his formerly received Orders Yet who so by Heresy or Schism is once deprived of the right of exercising his function as any one may be cannot confer this right on others but that all these afterwards stand as much suspended from any execution of their offices as himself doth Tho I cannot say but that the Effects of the Sacraments and other offices of their function as well in other things as in Baptism as in Marriages in Penance and Absolution the Eucharist c. are still valid to the simple Receiver who is guiltless of their faults the wickedness of the Minister if truly ordained not hindering the benefits to mankind which Christ hath annext to that Office and which always himself as the principal Agent by their hands confers § 75 To distinguish then true Succession which we are always to adhere and submit to 1. There is no lawful Succession where is no lawful Ordination Nor 2ly any Ordination lawful from or done by those that are condemned or guilty of Schism For to those that are guilty of this tho their former Ordination and the Character as some call that impressed by it is not annulled and blotted out for which cause as I said when such persons were reconciled and readmitted to their functions they were not reordained yet all the authority and right of discharging their function is taken away by the Church and ceaseth and consequently then ceaseth this power of ordaining others See Canon Apost 67.63 Cons. Nice can 19.8 And the same case I suppose it is of those who are condemned tho not guilty and who are excommunicated and thrust out of the Church never so unjustly for they yet desiring the communion denied them shew their approbation
the true doctrine Whereas those who submitted to the Roman as the most orthodox gathered it to be orthodox as being S. Peter's Seat and the prime Apostolical See That most of these testimonies and examples are not alledged out of the first and purest times non esse ex prima antiquitate sed post Nicaenam Synodum cum schismata partium studia in Christianos valere coeperunt Yet then that as their pride claimed much as they claimed indeed great authority from the beginning so were they by the resoluteness of their fellow-Bishops as much opposed and what they decreed seldom executed And lastly That much more dominion over the Church of God than is shewed here to have bin then practised is now assumed but what is this to the vindicator only of their ancient practice and That were it not assumed yet many and unsufferable are the inconveniences of so remote a Judge of Appeals But see concerning this what is said before § 14. To such exceptions as these I will trouble you with no reply If you do not find the former passages reviewed sufficiently to justifie themselves against these limitations and restrictions and to vindicate much more authority to the Apostolical See than is here confessed §. 37. Such power anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome not only exercised jointly with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended for me you may admit them for good answers Hitherto I have bin shewing you the subordinations of Clergy for regular Ordinations for setling doctrine and discipline in the Church and for deciding differences and amongst these from § 11. the great power given to Patriarchs and amongst and above them from § 21. more particularly the power and preeminence the Roman See hath anciently challenged or others yeilded to it In the next place observe That the exercise of this power anciently lay not in the Roman Bishop or other Patriarchs only as joined with or President in a Patriarchal Synod nor in Primates and Metropolitans only as President in a Provincial a refuge which many willingly fly to in their defence of a dissimilitude of the present to the ancient Government of the Church by them but in them as using only their private council or the assistance of such neighbouring Bishops as could without much trouble be convened Of which I shall give you an account out of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Field who have made it up to my hand Thus then Dr. Field 5. l. 30. c. p. 513. Provincial Councils were by ancient canons of the Church to be holden in every Province twice every year It is very necessary say the Fathers of the Council of Nice that there should be a Synod twice in the year in every Province that all the Bishops of the Province meeting together may in common think upon those things that are doubtful and questionable For the dispatch of Ecclesiastical business and the determining of matters in controversy we think it were fit say the Fathers in the Council of Antioch that in every Province Synods of Bishops should be assembled twice every year To the same effect he quotes Conc. Chalced. 18. c. see likewise Canon Apostol 38. But in process of time when the Governours of the Church could not conveniently assemble in Synods twice a year the Fathers of the Sixth General Council decreed Can. 8. that yet in any case there should be a Synod of Bishops once every year for Ecclesiastical questions Likewise the Seventh General Council can 6. decreeth in this sort Whereas the Canon willeth judicial inquisition to be made twice every year by the assembly of Bishops in every Province and yet for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods the Fathers of the 6th General Council decreed it should be once in the year and then things amiss to be redressed we renew this latter canon But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy meetings we shall find that they met not so often and therefore the Council of Basil appointeth Episcopal Synods to be held once every year and Provincial at least once in three years and so doth Conc. Trident. 24. sess 2. cap. pro moderandis moribus corrigendis excessibus controversiis componends c. which accordingly were kept every third year by Carlo Borrhomeo Metropolitan of Millain And so in time causes growing many and the difficulties intolerable in coming together and in staying to hear these causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by canons and Imperial laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And much what to the same purpose Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 257. What power a Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province by the Canon-law the same and no other had the Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate But a Metropolitan anciently could do nothing out of his own particular Diocess without the concurrence of the major part of the Bishops of his Province nor the Patriarch in like manner without the advice and consent of his Metropolitans and Bishops Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority In convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them in pronouncing sentence according to plurality of voices when Metropolitan Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent difficulties or differences I confess that by reason of the great difficulty and charge of convocating so many Bishops and keeping them so long together until all causes were heard and determined and by reason of those inconveniences which did fall upon their Churches in their absence Provincial Councils were first reduced from twice to once in the year and afterwards to once in three years And in process of time the hearing of Appeals and such-like causes and the execution of the canons in that behalf were referred to Metropolitans until the Papacy swallowed up all the authority of Patriarchs Metropolitans and Bishops Thus the Bishop Now concerning what they have said note 1. That tho Provincial Councils in some ages and places were more frequently assembled in the time of whole sitting as the assembled could do nothing without their Primate or Metropolitan so neither he without them yet in the intervals of such Synods which intervals were too long to leave all matters of controversy whatever till then in suspence and happened many times also anciently to be longer than the canons permitted the Metropolitans authority was not void but they limited and directed by the former decrees of such Synods were trusted with the execution thereof and with the doing of many things especially in ordinary causes by themselves alone but so as their acts of justice might upon complaint be reviewed in the sitting of the next Council and if
approach God's Altar at Jerusalem several instances likewise are produc'd out of the story γ. Aaron's making the Golden Calf and the people's worshipping it δ. Vriah the Priest's building an Altar like to that at Damascus at the King's command and Offering upon it 2 Kin. 16.11 16. ◠Ahab's four hundred false Prophets to one true 2 Kin. 22.6 and Elijah's complaint 1 Kin. 19.10 ζ. The Priest's Offering Sacrifice in the High Places where was neither the Tabernacle of Moses nor the Ark nor the Temple contrary to God's express command in the Law and that upon pain of death see Lev. 17.4 9. Deut 12 13. and this custom used for many hundreds of years till at last Hezechiah reformed it The shutting up the doors of Gods House putting out the Lamps and hindering the burning of Incense and of offering Sacrifice in the time of Ahaz 2 Chron. 28.24 29.7 Again the ceassing of God's publick worship under the Babilonish Captivity Again the taking away the daily Sacrifice and the setting up the abomination of desolation upon the Altar in the time of the Maccabees by Antiochus 1 Macchab. 1.54 59. ϑ To all which in the last place may be added the Reformations of this Church made by the Kings and not by the Priests after the defection of Solomon Rehoboam and Abijab by Asa and his Son Jehosaphat After that again of Ahaz by Hezechiah after that of Manasses and Amon by Josiah § 23 To make way here by certain degrees for a satisfying answer to the places objected 1. I think none will deny but that a true worship of God hath always been preserved upon earth in some persons or others Laicks or Clergy or both Jo. 4.22 Luke 16.16 Gen. 49.10 See Rom. 11.2 5. 9.6 7 29. 3.3 Psal 89.33 c. See Benef. of our Saviour H. ult § 24 2. I think it will not be pretended or at least that it cannot be shewed that in any time mere Laicks only retained this true worship without any Clergy at all orthodox so that in such time the Catholick Church the belief of which we profess in our Creed consisted wholly of Laicks destitute of a Minister of Holy things of publick Liturgy power of the Keys administration of Sacraments teaching God's law ordination of Successors in these Holy functions c. except perhaps these such as were vain false pernicious But however else it be yet under the times of the Law which only are to our purpose at present can be shewed no such thing For in the two greatest Apostacies that were in these times that of Ahaz before Hezechias Reformation and that of Manasses before Josiah's for whose enormous sins chiefly Judah was doomed by God to the Babilonish Captivity irreversible either by his own or by his righteous Son Josiah's repentance and reformation see 2 Kings 23.26 compared with 25. 24.3 4. 21.10 11. Jer. 15 4. 2 Chron. 35.15 c. yet I say in these two the greatest Apostacies we find that there was some Clergy still remaining orthodox For the one see 2 Chron. 29.4 13. where Hezechias Reformation in the very beginning of his Reign is assisted by the Priests and these reintroduced into the Service of the Temple out of which they had been not long before excluded by Ahaz in the latter end of his Reign 2 Chr. 28.24 But yet for the most part of Ahaz his reign also we find the daily Morning and Evening Sacrifice in the Temple not intermitted see 2 Kings 16.15 In whose time also Hezethiah his Son was rightly educated and instructed in the true Religion reforming all as soon as he came to the Crown in whose time also were many Prophets Isaiah Hosea Amos Micah and others who both instructed the people and animated and confirmed the Priests in God's true worship and the dishonourable burial of Ahaz 2 Chron. 28.17 shews neither the Nobility nor Clergy nor people generally addicted to his Apostacy whose Progenitors also Vzziah and Jotham being orthodox Princes it is not well imaginable how so short a Reign as his which lasted only sixteen years could produce any general defection But if this in others yet especially not in the Levites and in Aaron's posterity because these who were selected for the sacred Ministery in the worship of the God of Israel yet had no such priviledge in the service of other Gods For for the worship of their Idols the Kings as of Israel 2 Chron. 11.15 13.9 so of Judah made others Priests who were not descended from Aaron consecrated after the manner of the Levitical Priests only with more Sacrifices 2 Chr. 13.9 compared with Exod. 29.1 who are called Chemarim 2 King 23.5 And Josiah put down the Chemarim i.e. the idolatrous Priests whom the Kings of Judah had ordained c. see concerning these likewise in Zeph. 1.4 and Hos 10.5 tho I deny not but that sometimes some of the Levitical Priests might fall away to idolatry and officiate amongst these Yet see their constancy in the defection of Ieroboam and his sons who it is said 2 Chr. 11.13 14. the Priests and the Levites that were in all Israel left their suburbs and their possessions and came to Judah and Jerusalem because Jeroboam and his Sons would not permit them to execute their office unto the Lord. But then when any of these Priests so Apostatized they were never afterward permitted tho penitent to approach to God's Altar or officiate in Holy things before the Lord as I shall shew you presently § 25 This concerning the times of Ahaz Next for the Apostacy of Manasses which was far much greater yet see 2 Chron. 33.16 where in the latter end of his days the true worship of God was restored and the Priests of the Lord officiated in the Temple See likewise 2 Chro. 34. and 35. ch where Josiah in his Reformation begun before by Manasses his Grandfather had the assistance of the Priests and Levites and amongst the rest of the High Priest Hilkiah who also found in the Temple the book of the Law probably the Original which it was commanded that it should be put in a place made for it in the side of the Ark Deut. 31.26 and now it was found in the cleansing of the Temple and communicated it to the Prince who therefore long before this had learnt God's true Service not from the Scriptures but from the Priests Now none of these Priests and Levites who assisted Josiah did apostatize at all in the days of Manasses For touching idolatrous Priests King Josiah who performed as the last so the exactest Reformation of any Prince of Judah proceeded so severely against them as to sacrifice them upon their Idol-Altars see 2 Kings 23.20 according to the Prophecy of him 1 Kings 13.2 And even touching those other Levitical Priests who had formerly offered sacrifices in the High places tho these to the God of Israel he would not permit them afterwards to officiate at the Lord's Altar in Jerusalem but only indulged them their
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
disliked repealed 2. That tho Metropolitan Synods in some times were not unfrequent yet Patriarchal Synods were never nor never well could be so nor find we any set times appointed for calling them as for calling the other so that as t is plain by many former instances that the Patriarch ordinarily did so t is all reason that he should decide some appeals without them tho in some cases extraordinary and of great consequence such Councils also were assembled 3. Since where they speak of the Metropolitans judging matters alone to have bin a practice only of latter times yet they allow this to be done upon very rational grounds observe that there were the same rational grounds of doing it anciently and again that the practice they justify for Metropolitans in latter times they have much more reason to allow to Patriarchs in all times because the greater the Councils are with the more trouble are they conven'd and lastly that the reformed Metropolitans themselves who blame the Bishop of Rome's managing Ecclesiastical affairs by himself alone i. e. without a Patriarchal Synod yet themselves think it reasonable to do the same thing themselves alone i. e. without their Provincial Synod authorizing their High-commission Court and blaming his Consistory Now what is allowed to Patriarchal proceedings without Councils in respect of appeals from their several Provinces the same it is that in the differences and contests of Patriarchs themselves and of other greater Bishops since it is meet for preserving the Church's peace and unity that some person or assembly should have the authority to decide these and since it is unreasonable and for the great trouble thereof not feisible that a General Council or also Patriarchal in all such differences should be assembled the same I say it is that by ancient custom and Ecclesiastical canons hath bin conferred on the Bishop of Rome with his Council tho granted liable to error He being more eminently honourable than the rest by reason of the larger extent of his Patriarchy of the great power and ancient renown of that City which in Spiritual matters he governed but especially of the two greatest Apostles Peter and Paul there ending their days in the government of that See and leaving him there the Successor of their power Yet is this office of supreme judicature so committed unto him that his judgments only stand in force till such a meeting and may be reviewed and where contrary to former canons reversed by it concerning which see the saying of S. Austin quoted before § 22. Restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesie universae Concilium c. and the saying of Zosimus quoted § 22. n. 2. and the Epistle of Gelasius quoted § 25. n. 3. and what is said § 22. Now all Metropolitan and Patriarchal authority in the intervals of Councils being limited to the execution of Conciliary Laws and Canons or at least to the acting nothing against them if the question be asked who shall judge whether so they do I answer none but a superior Council till which their judgment stands good For as I have largely shewed elsewhere if Litigants once may judge of this when their Judges judge rightly and not against the laws and accordingly may yeild or substract their obedience such obedience is arbitrary In civil Courts Princes or their Ministers are obliged to judge according to or not against the laws of the Kingdom may the litigant therefore reject their judgment when it seems to him contrary to these laws I believe not § 38. That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power established by Ecclesiastical Canon and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by the power Secular Thus much having bin said of the authority and jurisdiction given by Ecclesiastical constitutions and ancient customs and practice to some Ecclesiastical persons above others and amongst them supereminently above all the rest to the Roman Bishop and given to these persons not only as joined with Councils but as single Magistrates in the vacancy thereof in the next place these Propositions also I think must necessarily be granted First That whatever authority is thus setled upon any persons by the canons and customs of the Church concerning the managing of affairs not civil but meerly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical cannot be annulled and dissolved nor cannot be conferred contrary to the Church's constitutions on any other person by any Secular power neither by Heathen and unbelieving Princes who were enemies to the Church nor by Christian much less because these are in Spiritual matters Sons and Subjects of the Church and now obliged to obey her laws neither by the one who so might easily hinder the propagation of Christianity nor by the other who if happening at any time to be Heretical or Schismatical might easily hinder the profession of the Orthodox faith or disturb the Church's peace Thus Grotius a great Lawyer in Rivet Apol. discuss p. 70. Imperatorum Regum aliquod esse officium etiam circa res Ecclesiae in confesso est At non tale quale in saeculi negotiis Ad tutandos non ad violandos Canones jus hoc comparatum est Nam cum Principes filii sint Ecclesiae non debent vi in matrem uti Omne corpus sociale jus habet quaedam constituendi quibus membra obligentur hoc jus etiam Ecclesiae competere apparet Act. 15.28 Heb. 13.17 where he quotes Facundus saying of Martianus Cognovit ille quibus in causis uteretur Principis potestate in quibus exhiberet obedientiam Christiani And Obedite Praepositis etiam Regibus dictum See this discoursed more largely in Success Clerg § 64 65. 2. And further That it is Schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power so established and never since by the same Ecclesiastical laws reversed I say here concerning matters Ecclesiastical not Civil therefore let that Proposition of Dr. Hammond schism 6. c. p. 129. for me stand good That a Law tho made by a General Council and with the consent of all Christian Princes i. e. of that time yet if it have respect to a civil right may in this or that Nation be repealed i. e. by that Prince's Successors provided only That the ordaining or confirming of inferior Governors and Officers of the Church the assembling of Synods and decision of controversies of Religion the ordering Church-service and discipline the Ecclesiastical censures upon delinquents and the like for preventing or suppressing of Heresie Schism and Faction and for preserving the Church in unity of doctrine and practice Provided I say that such things be not reckoned amongst civil rights as they may not be because all these were things used by the Church under the heathen Emperors even against their frequent Edicts yet could they not have bin lawfully so used if any of these had encroached on civil rights in any of which civil rights the heathen Prince might claime as much lawful power to prohibit them as the Christian
Voice the Prince hath not to reverse or contrary the Church's Canons in spiritual matters only he thus may be said to give authority to them methinks the phrase is very improper and liable to be mistaken to see them in his Dominions to be put in execution Note that what is said here of the Secular Prince is also to be said of any particular Clergy in respect of superior Councils Again that what is said of the Prince or Clergy of the same Age wherein such Canons are enacted is to be said of their successors till the same authority which imposeth abrogate such Canons As in Civil Governments the same Laws which bind the Parents bind the Children without the Legislative power 's asking their consent § 41 Many I find are the shifts to get loose from these Canons and such links of Church-relations Several pretences to weaken such Canons to me seeming vain many the pretences to null their force but to me seeming invalid and vain Grotius Disc Riv. Apol. p. 69. bringing forth against Rivet the testimony of Blondel non negari a Protestantibus dignitatem Sedis Apostolicae Romanae neque primatum ejus super Ecclesias vicinas imo aliquatenus super omnes sed referri hoc ab iis ad jus Ecclesiasticum Rivet Grot. disc dialys thus replies to it Ad jus Ecclesiasticum Hoc est ad institutum humanum Quo postea abusi sunt Episcopi Romani ad Monarchiam stabiliendam Itaque quod ab hominibus initio concessum cum ad jus Dei evertendum postea fuerit conversum merito possessoribus injustis denegatur See the same plea in Bishop Bramhall Vindic. p. 252. c. That Institutum Ecclesiasticum is jus humanum True And that it may be taken away True By the Church that conferr'd it i. e. by another General Council but not by Laicks or some few Ecclesiasticks and may be denied injustis possessoribus True so much as they possess unjustly i. e. contrary to Canon § 42 Those plea's also which Bishop Bramhall Vind. c. 9. makes in answer to that objection That the English have cast off Canonical obedience I seem to me very infirm As this p. 257. Since the division of Brittain from the Empire no Canons are or ever were of force with us further than they were receiv'd and by their incorporation became Britanick Laws True as to any Secular coactive power in the execution of them which is deriv'd only from the Prince Like unto which is that passage p. 268. We draw or derive from the Crown liberty and power to exercise actually and lawfully upon the subjects of the Crown that habitual jurisdiction which we receive at our Ordination And that in Reply to B. Chalced. c. 7. p 291. That Ecclesiastical persons in excommunicating and absolving are the King's substitutes i. e. as he expounds himself afterward by the King's application of the matter namely his Subjects to receive their absolution from such Ecclesiastical persons No more true than that any King's Subjects may not lawfully receive Baptism or turn Christian without his Licence Some or other Clergy may and ought to do these things both Preach Baptize Absolve and Excommunicate in any Prince's Dominions as their duty shall require tho the Prince gain-saying Of many Clergy capable to do it that one of them not another shall be nominated and admitted to do it may belong to Princes Are then the Canons and Constitutions or the Church made in her representative a General Council not obligatory to the several members of the Church I mean as to the extent of Ecclesiastical Censures upon Delinquents save where their temporal Soveraign first admits them What if these be Heathen What if Heretick Again if the actual exercise of their Office he held from the Crown then have they no authority over any Nation or Province if the Secular power deny it them And what Secular power deny'd it not in the primitive times Or is this a priviledge of Christian Princes only over God's Clergy not of Heathen Do Christ's Ministers gain this by converting Kings to the Faith that they lose their former power over their Subjects But what if such Christian Prince prove Heretical or Schismatical What if he silence or banish the Orthodox are they to obey Him now rather than God Is their Commission from Christ to go and teach all and consequently that Nation upon such a Prince's Edict voided or lying dormant And may they now forbear speaking the things which they have heard We cannot but speak said the Apostle when the Magistrate silenc'd them Act. 4.20 The same thing may be said of the unlawfulness of Princes prohibiting any authorized for this purpose by the supreme Magistrates of the Church-Catholick from entring their Dominions except those who are known to be sent on secular designs So suppose in a State over-run with Arrianism or Socinianism an Heretical Prince cannot justly forbid the entrance of Patriarchal Missions to reduce him and his Subjects to Truth And again an Orthodox Prince cannot reasonably exclude such Missions who consent with him in judgment and whose intendments are spiritual As this also p. 256. The King and the whole Body of the Kingdom by their Legislative power substracting their obedience from a just Patriarchal power and erecting a new Patriarchate within their own Dominions it is a sufficient warrant to all English men to suspend their obedience to the one and apply themselves to the other May then Princes and States in Ecclesiastical affairs make Laws contrary to those of the Church Or have they a Legislative power in Spirituals contrary to General Councils I had thought their power had in these things been only Architectonical to see things done according to the Church-Decrees And may they nominate Patriarchs contrary to those the Church elects Or may some small part of the Clergy do these things against all the rest of their Body Or the Prince or that particular Clergy erring in thus doing are the people oblig'd to or excused in following them in their error As this p. 254. The sentence of the Law and the notoreity of the fact are sufficient i. e. for inferiors to deny their obedience to Superiors the sentence of the Judge i. e. of a General Concil is not necessary We know who have lately made use of such principles of Inferiors judging of the evidence of laws and facts to the confusion and destruction of a most flourishing temporal Kingdom Are inferiors then not liable to be mistaken and plead clear sentence of law and notoreity of fact where others as judicious think there is no such matter But whither tends this That if we find the Patriarch clearly usurping some power the Church canons have not given him we are thence-forth free from yeilding any obedience also to that authority which the Canon hath given him Apply this to a temporal Governor and it seems an unreasonable consequence and we are convinced in it by the example of many
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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