Imperial Lawes could never be of force to void the Power of the Church Evidence for it 125 CHAP. XV. Another opinion admiâ—ting the ground of Lawfull Impediments What Impediments arise upon the Constitution of the Church generally as a Society or particularly as of Christians By what Law some degrees are prohibited Christians And of the Polygamy of the Patriarchs Mariage with the deceased wives Sister and with a Cousin Germane by what Law prohibited Of the Profession of Continence and the validity of clandestine Mariages The bound of Ecclesiastical Power in Mariage upon these grounds 134 CHAP. XVI Of the Power of making Governours and Ministers of the Church Vpon what ground the Hierarchy of Bishops Priests and Deacons standath in opposition to Presbyteries and Congregations Of the Power of Confirming and the evidence for the Hierarchy which it yeeldeth Of those Scriptures which seem â—o speake of Presbyteries or Congregations 145 CHAP. XVII The power given the XII under the Title of Apostles and the LXX Disciples That the VII were Deacons Of the first Presbyters at Jerusalem and the interest of the People Presbyters appropriated to Churches under the Apostles S. Pauls Deacons no Presbyters No ground for Lay Elders 152 CHAP. XVIII The Apostlet all of equall power S. Peter onely chiefe in managing it The ground for the pre-eminence of Churches before and over Churches Of Alexandria Antiochia Jerusalem and Rome Ground for the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome before all Churches The consequence of that Ground A summary of the evidence for it 161 CHAP. XIX Of the proceedings about Marcion and Montanus at Rome The business of Pope Victor about keeping Easter a peremptory instance The businesse of the Novatians evidenceth the same Of the businesses concerning the rebaptizing of Hereticks Dionysius of Alexandria Paulus Samosatenus S. Cypriane and of the Donatists under Constantine 168 CHAP. XX. Of the constitution and authority of Councils The ground of the pre-eminence of Churches in the Romane Empire The VI. Canon of the Council of Niâ—aea The pre-eminence of the Church of Rome and that of Constantinople Some instances against the Superiority of Bishops out of the records of the Church what offices every Order by Gods Law or by Canon Law ministreth 175 CHAP. XXI Of the times of Gods service By what Title of his Law the first day of the week is kept Holy How the Sabbath is to be sanctified by Moses Law The fourth Commandment the ground upon which the Apostles inacted it Vpon what ground the Church limiteth the times of Gods service Of Easter and the Lent Fast afore it Of the difference of mâ—ats and measure of Fasting Of keeping of our Lords Birth-day and other Festivals and the regular hours of the day for Gods service 190 CHAP. XXII The people of God tied to build Synâ—gogues though not by the leter of the Law The Church to provide Churches though the Scripture command it not Prescribing the form of Gods publick service is not quenching the Spirit The Psalter is prescribed the Church for Gods Praises The Scriptures prescribed to be read in the Church The order of reading them to be prescribed by the Church 203 CHAP. XXIII The consecration of the Eucharist prescribed by Tradition for the mater of it The Lords Prayer prescribed in all Services The mater of Prayers for all estates prescribed The form of Baptism necessary to be prescribed The same reason holdeth in the formes of other Offices 211 CHAP. XXIV The service of God prescribed to be in a known Language No pretense that the Latine is now understood The means to preserve Unity in the Church notwithstanding The true reason of a Sacrifice inforceth Communion in the Eucharist What occasions may dispense in it Communion in both kinds commanded the People Objections answered Who is chargeable with the abuse 217 CHAP. XXV Prayer the more principall Office of Gods service then Preaching Preaching neither Gods word nor the meanes of salvation unlesse limited to the Faith of Gods Church What the edification of the Church by preaching further requires The Order for divine service according to the course of the Church of England According to the custome of the universal Church 273 CHAP. XXV Idolatry presupposeth an imâ—gination that there is more Gods then one Objections out of the Scripture that it is the worship of the true God under an Image the Original of worshipping the elements of the world The Devill And Images Of the Idolatry of Magicians and of the Gnosticks What Idolatry the cases of Aaron and Jeroboam involve Of the Idolatries practised under the Kings and Judges in answer to objections 282 CHAP. XXVI The place or rather the State of happy and miserable Soules otherwise understood by Gods people before Christs ascension then after it What the Apocalypse what the rest of the Apostles declare Onely Martyrs before Gods Throne Of the sight of God 302 CHAP. XXVII The Souls of the Fathers were not in the Devils Power till Christ Though the Old Testament declare not their estate Of Samuels soul The soul of our Lord Christ parting from his body went with the Thiefe to Paradise Of his triumph over the powers of darknesse Prayer for the dead signifieth â—o delivering of souls out of Purgatory The Covenant of Grace requires imperfect happinesse before the generall judgement Of forgivenesse in the world to come and paying the utmost farthing 310 CHAP. XXVIII Ancient opinions in the Church of the place of souls before the day of judgement No Tradition that the Fathers were in the Vâ—rge of Hell under the Earth The reason of the difference in the expressions of the Fathers of the Church What Tradition of the Church for the place of Christs soul during his death The Saints soules in secret mansions according to the Tradition of the Church Prayer for the dead supposeth the same No Purgatory according to the Tradition of the Church 325 CHAP. XXIX The ground upon which Ceremonies are to be used in the service of the Church Instances out of the Scriptures and Tradition of the Apostles Of the equivocation of the word Sacrament in the Fathers The reason of a Sacrament in Baptism and the Eucharist In extream Unction In Mariage In Confirmation Ordination and Penance 340 CHAP. XXX To worship Christ in the Eucharist though believing transubstantiation is not Idolatry Ground for the honour of Saints and Martyrs The Saints and the Angels pray for us Three sorts of Prayers to Saints The first agreeable with Christianity The last may be Idolatry The second a step to it Of the Reliques of the Saints Bodies What the second Commandment prohibiteth or alloweth The second Council of Nicaea doth not decree Idolatry And yet there is no decree in the Church for the worshipping of Images 350 CHAP. XXXI The ground for Monastical life in the Scriptures And in the practice of the primitive Church The Church getteth no peculiar interest in them who professe it by their professing of it
of ransome Ephe I. 13. IV. 30. Unless a reason could be showed why S. Peter and S. John should travail from Jerusalem to Samaria to do that which they need not do at Jerusalem where they were Or originally why the Imposition of the Apostles hands should be requisite to procure some the Holy Ghost and not others This being that which the Scriptures record of the Apostles all men know how ancient how general the custome hath been in the Church for Bishops to confirm the baptized by praying for the effect of it which is the Holy Ghost with Imposition of hands Professing thereby that they own their Faith and Baptism and acknowledge them for part of their flock as acknowledged by them for their Pastors Which is that eminence of honour due to the Bishop in which the welfare of the Church consisteth saith S. Hierome advâ—rsus Luciferianâ—s For Tertullian also de Bapt. cap. XVII reserveth unto the Bishop the right of granting Baptism though he allow not onâ—ly Priests and Deacons but partly also Laymen to Baptize Now if from the beginning this priviledge was reserved the Apostles in signe of the truth of that Baptism which so they allowed If those who received Baptism at years of discretion hâ—â—ing theâ—â—elves made profession of their faith were neverthelesse to acknowledge thâ—ir Paâ—â—ors and the Unity of the Church wrapped up in them as that uâ—on which the effect of Baptism dependeth How much more those that are bâ—ptized Infanâ—s Who cannot otherwise according to the original constitution of the Church be secured that they profess the faith of the whole Church but by their Bishops allowance through whom they have communion with the wâ—ole Church For as I have showed that there was originally no other mean to maintain the unity of the Church but the faith of the Bishop to secure the whole Church of the faith of his flock So was the â—same the onely mean to secure the flock that they held the faith of the whole Church which owned their Bishop and his faith And howsoever the profession of faith may be limited and the Bishop in exacting the same yet is it necessarily an act of chief Power in the Church to allow the communion of the Eucharist So that when once Presbyterians share this part of the Bishops Power among their Triers allowing them to admit to the Communion those that can say the Catechism which they made themselves First they put upon us a new faith which we must own for the faith of the Church Then to debauch Partizans to themselves they authorize the malice of gross carnall Christians to domineer over their neighbours whom they may easily pick a quarel with for not answering their Catechism but are not able either to warrant or to teach them the truth of the least tittle of it which so neerly concerning their salvation how necessary is it that it be reserved to the Head of each Church Besides that by acknowledging him they visibly submit to the Laws of the Church by which he governs and to his authority in such maters as the Laws do not determine which is the very means of maintainidg Unity in the Church And truly the consideration of this point discovers unto us the onely sure ground upon which any man may resolve what offices of christianity may be ministred by the several Orders of the Church For when the power of Confirming proper to the Bishop evidenceth that he alone granteth Baptism either by particular appointment or by general Law in which his authority is involved but a Layman sometimes may minister it we see what S. Paul means when he sayes 1 Cor. I. 17. God sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel Our Lord having said Mat. XXVIII 19. Go Preach and make Disciles of all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost To wit that the Power of appointing it not the ministery of doing it is proper to the Apostles and their successors Which reason will hold in sundry particulars concerning Ordination concerning Absolution and Penance concerning confirmation and others In all which this being once secured that no man act beyond the Power which he receiveth it will be no prejudice to the unity of the Church that some Orders do that by particular commission from their Superiours which their Order inables not all that are of it to do Because in such cases it is not Authority but Ministery which they contribute As for the order of Priesthood that the power of consecrating the Eucharist is equall to the Power of the Keys in which that Order hath an Interest in the inward Court of Conscience the outward Court of the Church being reserved to the Bishop with advice and assistance of his Presbyters whereas the power of Preaching and Baptizing is of ordinary Right communicable to Deacons For the proof of all this I referre my selfe to that which I have said in the Right of the Church Chap. III. and to that which must be said here in due place Let not then those of the Presbyteries or Congregations think their businesse done till they can give us some reasonable account how all the Christian world should agree to set up Bishops into a rank above their Clergy and People both if this had been forbidden nay if it had not been so ordered by the Apostles Not that I grâ—nt them to have any more appearance of evidence from the Scriptures to destroy the superiority of the Bishops and the concurrence of the Clergy to the maintenance of unity in the Church then the Socinians have to destroy the faith of the Holy Trinity and the satisfaction of Christ But because I do grant these as I granted the other that there is that appearance of evidence which every one that is concerned to be subject to Bishops cannot evidenly resolve as every one that is bound to believe the Holy Trinity and the satisfaction is not bound to be able evidently to resolve all objections which the Socinians can make against it out of the Scriptures For it is granted that S. Hierome hath alleged many texts of Scriptures to show that Bishops and Priests were both the same thing under the Apostles and that therefore the difference between them is but of positive humane right by custome of the Church and hath many followers in this opinion among Church Writers Though with this difference that it can never be pretended that S. Jerome or any Ecclesiastical Writer after or before S. Jerome ever alleged the words of S. Paul 1. Tim. V. 17. The Elders that rule well are worthy of double honour specially those that labour in the word and doctrine or any other syllâ—ble of the whole Scripture to show that any of those that S. Paul pronounces worthy of double honour were Laymen that is of the rank of the people Which is now an essential ingredient of the design both of our Presbyteries and also so farre as I know of the
Congregations I do indeed acknowledge that there is difficulty in expounding those texts of the Apostles which speak to this purpose so as to agree them with the Originall and universal practice of the Church And therefore it is no marvail if learned men that have handled this point among us where without affectation I may say that it hath been most curiously and ingenuously disputed have gone several wayes upon severall grounds in assigning the reason why the degree of Deacons is mentioned next to the degree of Bishops in so many texts of the Apostles having the order of Priests between both as the original and perpetual custome of the Church required For it is well enough known that there is an opinion published and maintained by many learned observations in the primitive antiquity of the Church that during the time when those texts of the Apostles were written there were but two Orders of Bishops and Deacons established in the Church though Bishops also are called Presbyters the name not being yet appropriated to the midle order while it was not introduced as afterwards it came to be And this opinion allegeth Epiphanius very fitly confuting Aerius the Heretick or Schismatick objecting the same that at the beginning the multitude of believers in less places being so small that one Governour together with some Ministers to attend upon him in executing his Orders might well serve them it is no marvail if there be no mention of any more Orders in so many texts of the Apostles And it may be said that as there were Churches founded and governed by a certain order from the beginning that we read of them in the Apostles so no Bishop Priest or Deacon was appropriated to any particular Church till after that time by degrees they came to be selled to certain Churches by Ecclesiastical Law and Custome So that during the time of the Apostles themselves and their companions whom they associated to themselves for their assistance were in common the Governours of Churches then founded according as they fell out to be present in these Churches to whom they had the most relation by planting and watering the faith planted in them either by virtue of the agreement taken by the Apostles within themselves or by the appointment of some of them if we speak of their companions and assistances But afterwards when the faith came to be setled then as those which had been Governours of Churches in common before became chief Governours of particular Churches to whom by lawful consent they became appropriated so were they provided of Priests and Deacons to assist and attend them in the execution of their office towards the body of Christians then mulplyed in severall Churches I do confess to have declared an opinion something differing from both of these sayings about the reason here demanded As not being perswaded either that the Order of Presbyters was not yet introduced into the Church during the Apostles time or that chief Governours were not appropriated and setled in some Churches during the same though I have no need to undertake that in all they were believing and maintaining that the Apostles themselves in the Churches of their own planting and watering were acknowledged chief Governours in ordering notwithstanding their extraordinary both Power not confined to any one Church and graces and abilities porportionable In which regard and under which limitation visible to the common sense of all men of their own and the next ages I do maintain Bishops to be their successors Whereupon it follows that I allow the name of Bishops in the Apostles writings to comprehend Priests also because of the mater of their function common to both though with a chief Power in the Bishop in Priests so limited as to do nothing that is to say nothing of consequence to his Power over the whole Church without his consent and allowance But this variety of opinion in expounding these Scriptures draweth after it no further consequence to prejudice the primitive Law of Goverment in the Church then this That there are more waies then one to answer the seeming probabilities pretending to make the evidence of Catholick Tradition unreconcileable with the truth of the Scriptures in the agreement whereof the demonstration of this truth consisteth I conceive therefore I might very well referre my self to the Readers free judgement to compare the reasons which I have produced with those that since have been used Notwithstanding I shall not think much briefly according to the model of this design to express the sense I have of the most native meaning of the most texts alleged in this businesse that I may have opportunity to point out again the peremptory exceptions which â—re visible in them either to the imagination of mungrill Prâ—sbyteries compounded of Clergy and People during the time of the Apostles or of the chief Power of any such Presbyteries in their resepective Churches CHAP. XVII The Power given the XII under the Title of Apostles and the LXX Disciples That the VII were Deacons Of the first Presbyters at Jerusalem and the Interest of the People Presbyters appropriated to Churches under the Apostles S. Pauls Deacons no Presbyters No ground for Lay Flders FIrst then as the name of Apostle in the Originall meaning is very general to signifie any commissary Proxy delegate or Ambassador so the use of it in the Apostles writings is larger then to be confined to the twelve For when S. Paul saith That our Lord appeared to the twelve afterwards to all the Apostles 1 Cor. XV. 5. 7. He must needs understand other Apostles besides the twelve perhaps the same that he meant where he reckoned Andronicus and Junias remarkable among the Apostles Rom. XVI 7. And that in another â—ense then Paul and Barnabas are called Apostles Act. XIV 4. 14. For the name of Apostle intimating whose Apostle he is that is called an Apostle we have no reason to count Paul and Barnabas any mans Apostles but our Lord Christs though they were first sent with the blessing of such Doctors and Prophets as the Church of Antiochia then had Acts XIII 1. 2 3. whose authority cannot in any reason be thought to extend so farre as to constitute an Apostle parâ—llel to the Twelve which S. Paul so oft so expresly challenges For since we see their commission is immediately from the Holy Ghost that is from God we are not to value their right by the solemnity which it is visibly conferred upon them with Unlesse you will say that by virtue of that Imposition of Hands they were messengers and Commissaries of that Church and that they then appeared to be no more then so though afterwards God set on them marks of the same authority with the Twelve Truly those whom S. Paul calls false Apostles transferring themselves into the Apostles of Christ 1 Cor. XI 13. must neâ—ds be understood to have pretended commission from our Lord Christ himself For hereupon they stood upon it that they had
that all are baptized infants the recognisance of our Christianity then received cannot be made to so good purpose as limiting the solemnity thereof to the Bishops own hands I could say the same of Ordination and would say the same if I did finde any irreprovable custom for Priests to ordain The Canon of Ancyra I have expounded otherwise and Eutychius his relation hath been rejected for a fable elswhere I finde by unanswerable arguments that the consent of the Church made Ordinations good which for the act of those by whom they were solemnized were utterly void The case of Ischyras and the Meletians is famous Pretending to have been made Priest by Coluthus a Schismatick Bishop under Meletus by the Council which Hosius was at hee is made a Lay-man with the rest of the Meletians And upon this account Athanasius Apolog. II. insists that there could be no sacrilege committed in breaking his Chalice because there is neither Consecration nor Church among Schismaticks Yet were these Ordinations admitted for good by the Council of Nicaea provided they stood to the Order of it Therefore Athanasius excepts further that Meletius did not give up Ischyras his name in the list of his Clergy The same had been the case of the Donatists had they been admitted by the Church every one in his order as I said Melchiades Pope was content they should be The same is the case which Leo I resolves Rusticns Bishop of Narbonne in Epist XCII cap. II. allowing those Ordinations to stand good upon certain terms which of themselves were void If it could appear that the Church did at the first accept for Bishops of Alexandria whomsoever XII Presbyters of his Church should install I would conclude him no less Bishop by the consent of his suffragans whom the Priests advancing to the higher Throne had set over themselves then had three of them consecrated him by imposition of hands But finding that a fable and no other instances alleged upon any good ground I conclude S. Jerome and S. Chrysostomes credit unquestionable witnessing no more than they might see and affirming the Power of Ordaining to be the Bishops peculiar as indeed most concerning the state of his Church It is said that Novatus Presbyter of the Church of Carthage made Felicissimus Deacon of that Church S. Cypriane Epist XLIX But it is said also that hee made Novatianus Bishop of Rome Both by the hands of his Faction whose names you have there Epist LV. It is said that Eustathius being removed from the Sea of Antiochia in the year CCCXXVIII Paulinus who was not made Bishop there till CCCLXII governed the Church there with his fellow Presbyters As also when Meletius was set asidea while after did Flavianus and Diodorus Theodoret Eccl. Hist I. 21. II. 28. IV. 12 14. Surely having Catholick Bishops on all sides they might govern the widowhood of the Church without medling with the Bishops peculiar It is said that Apollinaris was made Bishop of Laodiâ—â—a by a part of the Clergy and people and by him Vitalis Bishop of the party which he had gained at Antiochia Theodoret V. 3. that the Novatians had their Churches in Constantinople and the adjacent Provinces yet never were headed by any Bishop that fell from the Church and therefore made themselves all Ministers As if Apollinaris could not as well finde Bishops to ordain him bearing up the party that chose him as Audius in Epiphanius Haer. LXX found a Bishop as ready as himself to fall from the Church and to make him a Bishop As if the Novatians being in likelyhood planted from Rome could not have their Bishops ordained by their party there Câ—rtainly it is a desperate attempt to perswade us that in the time of Gregory of Tours any Priest should ordain as Bishop of Clermont in Auvergne because hee reporteth Hist V. 5. that one of them being chosen by a party of the Clergy and people kept possession for above XX years For pretending that the neighbor Bishops did him wronâ— in not consecrating him hee might by favor at Court hold the possession which hee had got not medling with imposition of hands But the Christianity of Scotland makes a great noise even during those times when it cannot be made to appear that any Scots dwelt in Scotland Which makes mee mervail that this objection should be sound in the Preface to the X English Histories For that the relations of Hector Boise or John Maire or Buchanan as ignorant as his predecessors though in better Latine should be swallowed by those that could not judg though it had been against their interest it had not been strange But that a man of such skill in all antiquiâ—ies should repeat an ungrounded relation of certain Priests called Câ—ldâ—i that â—aâ—e their own Bishops without any mark of historical truth upon it is an argument of more will than skill to do â—ischief in the Church But after Christianity was planted as well among the Picts as the Scots in Scotland by S. Columb it is argued that the Bishops of Duresme and oâ—hers in England that sprung from that plantation were made by Priests onely of S. Columbs Monastery in his Island Which men of learning would not do if common sense could persuade them not to imploy their learning to make men believe that it is not light at noon S. Columb himself is condemned by the Bishops of Ireland of S. Patricks plantation to Penance for having a hand in bloud as you may see by the Collections already quoted A Bishops Sea is planted in the Island where hee builds his Monastery Shall wee imagine S. Columb made him a Bishop who lived and died a Priest and an Abbot or the Bishops that sent S. Columb upon this worthy imployment for an abatement or commutation of his Penance It was the time when S. Kentigerne his good friend went to Rome to clear himself that hee was made but by one Bishop as his life relateth Is there any age in which it can be said that there was Christianity among the Scots and not Bishops unless it be the time of Buchanans fables And therefore though as Bede saith that Monastery ruled even the Bishops for the reverence of their learning and holiness Yet for the authority of Ecclesiastical proceedings there is no doubt to be made that such things must come from the Bishops though there is no mention of thâ—m because neither Bede nor any soul could think there would ever be any man so extravagant as to question it Yet that learned Preface argueth that certainly the Culdei in Scotland had the Power of making their Bishop or Bishops from this beginning and that they held it till Turgot was made Bishop of S. Andrews MCVIII That Ninianus Bishop of Galloway was no otherwise made because Plecthelm was ordained upon a new account afterwards which certainly can be imputed to no other reason than this That Wine Bishop of Winchester in Bede III. 28. was the onely regularly ordained Bishop of
shall be of force to void mariage contracted afore upon wich ground the opinion which I propounded last would justifie the divorces which the Imperiall Laws make to the effect of marrying again will be a new question Seeing that if any thing bâ— to be accepted it will be in any mans power to dissolve any mariage and the law of Christ allowing no divorce but in case of adultery will be to no effect Neither will there be any cause why the same Divines should not allow the act of Justine that dissolves mariage upon consent which they are forced to disclaim allowing the rest of those causes which the Imperial Laws create Indeed whither any accident absolutely hindring the exercise of mariage and falling out after mariage may by Law become of force to dissolve it I need not here any further dispute For so the securing of any Christian mans conscience it is not the act of secular Power inacting it for Law that can avail unlesse the act of the Church go before to determine that it is not against Gods Law and therefore subject to that civil Power which is Christian The reason indeed may fall out to be the same that makes impotence of force to do it and it may fall out to be of such force that Gregory III Pope is found to have answered a consultation of Boniface of Mence in the affirmative XXXII q. VII c. Quod proposuisti But this makes no difference in the right and power of the Church but rather evidences the necessity of it For though as Cardinall Cajetane sayes the Canon Law it selfe allows that Popes may erre in determining such maters cap. IV. de divortiis c. licet de sponsa duorum which every man will allow in the decree of Deuededit Pope Epist unicâ yet the ground of both Power witnessing the Constitution of the Church as a necessary part of Christianity as it determines the true bounds of both so it allows not the conscience of a Christian to be secured by other means And were it not a strange reason of refusing the Church this Power because it may erre when it must in that case fall to the secular Powers who have no ground to pretend any probable cause of not erring For he that proceedeth in the simplicity of a Christian heart to use the means which God by Christianity hath provided for his resolution may promise himselfe grace at Gods hands even when he is seduced by that power which is not infallible But he that leans upon that warrant which God by his Christianity hath not referred him to must answer for his errors as well as the consequences of the same CHAP. XVI Of the Power of making Gouernours and Ministers of the Church Upon what ground the Hierarchy of Bishops Priests and Deacons standeth in opposition to Presbyteries and Congregations Of the Power of Confirming and the evidence of the Hierarchy which it yieldeth Of those Scriptures which seem to speak of Presbyteries or Congregations NOw are we come to one of the greatest Powers of the Church For all Societies according as they are constituted either by the act of Superiors or by the will of members are by their constitution either inabled to give themselves Governours or tied to receive them from those by whose will they subsist The Society of the Church subsisting by the will of God is partly regulated by the will of men voluntarily professing themselves Christians If God having limimited the qualities and the Powers by which his Church is to be Governed do referre the designing of persons to bear those qualities and powers to his Church it must needs appear one of the greatest points that he hath left to their choice Therefore I have made it appear from the beginning that the originall of this Power was planted by our Lord Christ in his Apostles and Disciples to whom immediately he committed the trust of propagating it And now that I may further determine within what bounds and under what terms those his immediate Commissaries did appoint it to be propagated to the end of the world I say that by their appointment the bodies of Christians contained in each City and the territory thereof is to constitute a several Church to be governed by one cheif Ruler called a Bishop with Presbyters or Priests subordinate to him for his advice and assistance and Deacons to minister and execute their appointment The said Bishops to be designed by their Clergy that is their respective Priests and Deacons with consent of neighbour Bishops ordaining them and by the assent of the people whom they are to govern I say further That the Churches of greater Cities upon which the Government of the lesse dependeth are by the same Rule greater Churches and the greatest of all the Churches of the chiefe Cities So that the chief Cities of the Christian world at the planting of Christianity being Rome Alexandria and Antiochia by consequence those were by this Rule the chief Churches and in the first place that of Rome This position excludeth in the first place that of Independent Congregations which maketh a Church and a Congregation to be all alone so that the people of each Congregation to be able first to give themselves both Laws and Governours then to govern and manage the Power of the Keyes according to Gods word that is according to that which they shall imagine to be the intent of it For whatsoever authority they allow their Ministers or Elders seeing they are created out of the people by the meer act of the people and that the consent of the People is required to inact every thing that passeth it will be too late for them to think of any authority not subordinate to the people upon whom they have bestowed the Soveraign On the other extreme this position excludeth that of the Romanists who will have the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall Power to have been first setled upon S. Peter as sole Monarch of the Church and from him derived upon the rest of the Apostles as his Deputies or Commissaries So that the Power which other Bishops Priests and Deacons have in their respective Churches being granted by the successors of S. Peter Bishops of Rome is therefore limitable at their pleasure as no otherwise estated by divine right then because God hath setled it in S. Peter and his successors as the root and source of it Between these extremes there remain two mean opinions whereof one is the platform of the Presbyteries in which every Congregation is also a Church with a Consistory to rule it consisting of a Minister with his Lay-Elders whom now they call Triers referring to them the â—riall of those who come to communicate and Deacons Of these Congregations so many as they without Rule or Reason so farre as I know think fit to cast into one resoâ—t or division they call a Session or Class and as many of those as they please a Synod and of Synods a Province So that as the
which is the whole Church These being the particulars that concern this point in the writings of the Apostles I am not solicitous for an answer to the Puritanes objections finding in them no ingredient of any of their designs but onely a number of Presbyters of the same rank in one and the same Church no wayes inconsistent with the superiority of Bishops no ways induring the Power of the Keys in the hands of Lay Elders But if the writings of the Apostles express not that form of Government by Bishops Priests and Deacons which it is manifest that the whole Church ever since their time hath used First neither can it be said to agree any thing so near with any of their designs And all the difference is reasonably imputable to the difference between the State of the Church in making and made the qualities of Apostles and Evangelists not being to be propagated to posterity any more then their persons but the uniformity of succeeding times not being imputable to any thing but their appointment As for the reason why the titles of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are so promiscuously used as well in the records of the primitive Church as in the writings of the Apostles I admit that of Epiphanius that at the beginning a Bishop with his Deacons might serve some Churches I admit the ordaining of Bishops for inferiour Churches to be framed and in the Churches of mother Cities according to Clemens I admit the ordaining of Clergy to no particular Churches But I cannot reject that which I learned from an author no wayes inconsiderable the supposed S. Ambrose upon S. Pauls Epistles He not onely in the words quoted in the first Book upon 1 Cor. XI but upon Rom. XVI and 1 Cor. I. alleges that when S. Paul writ Governours were not setled in all Churches acknowledging that Presbyters were Can he then be thought to make Presbyters and the Governours of Churches all one But Amalarius de officiis Eccles II. 13. quoting things out of these his Commentaries which now appear not and out of him Rabanus upon 1 Tim. IV. 14. and Titus I. sayes that they who under the Apostles had power to ordain and are now called Bishops were then set over whole Provinces by the name of Apostles agreeing herein with Theodoret upon 1 Tim. III. IV. and S. Hierome upon Gal. I. and many others of the Fathers that extend the name of Apostles far beyond the XII as Timothy in Asia Titus in Creete The Churches of particular Cities having their own Presbyters to govern them but expecting ordinations and the setling of the more weighty causes from these their superiours These were the Presbyters that ordained Timothy 1 Tim. IV. 14. saith Rabanus who certainly being ordained to so high a charge could not be ordained by the Presbyters of any particular Church Now the successors of these Apostles or Presbyters finding themselves inferior to their Predecessors saith he and the same title a burthen to them appropriated themselves the name of Bishops which imports care leaving to Priests that which imports dignity to wit that of Presbyters This Amalarius allegeth out of the said Commentaries Adding that in process of time through the bounty of those who had the power of ordaining these Bishops were setled two or three in a Province untill at length not onely over all Cities but in places that needed not Bishops This being partly the importance of this Authors words partly that which Amalarius and Rabanus gather from his meaning gives a clear answer to all that S. Jerome hath objected out of the writings of the Apostles to prove that Bishops and Presbyters are by their institution both one because they are called both by the same title And therefore cannot with any judgement be alleged to his purpose In fine the same Author upon Ephes IV. affirmeth that for the propagation of Christianity all were permitted at the first to preach the Gospel to Baptize and to expound the Scriptures in the Church But when Churches were setled and Governours appointed then order was taken that no man should presume to execute that office to which he was not ordained By whom I beseech you but by the same who had formerly allowed and trusted all Christians with all offices which the propagation of the common Christianity required Even the Apostles and Disciples and their companions and assistants in whom that part of power rested which the Apostles had indowed them with until Bishops being setled over all Churches they might truly be said to succeed the Apostles in the Government of their respective Churches though no body can pretend to succeed them in that power over all Churches that belonged to their care which the agreements passed between the Apostles must needs allow each one Nor need I deny that which sometimes the Fathers affirm that even Presbyters succeed the Apostles For in the Churches of Barnabas and Sauls founding Act. XIV 28. while they had no Governours but Aposâ—les and Presbyters it is manifest that the Presbyters did whatsoever they were able to do as Lieutenants of the Apostles and in their stead But shall any man inâ—â—rre thereupon that they who say this allow Presbyters to do whatsoever the Apostles could do seeing them limited as I have said by the Authors which I allege For what if my Author say upon Ephes IV. that at the first the Elders of the Presbyters succeeded upon the Bishops decease Shall thâ— rule of succession make any difference in the power to which he succeeds Or both acknowledge the Laws which they that order both shall have appointed even the Apostles Let S. Hierome then and whosoever prefers S. Hieroms arguments before that evidence which the practice of the Church creates have leave to dispute out of the Scriptures the beginning of Bishops from the authority of the Church which neither S. Hierome nor any man else could ever have brought the whole Church to agree in had not the Apostles order gone afore for the ground of it provided that the love of his opinion carry him not from the unity of the Church as it did Aerius For he that saith that this ought to be a Law to the Church need not say that every Christian is bound upon his salvation to believe that it ought to be a Law to the Church so long as the succession of the Apostles is upon record in the Church in the persons of single Bishops by whom the Tradition of faith was preserved according to Irenaeus and Tertullian the unity of the Church according to Optaâ—us and S. Austine What wilfullnesse can serve to make all Presbyters equal in that power which all the acts whereby the unity of the Church hath been really maintained evidently challenge to the preheminence of their Bishops above them in their respective Churches The constitution of the whole Church out of all Churches as members of the whole will necessarily argue a pre-eminence of Power in the
Bishop above his Presbyters not to be derived from any agreement of the Church but from the appointment of the Apostles In the mean time suppoâ—â—ng the whole Church to agree in that which God had inabled them to agree in having not tied them to the contrary but having tied them to live in viâ—â—ble unity and communion all Churches with all Churches they that depart from this Unity upon this account shall bee no less Schismaâ—â—cks then had the Superiority of Bishops been setled by the Apostles This is that which I come to in the next place CHAP. XVIII The Apostles all of oequall power S. Peter onely chiefe in managing it The ground for the pre-â—minence of Churches before and over Churches Of Alexandria Antiochia Jerusalem and Rome Ground for the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome before all Churches The consequence of that Ground A summary of the evidence for it SOme consideration I must now bestow upon that Position which derives a Monarchy over the Church from S. Peters priviledges For I make no scruple to grant that he was indeed the first and chief of the Apostles as he is reckoned in the Gospels Mat. X. 2. Mar. III. 16. Luk. VI. 14. and that in likelihood because he was the first in leaving all to adhere unto our Lord as the man to whom our Lords call is directed Luk. V. 4-11 though he was first brought to our Lord by bis brother Andrew as Philip once brought Nathanael that was not of the twelve John I. 41-46 so that this first call gave them acquaintance but made them not Apostles And from this beginning we may well draw the reason why S. Peter is alwaies the forwardest to answer our Lords demands and to speak in the name of his fellows Mat. XIV 28. XV. 25. XVI 16. XVII 24. XVIII 21. XIX 27. XXVI 33. Mar. VIII 29. X. 28. XI 21. XIV 29. Luk. VIII 45. IX 20. XII 41. XVIII 28. XXII 34. Joh. VI. 68. XIII 6. Act. I. 13. 15. II. 14. 37. IV. 8. which it would not become the reverence we owe the Apostles so impute to S. Peters sorwardnesse without acknowledging the ground of it being visible But these priviledges will not serve to make S. Peter Soveraign over the Apostles The stress lies upon Mat. XVI 16-19 And Simon Peter answered and said Thou arâ— the Christ the Son of the living God And Jesus answered and said to him Blessed art thou Simon Son of Jonas for flesh and blood hath not revealed this to thee but my Father in the heavens And I say to thee that thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it And I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou loosest on earth shall be loose in the heaven And upon John XXI 15. 16 17. where S. Peter thrice professing to love Christ receives of him thrice the command of Feeding his sheep But will this serve the turn ever a whit more It must be either by virtue of the mater which our Lord sayes of or to S. Peter or by virtue of his saying it to S. Peter and to none else Against this later consideration I conceive I have provided by the premises For seeing there is a sufficient reason to be given otherwise why S. Peter answers before the rest when our Lord demand whom they acknowledge him to be the reply of our Lord addressed to him alone will give him no more then the precedence not the Soveraignty over the Apostles Which is still more evident in S. John because S. Peter having undertaken before the rest to stand to our Lord in the utmost of all his trialls had deserted him most shamefully of them all denying udder an oath to have any knowledge of him For it is not observed for nothing that he professes the love of Christ thrice Let S. Peter then be the Prince Apostle or the chiefe Apostle let him be if you please the Prince of the Apostles there will be found a wide distance between Princeps Apostolorum in Latine as some of the Fathers have called him and Soveraign over the Apostles When Augustus seized into â—is hand the soveraign Power of the Romane Empire nomine Principis as we read the beginning of Tacitus under the title of Prince He was well aware that the Title which he assumed did not necessarily proclaim him Soveraign which he deâ—â—red not to do As for the â—aâ—er of our Lords words those that fear where there is no fear wil have our Lord say that he buildeth his Church upon the Faith of S. Peter profâ—ssing our Lord to be Christ Or to point at himselfe when he saith Upon this Rock will I build my Church But what needs it Saith he any more to S. Peter then S. Paul saith to the Ephesians II. 20. Built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himselfe being the chief corner stone Or S. John of the new Jerusalem Revel XXI 14. And the wall of the City had twelve foundations upon which were the names of the XII Apostles of the Lambe How then shall S. Peter be Soverâ—ign by virtue of an attribute common to him with the rest of the Apostles Some conceive that when our Lord proceeds to tell him that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church He meanâ— no more but that he will rescue his from death by raising them again But raising from death implies raising from sinne in the Old Testament expresses it in the New And the City of God which is the Church in the New Testament referrs to the City of Satan that oppugneth it And therefore The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Cannot signifie lesse then a promise that the Church shall continue till our Lords second coming to judgement notwithstanding the malice of Satan and his complices But S. Peter is not the onely foundation of it though no body else be named here Again our Lord gives S. Peter the Keyes of his Church here as in S. John he commands him to feed his flock But is the office of feeding Christs flock S. Peters peculiar Have not the Apostles the charge of it even from our Lord do they do it by virtue of S. Peters commission or by his appointment How are they Christs Apostles otherwise As for the Keyes of the Church they are given to S. Peter here they are given to the Twelve by the power of remitting and retaining sinnes as I have shewed John XX. 21. 22 23. by the power of binding and loosing they are given to the Church Mat. XVIII 18. And can any man make S. Peter Soveraign over the Apostles and over the Church by virtue of that which is no priviledge of his the rest of the Apostles and the Church being all indowed with it Hear we not what S. Luke saith Act. VIII 14. The Apostles
For all Priests have by their Order the Power of the Keys and by virtue of the same of baptizing and giving the Eucharist to those whom the Laws of the Church not their private judgment admits unless it be in cases which their private judgment stands charged with And that which they shall do upon such terms is to as good effect towards God in the inward Court of Conscience as if a Bishop had done it But because there be cases that concern the unity and good estate of that particular Church whereof each man is a member others that may concern the whole others some part of the whole Church the constitution of the Church necessarily requires in â—â—â—ry Church a Power without which nothing of moment to the State thereof shall be of force in the outward Court as to the Body of the Church This the Chief Power of the Apostles this S. Pauls instructions to Timothy and Titus this the Epistle to the seven Churches this the practice of all Churches before the Reformation settles upon the Bishop And therefore I should think that I showed you a peculiar act which Bishops can do and Priests cannot if I could onely show you that according to this Rule nothing is to be done without the Bishops consent For whatsoever either Law or unreprovable custom may inable a Priest to do that hee doth by the consent of his Bishop involved in passing that Law or admitting that custom And hereof the Bishops peculiar right of sitting in Council is full evidence which if the practice of the Church could justifie nothing else would be an act peculiar to the Order of Bishops according to the premises It was an ancient Rule in the Church that a Priest should not baptize in the presence of a Bishop nor give a Bishop the Eucharist To show that it is by his leave that hee acts as Tertullian saith of the right of Baptizing de Bapt. cap. XVII So the Canons which allow not a Priest to restore him to the communion that had done publick Penance in the face of the Church require the consent of the Bishop to acts that concern the Body of it That ancient author that writ de VII Ordinibus Ecclesiae among S. Jeromes works reckons divers particulars some whereof hee complains that the Bishops where hee lived did not suffer the Priests to do Doth hee therefore make Bishops and Priests all one Certainly hee speaks my sense and my terms when hee sayes the Bishop is the Priests Law That Bishops in Council give Law to the Clergy as well as the people out of Council that which is not otherwise determined nothing but his Order can determine And this is the ground of the difference between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction comparing the Bishop and Presbyters of one and the same Church one with another For the Order of Priesthood importing the Power of the Keys in baptizing in binding and loosing in the invvard court in giving the Eucharist it is plain there is a Power of Order common to both But the use of it without limiting any due bounds at the discretion of every Priest would be destructive to the Unity of the Church which I suppose That Power therefore which provideth those limitations according to vvhich the common povver of the Keys is lawfully exâ—râ—ised whether it be properly called Jurisdiction or not is necessary to the being of every Church even by the common Power of the Keys upon which the foundation of the Church standeth I can therefore allow the said author to complain that Priests in his partâ— were not suffred to do those acts which in the Fast in Illyricum in Africk they did do For all those parts were governed by Synods of Bishops But I allow not his argument Because a Priest can celebrate the Eucharist which is more It is more to the salvation of those that receive toward which the Eucharist immediately worketh no less if a Priest than if a Bishop give it But it is not so much to the Body of the Church as to excommunicate or to restore him that is excommunicate That therefore some offices may be done by both and that according to the order of the ancient Church is no argument that both are one but that it is no prejudice to the Chief Power of the Bishop that they are done by a Priest Let Confirmation be the instance for our author instances in it Certainly there never was so great necessity for it as since all are baptized infants For it expresly renueth the Covenant of Baptism not onely in the conscience between God and the soul but as to the Body of the Church implying an acknowledgment of the obligation then contracted And of the Church to which this acknowledgment is rendred For hee that desires baptism of the Church at years of discretion desireth it upon those terms which the Church tendreth And therefore hee who is baptized an infant and afterwards confirmed submitteth to the same terms in his own person which hee could not do when hee was baptized It is not therefore said That none can be saved that is not confirmed For let him observe the rule of Christianity and that within the Unity of the Church and hee wants nothing necessary to the common salvation of Christians But how effectual a means the solemnity of this profession might be to oblige a man to his Christianity and to the Unity of the Church let reason judg Now S. Hierome saith most truly that this office is reserved to the Bishop for the preserving of Unity in the Church by maintaining him in his prerogative But is that an argument that his prerogative is not original but usurped To me it is not who acknowledg the Eucharist of a Priest as effectual to the inward man as that of a Bishop the difference between them standing in reference to the visible Body of the Church Our author acknowledgeth the same that S. Hierome advers Luciferianos teacheth Demanding onely that it may be lawfull for Priests to consecrate the Chrism which they confirmed with in case of necessity which hee saith was done in many Churches and protesting not to impose Law on the Bishop vvho saith hee is Law to the Priest The supposed S. Ambrose says that in Egypt Priests did confirm in the Bishops absence It is no news that Gregory the Great alloweth Priests to confirm in Sardinia Epist III. 26. for Durandus hath made him an Heretick for it in IV. Dist VII Quaest IV. and Adriane himself afterwards Pope Quaest de Confirm in IV. art ult yields thereupon that a Pope may â—rr in determing mater of Faith And the Instruction of the Armenians by Eugenius IV. in the Council of Florence acknowledges it had been done by Priests the Chrism being consecrated by the Bishop afore The limitations of necessity of the Bishops absence of Chrism consecrated by the Bishop import his allowance and that his prerogative Though as the case is now
the Priesthood but because both are from God who hath expressed those marks of his wisedom in the elder that may seem to direct the later though claiming no title from it This reason is general There is another more particular to be drawn from that which hath been showed that the Apostles and Disciples of Christ as Governors of Gods spiritual Israel and therefore those that claime a right answerable to theirs have in them both the Office of the Levitical Priesthood and of Legal Prophets in such consideration and to such purpose as the effect of those Offices under the Gospel in the Church requireth Whereupon if at any time the Fathers of the Church do argue or dispute the Office of those who claime by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ from those things which are said in the Old Testament concerning the Levitical Priesthood or the Prophets under the Law Much more ordinary it is to finde them grounding the like instructions and exhortations upon those things which are said in the Old Testament concerning the Rulers and Judges of Israel according to the flesh What is more ordinary in Tertullian Origen S. Cyprian Clement Justine the Apostolical Constitutions the rest of the most ancient Fathers of the Church than to draw into consequence the Rebellion of Corah and the Law of obeying that which the Priests and Judges of every age should ordaine concerning difficulties of the Law against Schisme in the Church Those things which the Prophets Esay LVII 10 11. Jer. 11. 8. III. 15. XXIII 1-4 Ez. XXXIV 1-16 pronounce against the Shepherds of Israel against those that claime under the Apostles in the Church For the Prophets themselves Esa LVII 10 11. Jer. II. 8. XXIII 1-4 Ez. XXXIV 23. do manifestly show that these Shepherds are the Rulers of the People distinguishing them both from the Priests and the Prophets And the interest of Christianity requires that the promise of raising up better Shepherds be understood to be fulfilled in the Holy Apostles Hee that doubts of the sense of the Fathers in this point let him take the paiâ—â—s to reade S. Basil upon III of Esay and see how hee expounds those things which are prophefied against the Rulers of Gods ancient People against those that offend like them in ruling Gods Church And therefore it is utterly impertinent to the Power and right of the Church which is observed as mater of consequence to it in the second Book de Synedriis Judaeorum VII 7. that S. Paul ordained Presbyters in the Churches Acts XIV 22. as himself without doubt had received Ordination from his Master Gamaliel in the Synagogue For if the meaning be onely that hee Ordained them by Imposing hands as himself perhaps was Ordained hee tells no newes for that is it which the Scripture affirmeth But if hee mean further that S. Paul did this by authority received from Gamaliel it will he ridiculous to imagine that S. Paul by the Power which hee had from the Synagogue was inabled to give that authority in the Church which the Synagogue found it self obliged to persecute as destructive to it Besides it is easily said that the Apostles finding that it was then a custome to Ordaine those Elders which were wont to be created in the Synagogue for such ends and to such faculties as the constitution thereof required by Imposing hands And intending to conferre a like Power in Church maters upon the like order in the Church which by such acts they institute held fit to use the same ceremony in ordaining them which was in use to the like but several purposes in the Synagogue In which case it is manifest that the Power so conferred cannot be derived from that which the Synagogue gave and therefore not limited by it but by that which the Society of the Church and the constitution thereof requires As suppose for the purpose that by the Jewes Law at that time they created Elders to Judge in criminal causes onely in the Land of Israel But for inferior purposes as of resolving doubts in conscience rising upon the Law by pronouncing this or that lawfull or unlawfull to be done in other places Is it reason therefore to inferre as it is there inferred pag. 325. that when S. Paul faith 1 Cor. V. 12. Do not yee judge those that are within hee must not be understood of any judgment which the Presbyters of the Church exercised there because out of the Land of the Land of Promise Elders were not ordained for Judges by the Synagogue I say nothing of the point it self for the present I say it is no argument to inferre thus as is inferred pag. 325. the Elders which the Synagogue made were not inabled to judge out of the Land of Promise Therefore in the Christian Church there was no Power to judge the causes of Christians at that time Unlesse wee derive the authority of the Church from the Synagogue As for that which is argued pag. 328. that Had they conferred any other power than the Rules of the Synagogue allowed they would have been questioned and persecuted for it by the Jewes either in their own Courts or before the Gentiles in as much as the Christians had then no protection for their Religion which the Jewes had but as they passed for Jewes in the Empire it dependeth meerly upon the opinion the Jewes themselves had of Christianity For where the Jewes stood yet at a bay expecting the trial of that truth which the Gospel pretended not proceeding to persecute the profession of Christianity it is not to be imagined that they should proceed to persecute those acts which were done in prosecution of it But where the separation was complete and enmity declared no man need bid a Jew persecute a Christian for any thing that hee did as a Christian nor a Christian to suffer for that which a Jew should persecute All the question onely was how farre both their Masters that is the Powers of the Empire would make themselves executioners of their hatred Christianity being hitherto tolerated though not protected till the Lawes of the Empire had declared against Christianity which at that time it is plain they had not done As little do I think it concernes the Right of the Church which is there observed VII 4. pag. 287. that Ordination by Imposition of hands was meerly of humanÌ„e institution in the Synagogue and no way derived from the example of Moses laying hands upon Josue Num. XXVII 18-23 which being a singular case can no way ground a Rule For supposing that by the Law a Judiciary Power or what ever inferior Right was to be maintained and conveyed by the Act of those which were legally possessed of it or the right of conveying it Let all limitations whereby the way of conveying it was determined be counted as much of humane right as you please the power so conveyed cannot be meerly of humane right being established by Gods Law with a Power of limiting all circumstances
in the Church are both one and the fame act because they proceed both upon the fame of Christianity and preserving Unity in the Church Therefore at present I speak of both under one And if it be demanded whether the Power of binding and loosing do signifie generally binding by Law and not hindering Or particularly binding by shutting out of the Church for sin and loosing by admitting into the Church or retaining in the Church as free from sin I answer that expresly and formally the Power of binding and loosing signifies the later But the former by consequence For in the Common-wealth also the Power of giving Law is the same in generalls with the Power of Jurisdiction in particulars All parts of Soveraignty flowing naturally from that act whereby it becomes settled upon some person or persons Whose will is necessarily the Law whereby it is to be governed in as much as it is not limited by the original establishment thereof and acts done legally by vietue of the fame And so the Disciples of our Lord being prevented by nothing but our common Christianity which our Lord Christ having established left them the framing of his Church what they or those who claim under them shall do to obligue the Church obligeth by virtue of this Power of admitting into or excluding out of the Church And it is truly said that the Power of giving Law to the Church as the Church by virtue the Power of the Keyes belongs to the Church Provided that the effect of it belimited to those things which after the preaching of our Lord remained for his Apostles and Disciples as well as their Assistants and Succcessors to determine for the framing of Gods Catholick Church Before I leave this point I shall desire that the consequence of our Lords discourse may be considered For unlesse the command of resorting to the Church be understood as sending to binde or loose him to the Church that is supposed to be bound to sin or loose from it that which is inferred Whatfoever yee binde on earth will be utterly impertinent to that which went before Tell the Church But if wee suppose the speech to concerne Excommunication and Penance by consequence wee give a good reason why it followes Againe I say unto you that if two of you agree upon earth about any thing to be demanded it shall besall them from my Father in the heavens For supposing as known by the general and original practice of the Church whereof mention hath been made in the premises that the means of loosing from sin was the Prayers of the Church wee conclude that our Lord in the next place could not inferre any thing more proper and pertinent to that which hee had premised than this To wit how the Penitent is to be reslored to the favor of God and upon presumption thereof to the unity od the Church To wit by the Prayers of the Church For when hee sayes the Prayers of two Chrussians will be available with God hee must needs signifie that the Prayers of the Church will be much more available I know there are some Expositors Origen S. Austine and Theophylact of old and Grotius of late who when our Lord having said Let him be to thee as a Heathen or a Publicane inferreth whatsoever yee binde on earth do understand that hereby particular Christians do binde and loose particular Christians when they show them the sin they do and they that do it will or will not make reparations And truly in as much as the knowledge of sin is a condition requisite to make the bond thereof take firm hold upon the conscience whosever procures this knowleg is truly said to binde as hee that shows the means of being loose is truly said to loose him that useth those means But if this were here meant there were no reason why our Lord should send him to the Church whom hee declares to be thus bound which this opinion supposeth Never dreaming of the Synagogue when our Lord faith Tell the Church For to say that a private Christian bindeth or looseth him whom the Church hath first declared to be in the wrong and not otherwife is as much as to say that a private Christian neither bindes not looses but the Church Not because hee cannot binde and loose before God in that sense which I spoke of afore but because hee cannot binde or loose any man as to the Church whom the Church had bound afore by declaring his sin For this opinion supposeth that when our Lord faith Whatsoever yee binde on earth hee speaketh of the sins of those that had refused to hear the Church afore Which being supposed it will remain manifest that when our Lord faith Let him to be thee as a Heathen or a Publicane immediately adding whatsoever yee binde on earth hee doth not onely teach what the wronged party but what every Christian is to do to wit what the acts of the Church oblige him to do as a Christian and one of the Church not as one that is wronged though the discourse rising upon this cafe if thy brother wrong thee end in the mention of him alone let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publicane because of the reason which follows grounded in the Power of binding and loosing which all Christians are to acknowledg These things being proved I will here repeat and insist upon that observation which heretofore I have advanced in another place that our Lord whom from the premises I suppose to treat here of Excommunication forbids that course to be held in the Church which then was used in the Synagogue namely that private persons should Excommunicate one another The effect of such Excommunications reaching no further than themselves or their inferiors and not obliging any stranger to take such a person for Excommunicate Which observation I oppose to an argument made from that which was used in the Primitive Church for Martyrs and Consessors in bonds for the Gospel to restore to the Communion of the Church those that were under Penance Tertul. de Pudic XXII Ad martyras I. Cypr. Epist X. XI XII XIII XIV XV. XVII XXVII XXVIII XXIX XXXVIII and John the Monk of the deserts of Egypt having Excommunicated the younger Theodosius hee was not satisfied with the Bishops absolution untill the Monk had done the fame Hence it is argued that Excommunication in the Church was the same that had been practised in the Synagogue because private Christians used that Power as private Jewes had done The ansswer is easie to him that will observe the reason of such Excommunication and obsoulution in the Church There were in the Church from the beginning besides those who had the chief authority of governing it divers ranks of persons of special esteem The rank of Widows honored with publick maintenance from the Church as wee understand by S. paul orders I Tim. V. 3-16 The rank of Virgins the Prerogative whereof wee may understand by Tertullians book
Samaria mentioned Acts IX 31. where the Harvest was lesse though somewhat elder yet not more considerable whither as Elders of the whole Church that is Bishops or as Elders of the Church of Jerusalem that is Priests supposing the same Order promiscuously called Bishops and Presbyters which I never doubted and since hath been largely and learnedly proved will scarce be decided by these Texts and the interesse of the Church will be secure though it be not decided For when the deputation of the Church of Antiochia is addressed to the Apostles and these Elders when they assemble to consider of it when the answer containing the decree goes forth in their name Act. XV. 2 4. 16 23. It is still the decree of the Princes and Elders of the Israel of God whether you take them for Elders of the Church of Jerusalem or Bishops of the whole Church Nor is the case much otherwise when Paul and his companions consult with Iames and the Elders almost about the same businesse Act. XXI 18. though of the twelve it seems there was none then left at Jerusalem but James whom for the many marks which the Scriptures give us that his care was appropriated though his power no way confined to that Church the Church calleth Bishop of Jerusalem and of those Presbyters many were either setled in or dispersed to other functions as those whom first we read of in the Church of Antiochia must have have been of that quality Act. XIII 1. no lesse then Barâ—abas and Silas Act. IX 27. XI 22-26 XV. 22. But is there any man that can pick out of all this any maner of pretense for the equality of whether Governors or Ministers of the Church for the concurrence of Lay Elders to the Acts of their Government For the concurrence of the people there may be some pretense because they are present at passing the decree and the leter that bears it goes in their name Act. XV. 4. 23. And because the choice of Matthias and of the seven proceeds upon upon their allowance and nomination of the persons Act. I. 20-23 XVI 3-6 But that therefore the cheif interess should be in the people is an imagination too brutish Cannot the Apostles finding themselves obliged to ordain persons so and so qualified for such and such offices in the Church appeal to the people whom they acknowledge so and so qualified Cannot S. Paul afterwards provide That no man should blame them in dispensing the Power which they are trusted with 2 Cor. VIII 20. but a consequence must thereupon be inferred against themselves that they are commanded by God to referre things concerning the salvation of Gods people in generall as the power of an Apostle the order of Deacon the decree of the Synod at Jerusalem to the temerity and giddinesse of the people When it is evident in the Text that the people are neither left to themselves whither to proceed or not nor to proceed but within bounds limited so that proceeding within those bounds â—hey could not prejudice the Apostles interess without they were to be restrained As for the mater of Faith determined at Jerusalem is any man so litle a Christian as to doubt whether it obliged them whom it concerned or whether by virtue of that act Those that so readily admitted it Act. XVI 4. did not The whole interess of the people consequent to this proceeding of the Apostles consists in being reasonably satisfied of mater of fact concerning persons and causes to be justiced by the Apostles and their successors in the Church And can no more argue the People to be chief in the Church then the triall by Juries can argue England to be no Monarchy Which interesse when it is shamefully abused to the dishonour of Christianity I say not I would have it taken away as in some â—laces perhaps it is but I say he that would not have the satisfaction which they may demand limited by certain bounds with force of Law that it may not be so abused any more can neither pretend to be reasonable nor Christian But that the people of one Church should do an act which must oblige other Churches is a thing so gross that they who allow their Christians the freedom to be tied to nothing but what themselves please do by consequence allowing others the same destroy all principles and grounds of one Catholick Church which having proved as largely as my design admits I remit those who may pretend themselves unsatisfieâ— in this point to void me these grounds before they claim of me that which cannot stand with the truth of them But the due interess of the people being thus satisfied and their pretended interess by the same means excluded what becomes of the Lay Elders interess upon their account For Lay Elders can be no more then the Foremen of the People to act that interess which they challenge to their due advantage And in this quality I have granted elsewere and cannot repent me of that opinion that in some parts of the Western Church some of the chief of the People that is that were not of the Clergy did concur to the acts of the Church in behalf of the People and of their Interess And in this quality Blondel the most learned of Presbyterians claims the Lay Elders of Gâ—nâ—va to be receivable Which as he knew very well and all his party will own to be utterly inconsistent with the meaning and intent of them who first brought them in at Geneva So will it both cut of all pretense for them that is derived from any other ground and leave the claim also to be limited by that which the preservation of the whole Church and the unity thereof will require In the mean time the Order of Bishops and the superiority thereof above the order of Priests stands exemplified in the person of S. Iames the brother of our Lord by so ancient testimonies concurring with such circumstances of Scripture marked out Bishop of Jerusalem whither one of the twelve or noâ— In that indeed the reports of the ancients are not reconcileable But if not why should S. Paul be so careful to protest that he received not his authority from him no more then from S. Peter and S. Iohn Gal. I. 18. 19. II. 9. 12. Could there be any question of receiving his authority from any but those of the Twelve Therefore and for other reasons elsewhere alleged I count it as shouldred by most probâ—bilities so a subject to least difficulty to believe him to be Iames the Son of Alphoeus as having nothing of consequence to answer but why Hegâ—sippus writing so soon after the Apostles hath not remembred it But of that let each man think as he finds most reasonable Those testimonies of antiquity which expound those circumstances of Scripture which mark him out for the head of that Church do not discharge him from the care of other Churches especially of the circumcision which perhaps by his care together with
in refusing Marcion her communion because excommunicated by his own Father the Bishop of Sinope in Pontus in bar to the pretense of Soveraignty in the Church of Rome For if Marcions Father Bishop of Synope in Pontus if Synesius Bishop of Ptolomais in Cyrenaica could oblige the Church of Rome and all Churches not to admit unto the communion of the Church those whom they had excluded because the unity of the whole could not be preserved otherwise then is not the infinite Power of one Church but the regular Power of all the mean which the Apostles provided for the attaining of Unity in the whole Not as if the Church of Rome might not have admitted Marcion to communion with it selfe had it appeared that he had been excluded without such a cause as obliged any Church to excommunicate For in doubtful causes the concernment being general it was very regular to have recourse to the chief Churches by the authority whereof the consent of the rest might be obtained But could it have appeared that such a thing had been done without any cause then would it have been regular for any Church to have no regard to such a sentence In the next place the consideration of Montanus his businesse at Rome there alledged shall evidence some part of my intent Being condemned and refused by the Bishops and Churches of Asia he sends to Rome to sollicite a higher Church and of more consequence to the whole to own the spirit by which he pretended to speak and to admit those stricter orders which he pretended to introduce A pretense for those that would have the Pope Soveraign but not so good as they imagine unlesse they could make it appear that he made the like address to no other Church but that of Rome For my part finding in other occasions frequent and plentiful remembrance of recourse had to other Churches as well as to Rome in maters of common concernment I find it necessary to impute the silence of his other addresses to the scarcity of records left the Church Not doubting that he and the Churches of Phrygia ingaged with him would do their utmost to promote the credit of his Prophesies by perswading all Churches to admit the Orders which he pretended to introduce And how much greater the authority of the Church of Rome was then that of an ordinary Church so much more had he prevailed by gaining it That no man may imagine that all lay in it nor yet that the consent of it signified no more then the consent of every Church For consider the Church of Carthage and the choler of Tertullian expressed in the beginning of his Book de Exhortatione Castitulis against Pope Aâ—phyrine for admitting adulterers to Penance And in consequence thereunto consider what we have upon record of Historical truth from S. Jerome Catal. in Tertull. and the authorities quoted afore that Tertullian falling to the Doctrine of Montanus upon affronts received from the Clergy of Rome set up a communion of his own at Carthage which continued till S. Augustines time by whom his followers were reduced to the Catholick Church For what occasion had Tertullian to break from the Church of Carthage because of the affront received from the Church of Rome in rejecting Montanus had not the Church of Carthage followed the Church of Rome in it The same is the consequence of that which passed in that famous debate of Victor Pope about breaking with the Churches of Asia because they kept not Easter on the Lords day as most Churches did but with the Jewes observing the Passion upon the full Moon celebrated the Resurrection of third day after that For might not or ought not the Church of Rome refuse to communicate with these Churches had the cause been valuable In case of Heresy in case of any demand destructive to the unity of the Church you will say that not onely the Church of Rome but any Church whatsoever both might and ought to disclaim the Churches of Asia But I have to say again that in any such case there is a difference between that which is questioned for such and that which is such and ought to be taken for such And that nothing can lightly be presumed to be such that any Church seems to professe But that in reducing such unavoidable debates from questionable to be determined the authority the chief Churches is by the constitution of the Church requisite to go before and make way towards obtaining the consent of the whole And that it cannot be thought that Victor would have undertook such a thing had it not belonged to him in behalf of his Church to declare himself in the businesse in case there had been cause All this while I would not have any man imagine that Victor having withdrawn his communion from the Churches of Asia the rest of Christendom were necessarily to think themselves obliged to do the same It is true there were two motives that might carry Victor to do it For seeing the Council of Nicaea did afterwards decree the same that he laboured to induce the Churches of Asia to it is too late to dispute whither side was in the right For that which was for the advancement of Christianity at the time of that Council was certainly for the advancement thereof at the time of this dispute And though in S. Johns time it might be and was without doubt for the best to comply with the Jews in maters of that indifference for the gaining of opportunities to induce them to become Christians yet when the breach between the Synagogue and the Church was once complete that reason being taken away the reason of uniformity in the Church upon which the unity thereof so much nependeth was to take place And therefore a man may say with respect to those Churches that the zeal of their Predecessors credit seduced them into that contentiousnesse which humane frailty ingendreth And those that after the decree of the Council persevered in the same practice are not without cause listed among Hereticks taking that name largely to comprehend also Schismaticks So I allow that Victor had just cause to insist upon his point But it is also â—vident that it would have been an increase of authority and credit to Victor and to his Church to seeme to give law to those Churches by reducing them to his Rule For reputation and credit with the world necessarily follows those that prevail And Victor being a man as I have granted his adversaries were might be moved with this advantage as much as with the right of his cause But though I allow that Victor had reason to insist upon his opinon yet I do no way allow that he had reason to interrupt the communion of the Church because those of Asia did not yield to it The mater it self not being of consequence to produce such an effect noâ— uniformity in all things necessary though conducing to the unity of the Church And therefore I do no
then a Patriarch it will neverthelesse be questionable how faâ—re it injoyes the same rights throughout the West or rather unquestionable that he did noâ— consecrate all the â—iâ—â—ops of the West as he of Alexandria did all the Bishops of Egypt and he of Antiochia all those of the Eastern Diocese On the other side it will be unquestionable that all causes that conceâ—n the whole Church are to resort to it And if Innocent I. mean none but those when he sayes that they are excepted from the Canon of Nicaea that forbids appeals Epist ad Victricium Rothâ—m He sayes nothing but that which the constitution of the Church justifies Bâ—t the cases produced before out of S. Cypriane show that there was muâ—h lâ—ft for custoâ—â— to determine Nay rules of discipline which in my opinon the good of the whole Church then requirâ—d that they should be common to all the West â—re of this rank noâ— could any of then ever oblige the West without the Bishop of Rome But that he alone should give rules to ty all the West may have had a regular beginning from voluntary references of Himerius Bishop of Farracona in Spain to Syricius of Exuperius Bishop of Tolouse and Victricius of Roven to Innocentius but argues not that it is the originall right of that Church But that it hath increased by custome to that height as to help to make up a claime for that infinite power which I deny in stead of that regular Power which I acknowledge Judge now by reason supposing the obligation upon all of holding unity in the Church and the dependance of Churches the mean to compass it For this will oblige us to part here with the Parallel of the Empire which having a Soveraign upon earth will require the Ministers of thereof immediate or subordinate to be of equall power in equall rights Praefects Lieurenants and Governours But the Head of the Church being in heaven and his Body on earth being to be maintained in Unity by an Aristocraty of Superiours and Inferiours whither was it according to the intent of those who ordered the pre-eminence of greater Churches thâ—t that the Church of the greatest City should be equall in power to the head Churches of o her Dioceses Or that the general reason should take place between them all an eminence of power following their precedence in ranck So that whensoever it become requisite to limite this generality by positive constitutions the pre-eminence of right to fall upon one exclusively to oâ—hers Surely though we suppose that all Christendom of their free consent agreed in this Order yet must we needs argue from the uniformity of it that it must needs come froâ— the ground setled by the Apostles For it is manifest that the rights of the head Churches of Provinces had a beginning beyond the memory of all records of the Church which testifie the being of them at the time of all businesse which they relate That the head Churches of Diocesses were not advanced in a moment by the act of the Empiâ—e but moulded asore as â—t were and prepared to receiveâ— that impression of regular eminence over inferiouâ— Churches which the act of the State should stampe the Cities with over inâ—â—riour Cities yet cannot be maintained that the greatest respect was and is by the Apostles act to be given to the greatest Churches that is the Churches of greaâ—est Cities and yet that the â—riâ—â—ledges necessarily accruing by positive constitution might as justly have been placed upon the head Church of any Diocess as upon that of Rome I know I have no thanks for this of the Romanists for as S. Paul sâ—yes How shall I serve God and please men both in such a difference as this but seeing the canon of Nicaea doth necessarily confine the Church of Rome to a regular Power is it not a great signe of truth that those things which appear in the proceedings of the Church do concur to evidence a ground for the Rule of it inferring that pre-eminence which the Churches of Alexandria and Antiochia cannot have but the beginning of the canon establishing ancient custome settleth Let us see some of those proceedings After the Council of Nicaea the Arians having Eusâ—bius of Nicomedia for their Head desire to be heard at Rome by Pope Julius in Council concerning their proceedings against Athanasius Here shall I believe as some learned men conjecture that Pope Julius â—s meerly an Arbitratoâ— named by one part y whom the other could not refuse and that any Bishop or at least any Primate might have been named and must have been admitted as well as he Truly I cannot considering that their hope being to winne themselves credit by his sentence I must needs think that they addresse themselves to him by whose sentence they might hope to draw the greatest prejudice on their own side It cannot be denyed indeed that whereas in a case of that moment the last resort is necessarily to the whole Church whither in council or by reference by referring themselves they brought upon their cause that prejudice which necessarily lights upon all those that renounce the award of the Arbitrators whom they have referred themselves to in case they stand not to the sencentence But though they had not been chargeable with this had they not referred themselves yet must they needs have been judged by the Bishop of Rome among the rest of the Church and in the first place and his sentence must needs weigh more towards the sentence of the whole Church then the sentence of any other Arbitrator could have done For let me ask in the mean time is this an appeal to Pope Julius or to him and his Council let the sequeâ—e judge For he that condemns the Arians for not appearing at the Council which they had occasioned he that condemns the Council of Antiochia at the dedication of the golden Church presently after where they were present for revereing the Creed of Nicaea and condemning S. Athanasius notwithstanding the sentence of Julius and his Council necessarily shows us that they were not quite out of their wits to bestow so much pains for procuring a decree at the Conncil of Antiochia that must have been void ipso facto because the mater had been sentenced at Rome that is in the last resort afore Therefore I coneive Julius had right to complain that they took upon them to regulate the Churches without him nor can I much blame Socrates or Sâ—zomenus in justifying his complaint Because Athanasius his cause as well as the Creed of Nicaea concerned the whole Church And for them to condemn him whom Julius and his Council held at the instance of the Arians had justified was to make a breach in the Church though at present we say nothing of the Faith Neither had they reason to alledge the good they had done the Church of Rome by their compliance in the cause of Novatianus or to expect the like from Julius in a cause of
the like moment because of the sentence of the Nicenâ— Council already past in the main ground of the cause and because of the sentence of the Synod of Rome past in the cause Now when this difference comes afterwards to be tried by a General Council at Sardica shall this trial inferre the infinite Power of the Pope or the regular Power of a General Council For surely the Council of Sardica was intended for a General Council as the Emperor Justinian reckons it being summoned by both Emperours Constantius and Constans out of the whole Empire When the breach fell out and the Eastern Bishops withdrew themselves to Philippopolis the whole Power in point of right ought I conceive to remain on that side which was not the cause of the breach But the success sufficiently showeth that it did not so prevail For many a Council might then have been spared The soveraign regard of peace in the Church suffered not those that were in the right to insist upon the acts of it as I suppose In the mean time the Canons thereof whereby appeals to the Pope in the causes of Bishops are setled whither for the West which it represented or for the whole which it had right to conclude not having caused the breach shall I conceive to be forged because they are so aspersed having been acknowledged by Justinian translated by Dionysius Exigâ—us added by the Eastern Church to their Canon Law Or shall I not ask what pretense there could be to settle appeals from other parts to Rome rather then from Rome to other parts had not a pre-eminence of Power and not onely a precedence of rank been acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome But though I think my self bound to acknowledge that such Canons were made by the Council at Sardica yet not that they took effect by the act of it The Canons of Councils had not effect as I said afore till received The troubles that succeeded might well hinder the admitting of them into practice And that this exception is not for nothing I appeal to all that shall but consider that the Canons of the Council of Antiochia which the Eastern Bishops at Sardica stood for made part of the Code of the whole Church which the Council of Chalcedon owned The Canon of Sardica being no part of it till after times And this is the point upon which the dispute between the Pope and the Churches of Africk about appeals most depends The case that brought it to issue was the case of Apiarius a Priest onely that appealed to Rome The Popes Legates pretended that appeals to Rome were settled by the Council of Nicaea The Churches of Africk finding no such Canon of Nicaea in their records desire that recourse might be had to Alexandria and Constantinople for the true Copies The true Copies import no such thing but it is alleged and it is reason it should be alleged that the appeals of Bishops are setled by the Canons of the Council of Sardica the very terms whereof are couched in the instructions to the Council of Africk The Council of Sardica was not the Council of Nicaea but the acts of it were done by those who pretended to maâ—ntain it Whither it were justly done or imported an intent of imposture to challenge the authority of the Canons of Nicaea for the Canons of it I dispute not But had the case in question been the case of a Bishop as it was onely the case of a Priest what could the Churches of Africk have alledged why they should not be tyed by the Canons of Sardica who acknowledged themselves tyed by the Canons of Nicaea For there was onely the Bishop of Carthage present at the Council of Nicaea but there was six and thirty Africane Bishops at the Council of Sardica enow to represent all the Diocese of Africk and to tie those whom they represented What could they alledge but the inexecution of the Council of Sardica Or what greater evidence could they alledge for the inexecution of it then that there was no Copy of any such Canon in the records of all their Churches Or how could the Pope desire a fairer pretense for the execution of it for the future then the concurrence of the Africanâ— Churches by so many Bishops For though the Council of Sardica is quoted in that which is called the VI Council of Carthage yet the whole issue of the businesse was onely whither they were Nicâ—ne Canons that were alleged or not and when it appeared that they were not the dispute was at an end and the Africane Synode by the leter extant in the Africane Code desires the Pope to stand to terms of the Nicene Canons Therefore it is clearly a fault in the Copy that the Council of Sardica is named which could not be pleaded because all knew that it was not in force as the Council of Nicaea was in the Churches of Africk So that the act of the Council of Sardica necessarily presupposeth that the Church of Rome was effectually acknowledged the prime Church of the West and by consequence of all Churches because it setleth the right of appeals upon it before other Churches in certain causes though it appear not what effect it took unlesse you allow the conjecture which I have to propose Within a few years after this contest there appears a standing Commission of the Popes to the Bishops of Thessalonica to be their standing Lieutenants in Illyricum mentioned in the leter of Pope Leo to Anastasins of Thessalonica as derived from their predecessors Had the Bishop of Rome been no more then the Bishop of Thessalonica how came this to be his Lieutenant rather then on the contrary And truly where those priviledges of the Church of Rome over the Churches of Illyricum began whereby the Popes had made the Bishops of Thessalonica their standing Legates appears not by the records of the Church So that it is as free for me to conjecture that they come from the Council of Sardica as for others to conjecture otherwise For it is not unreasonable to think that it might take effect upon the place where it was made with fuller consent of the Bishops of that Diocese present in greater numbers then strangers though scarce known in Africk after some LXX years But at such time as Rome disputed with Africk about appeals and injoyed regular priviledges in Illyricum can the Church of Milane or any Church of Spain or Gaul or Britaine be thought parallel to it From this time the rescripts of the Popes are extant unforged and directed to divers prime Churches of Gaul and Spain And the Heads of them were added by Dionysius Exiguâ—s about DXXX unto that collection of Canons which what force it had in the Western Church appears in that Cresconius abridging the Canons which the African Church used referrs them to the Heads which he follows both beginning at Syricius Cresconius ending at Gelasius And the Copies of Dionysius his Collection that now are
extant in the Libraries of France have at the beginning a leter whereby Pope Adriane I directs it to Charles the Great As you may see in Sirmondus his Councils Tomo II. ad annum DCCLXXXVII This subordination being nothing but the limiting of the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome in the common concernments of the Western Church suffers not any terms of equality betwixt them unlesse we could think that they who received such instructions from Rome did send the like to Rome in the like case Nor yet to attribute the inequality to the rescript of Valentinian the III. in favour of Pope Leo against the Bishop of Arles though that might be and was without doubt a goodly pretense for the Popes to inhanse their priviledges while the Empire stood and when it was fallen to maintain them upon the title of ancient custome Besides the greatness of the City Rome in comparison of any City of Gaul or Spain or Britain besides the pre-eminence of S. Peter it is to be considered that Innocent I. Pope affirmeth all the Churches of Italy Gaul Spain Africk Sicily and the Isles that lie between to have been founded by those who were ordained by S. Peter and his successors And therefore that they ought to follow the order of the Church of Rome Epist ad Decentium For with him agreeth herein as for Africk Tertulliane de Praescript cap. XXXVI and S. Gregory lib. VII Indict I. Epist XXXII Nor do I think that Cyprian meant any thing else when he describes the Church of Rome to be the Church undâ— unita Sacerdotalis exorta est â— From whence the unity of the Priesthood had the rise to wit in Africk Of Gaul and Spain I perceive no question is made And he that will free the beginning of Christianity in Britaine from fables must acknowledge that as it is agreed among men of learning that it was first planted from Gaul so from thence also it must have received Christianity Of Illyricum the same cannot be said Nor do I find any title for the Jurisdiction of Rome over it more ancient then the division of the Empire among the Sons of Constantine For the Council of Sardica being assembled upon this account by both Emperours and parted in two the Eastern Bishops of it plead that it was a Novelty which the ancient custome of the Church abhorrs that the East should be judged by the West And Constantius writes to the Western Bishops in the Council of Ariminum that no reason would indure them to decree any thing of the Eastern Bishops both in the fragments of S. Hilary Which as it is constitutes the regular but destroyes the infinite power of the Pope because it concludes no man without the Synode to which he belongs so it shows no ancient custome by which Illyricum should belong to the West And Palladius an Arian Bishop in the Council of Aquileia under S. Ambrose excepting that he was not to be sentenced without the Eastern Bishops who had been writ to to come S. Ambrose answers that knowing the custome that the Synode of the East should be held in the East of the West in the West they were not come intimating that Palladius in the mean time must look to be judged by the Synode of the West leaving those of the East to take their course in a cause of common concernment Here is then a reason why Illyricum should belong to the Western Church Whither or no the holding of the Council of Sardica in Illyricum might occasion the Canons thereof to take place in Illyricum which came not to effect in Africk let those who havâ— the skill judge I see the act of Pope Hormisda making the Bishops of Tarracona and Sevile his Lieutenants Epist XXIV and XXVI is attributed to the Canon of Sardica which I have showed was not known in Africk about a hundred years fore Therefore let those that have skill judge I am willing to allow a better reason for the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome over Illyricum when I shall see it rendred In the mean time the rescript of the Popes are extant evidencing the resort from Illyricum to Rome no otherwise then from Gaul or from Spain or from Africk What shall we say of Britaine For all this while I show that the Church of Rome cannot be reduced to the rank of the Head Churches of Dioceses though the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antiochia were onely Heads of one Diocese They knew Pope Caelestine when he joyned with the Synode of Gaul to send Germanus and Lupus to deliver them from Pelagianism as well as Ireland a British Isle knew him when he sent first Palladius and then S. Patrick with effect to convert it S. Hilary of Tours having sent S. Keby afore to no great purâ—ose They knew the Pope when they aâ—mitted that order for keeping of Easter which afterwards they would not part with when S. Austine demanded it for a mark of subjection at their hands For it appeares by my L. Priâ—â—â—â—s Antiquities that the rule which they held was the same which the Church of Rome had first imbraced Onely whereas in process of time a fault of two days was discovered in it which Severus Sulpitius in Gaul is said to have mended They having received it with this amendment would not part with it when Austine demanded it of them for a mark of subjection to his Bishoprick This you may see in those Collections pag. 925 They knew him when S. David sent the Synodes which he had held against the Pelagians to Rome for the approbation of the Pope When S. Kentigerne went to Rome to purge the irregularity which he was under by being ordained Bishop of Glâ—sâ—ow by one Bishop In fine they knew him in all the corresponce which they had with their fellow British Churches in France who exercised daily communion with Rome And therefore when they say they knew him not we are to understand by a figure of speech that they knew him not to the purpose that was demanded â—o as to be subject to the new Bishop of Britaine Which the Canon of the Apostles providing that every Nation should have their own Bishop inabled them to refuse And the just jealousie they had that the admitting of him might be a snare to their civil freedom obliged them to refuse For when they say they are ready to acknowledge the Pope as brotherly love requires they may well be thought to acknowledge him with that Canonicall respect which ancient custome required without which brotherly love subsisteth not among Christians But I must come to the priviledges of Constantinople begun by the Canon of the second General Council established by the fourth in the last Canon which the Popes to this day acknowledge not though the effect of it hath suffered no interruption by their disowning of it I know not how I should give a clearer evidence of the ground I propose for the pre-eminence of Churches then the alteration which succeeded
upon the erecting of Constantinople into the second Head of the Empire For within fifty years the Council of the East being held there makes it the second Church and head Church of Thrace Diocese which the Chalcedon Council extends to the Dioceses of Asia and Pontus exalting it so â—arre above Alexandria and Antiochia as might seem afarr of to call for a kind of subjection at their hands If this be rightfully done what shall hinder the whole Church to dispose of the superiority of Churches when the greatnesse of their Cities makes it appear that the dependence of the Churches of less Cities upon them is for the Unity of the whole in the exercise of true Christianity And what can be said why it should not be right for the East to advance Constantinople to the next to Rome the same reason being visible in it for which Rome had the first place from the beginning It is true whereas Rome was content to take no noâ—ice of the Canon of Constantinople the Legates of Pope Leo present at Chalcedon and inforced either to admit or disclaim it protested against iâ— But upon what ground can he who by being part of the Council concluâ—es himself by the vote of it refuse his concurrence to that which he alone likes not Or to what effect is that disowned which takes place without him who protests against it unless it be to set up a monument of half the Church disowning the infinite power of the Pope the other halfe not pleading it but onely Canonicall pre-eminences by the Council of Nicaea I suppose indeed the Pope had something else to fear For Illyricum being so much nearâ—r Constantinople then Rome there was always pretense of reason to subject it as Asia and Ponâ—us â—o Constantinople to the prejudice of those pre-eminences which Rome injoyed there Especially since Illyricum was surrendred by Valentinian III upon the mariage of his Sister to Theodosius the younger as that learned Gentleman John Marsham hath observed and thenceforth become part of the Eastern Empire For hereupon followed the Law omni Innovatione cessante still extant in the Code requiring the Bishops of Illyricum to give account to Constantinople of all maters that should pass Besides had the Empire continued in force in Italy why might not Constantinople in time have pretended to the first place Rome being no more the prime City and yet still of the Empire And therefore Pope Leo as wiâ—e for the privileges of his Church as stout for the Faith did his own business when hee pleaded the Canon of Nicaea and the second place for Alexandria And whatsoever contests passed afterwards between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople the privileges of Rome in Illâ—ricum continued till the time that Gregory the Second with-drew his City from the obedience of the Empire pretending his Soveraign to be an Heretick for destroying of Images I said afore in the first Book that others relate this otherwise And Anasâ—aâ—iâ—s in the lives of Gregory II and III. owns no more but that they exâ—ommunicated the Emperors which notwithstanding occasioned the Italians to â—all from the Empire But hereupon the Empeâ—oâ— commands not onely Illyricum but Sicily and that part of Italy which conâ—â—nued subject to the Empire to resort to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Constantinople and as in case of such jealousie was necessarily to be obeyed Hereupon Pope Adrian in his Apology for Images to Charles the Great complains that they deprived the Church oâ— Rome of the Diocese together with the patriâ—ony which it held in it when they put down Images and had given no answer from that time And Nicolas I. Epist â— revives the claime Which with the rescripts of the Popes between concerning Illyricum as well as the rest of the West see also the life of Hadriane II in Anastasius and much more that might be added shows that this was the state of the Church till that time During the time that Rome on one side stood upon these terms which Constantinople on the other â—â—de was continually harassed by the Lombards who had no reason to confide in it we see because they were not long after destroyed by it there is no marvail if Milane head of the Lombards and Ravenna head of the Exarchate that is of the Dominion that was governed by the Emperors Lieutenant there resident did by the Secular Power of their Cities set up themselves to contest with the Pope about several privileges of their Churches For alass what can this signifie of competition for the Primacy with Rome if wee compare the respect of Milane or Ravenna with that which Rome hath â—ound among other Churches in the concernments of the whole Therefore I will mention here onely one action more carried through in so high a tune by Gâ—lasius and other active Popes that it is much insisted upon by those who would plead for the Popes infinite Power if they durst because they would not have it regular which is the same for what bounds can that Power have that acknowleges no Rule to limit it It is that troublesom business that â—ell out in Egypt about the Council of Chalcedon when John of Alexandria having fallen under the jealousie of the Emperor and Acacius of Constantinople goes to Rome with Leters from Antiochia to complain of the intruding of Petrus Mongus into his Sea Who being an enemy to the Council of Chalcedon but pretending fair to promote those means by which the Emperor Zeâ—o and Acacius pretended to re-unite Aegypt to the Church having never received that Council was thereupon received into communion by Acacius The Rule of the Church being undispensable whosoever communicated with Hereticks to stand for an Heretick to the Church whatsoever hee believe otherwise This cause having bred a world of trouble for many years the Popes never condescended to be re-united in Communion to the East till it was granted that all the Bishops of Constantinople since Acacius though they had professed the true Faith and some of them suffred for it should be condemned as Hereticks by raising names out of that list in which the godly Bishops were remembred at celebrating the Eucharist Though the reason why they had continued communion with Hereticks was onely for fear of making the breaches of the Church wider and more incurable Here it may seem to have been the Power of the Pope that brought even the second person of the Church to the justice of the Canon so much more evident by how much there was lesse reason to insist upon the rigor of the Canon in comparison to the end to which it was subordinate the unity of the whole Yet to him that reasons aright it will easily appear that it was no duty that either the Emperors or the Bishops of Constantinople owed the Popes that made them submit to the Canon but the obligation they had to the Unity of the Church for the maintenance whereof the Canon was provided And that Zeno taking the
course that Constantius had done in the mater of Arius to reconcile Egypt to the Church by waiving the Council of Chalcedon for an expedient of his of his own for Constantius sought no more than to reconcile all by waiving of the Council of Nicaea and Acacius by communicating with Hereticks did necessarily as all offenders do make them their Superiors who maintain the Laws for the good of the whole In fine that whatsoever the Popes did by virtue of the Canon can be no ground for any irregular Power in themselves the Canon as justly maintaining the poor Britaines against the Pope as the Pope against Zeno and Acacius But the first General Council makes full recompence for all the Church of Rome may pretend to have gained by the business of Acacius Pope Vigilius being in Constantinople and refusing at the summons of the Emperor and Council to sit it proceeds and condemns three Articles which hee had declared for and so prevails that he himself thought best at length to concurr to the Act And all this being done is disowned by the Bishops of Africk Facundus by name whom hee had set on work to write for the three Articles and Istria till all was reconciled I question not the point of Heresie either in this case or that of Honorius whose constitution whereby hee thought to silence the dispute concerning the two wills in our Lord Christ made him to be condemned for an Heretick in the sixth General Council Onely I count it a pitifull excuse to imagine that the Synod is falsified in this point the VIIth Synod in the last session bidding anathema to Honorius and so many records testifying the same And where it is said that the Synod might err in point of fact that Honorius held Heresie though not in point of right in condemning that for Heresie which is not as the Jansenists at this day admitting the condemnation of five propositions by the late Pope admit not that they are contained in Jansenius his book not to dispute of that it will appear that the Pope may be judged by the Church in other cases besides that of Heresie if Honorius being no Heretick is by the Council condemned for an Heretick Indeed there is no cause that concerns the whole Church but the whole Church may judg it Nor can any cause lightly concern a Pope that concerns not the whole Church The reason why Popes have been so seldom judged is not for want of right but for fear of division in the Church which makes it not expedient to use that right There are many particulars of less consequence pleaded for the Popes Power which I will not examine admitting a regular pre-eminence for him above all other Bishops which is seen in the recourse had to him before others in maters concerning the whole Church but denying that infinite Power which nothing can be alleged to prove I acknowledg indeed that this regular pre-eminence not onely might but supposing the Church to continue in Unity must needs be further and further determined by Canon or by custom whether inlarging or restraining it as by the Canons of Sardica allowing appeals to him in the causes of Bishops For the causes of Bishops do not all necessarily concern the whole Church unless the subject of them be mater of Faith or otherwise that which calleth in question the Unity of the Church and then Lay-mens causes are no less So an appeal to Rome so constituted is properly an appeal there to be sentenced in the last resort But when recourse is had to the Pope in the first place that is no appeal but a course to bring the cause to the sentence of the whole Church whereof his sentence is the first part and a great prejudice to that which follows because of the respect which all that depend upon that Church owe his sentence And this increase of the Popes power I do think to be always a just cause of excluding from the Unity of the Church for refusing obedience to it For the Unity of the Church being of Gods Law and so inâ—bling to limit the terms upon which the Power of the Church is held and exercised by Canonical right it cannot be in the power of any part to cast off those Laws by which it is bounded within the compass of Gods Law at pleasure because they are the conditions upon which the Unity of the whole stands which no part can say they will renounce unless they may hold it upon such terms as they please But whether these limitations may not be so excessively abusive to the liberty of the whole so prejudicial to the service of God in the truth of Christianity for which they and the whole Church stands that parts of the Church may and ought to provide for themselves and their Christianity against the oppression of them that I referr to the last consideration when I shall have showed how maters in difference are to be valued by the principles that are setled In the mean time I must observe that from the time that the Pope was re-imbursed of his loss of Jurisdiction and possessions in those Provinces which upon his rebellion the Emperor with-drew from his obedience by the liberality of Pepin and Charlemaine bestovving upon him the Exarchate vvhich vvith the Kingdom of the Lombards they had taken from the Greekish Empire Though I cannot say that from that time regular proceedings were laid aside in the Western Churches Yet I must say that from thence the Popes had a ground to reduce the regular proceedings of Councils to their own will interest to introduce their own rescripts in stead of all Canons for Law to the Western Church And this though I must not prove here yet here I may allege why I go no further here in this dispute It remains that I gather up some fragments of instances that have been produced to show that Episcopacy is not of divine right because from the beginning either all or some Churches have had none Of the authors whereof I must first demand whether the Unity of the Church be of divine right or not For unless they will put the whole cause upon a new issue that there is no Law of God that the Church should be one I demand of them how this Unity could have been preserved by the equality of all Presbyters which by the Hierarchy I have showed was maintained Till they show mee this I think my self secure of all their litle objections For if the Hierarchy cannot be imputed to chance or to the voluntary agreement of all Christians as uncertain as chance certainly Episcopacy the first ingredient of it can be imputed to nothing but the provision of the Apostles And therefore I must here renew my answer to the question that is made Supposing the superiority of Bishops to consist in the Power of doing some act which a Priest cannot do what act is it that a Bishop by his Order can do a Priest cannot
his time which cannot be true otherwise A thing to be wondered at that so knowing a man should look so farr for a reason evidently false having a true one in the text of Bede before his eyes For what is more evident than that the English Bishops of Austines plantation had their Ordination from him not from any Priests But if from him then from one Bishop which was not regular The Nicene Canon requiring the Representatives of the Province the Apostles Canon two at least if not three Whether S. Gregory and his Successors intended that their Power giving Austine his Commission should supply the formality of the Canon or supposed that the Welsh Bishops should joyn with him which afterwards upon the difference that fell out between them either they would not grant or hee would not desire the consecration of the Bishops of that plantation must needs be irregular because it came from Austine alone Nor need wee any other reason why Wilfride went for his consecration into France as the same Bede relateth For that there was the same irregularity also among the Welsh Bishops appears by S. Kentigern who went to Rome to purge it as his life relateth And therefore though Wine having been regularly ordained in France as Malmsbury saith de Gestis Poutif II. joyned with him two Welsh Bishops to consecrate regularly yet their regularity which might be in the consecrating of the said Bishops might alâ—o move Wilfride rather to go into France than to rest content vvith the same But that Niniane being a Welsh Bishop at such time as the Welsh had other Bishops should be ordained by Priests because a vvritten Copy Hist Duâ—â—lm in Biblioth Coton sayes after his time that Galloway had yet no Bishop is a conjecture too slight for a man of that knovvledg For there is appearance enough that under the Welsh the Sea vvas trâ—nslated to Glascow for Kentigern after Niniane And that Plecthelm vvas first Bishop of Galloway under the Saxons after that the Kingdom of Cumberland vvas become English Of the â—uldei in Scotland vvhatsoever is said before the Plantation of S. Columb I challenge â—or a meer fable After it though Bede saith that his Monastery after an unuâ—â—â—l vvay ruled even thâ— Bishops yet vvhere there vvere Bishops no reason can presume that their authority did not ordain though they thought fit that the knovvledg of the Monastery vvhence they came should direct vvhom And therefore vvhatsoever the rights of these Culdei in Scotland might aftervvards be it cannot vvay a sâ—ravvâ—â—â—rds the cause of Episcopacy because never extant in the Church of Scotland but undâ—r it They that shall peruse vvhat the late Lord Pâ—imate hath vvritten in his antiquities of the British Churches and from his infoâ—mation Sir H. Spelman in his Glossâ—ry vvill not allovv them to be any other than Câ—nons that vvâ—re to attâ—nd upon the service of God in the Church Which whether or no before the division of Dioceses in Scotland they might have that right in advanâ—ing of Bishops to all Seas which the Clergy of every Churâ—h had in respâ—ct to their own Church I leave to their antiquaries to determine The extrâ—cts of Philostorgius I give more credit to than to any thing that hath been said of the Scottish Culdei And they I admit relate II. 5. that the â—oâ—â—es who dwelt on the North of the Black Sea had Christianity some LXX years before Ulphilas was made their Bishop For having caried â—ome of the Clergy captives in an inrode they were by them taught Christianity saith Philostorgius But they might have Priests ordained by the next Bishops all having that power in that case Or they might have other Bishops before Theophilus whom the Ecclesiastical Histories reckon at the Council of Nicaea before Ulphilas The want of records will not evidence that those Clergy did all acts of Ecclesiassical power before or made themselves Bishops to do what themselves could not do that is give them the power which they had not themselves I am secure of all that can be said from the state of rural Bishops called Chorepiscopi in the ancient Church Not doubting that any Bishop may communicate any part of his power within his own Church the rule and custom of the whole Church inabling him to do it Socrates and Sozomenus testifie that whereas generally there were no Bishops but in Cities in Cyprus they were settled in Boroughs I have elâ—where observed the same in Africk and Ireland Either Cities were something else there than in other Countries or else the number of Cities could not be so great as the number of Churches in the numerous Africâ—ne Synods and when S. Patrick sounded as many Churches in Ireland as there are dayes in the year Was this any breach upon S. Pauls rule or practice setling Churches in Cities divide a Province or Soveraignty into more or fewer Churches it wayes the same to the whole Church not according to the number of those that vote in their own Synods Unless the Council of Trent could oblige Christendom by a plurality of them that voted there One Diocese of Lincoln will better allow half a douzain rural Bishops to be cut out of it than many Cities in some parts can have Bishops In a word the Rule of the Church supposeth the act of some State which it cannot regulate And is it then strange supposing the superiority of Bishops so much differing in Jurisdiction though for Order the same as I have said that some of them should have a Bishop under him that is answerable to him immediately and to the Synod of the Province by him though according to the Canons of the same with power to Ordain Priests according as the said Synods should allow or withdraw it I will say further that supposing all that I have said of the Hierarchy to be an Ordinance of the Apostles because received by all to be a meer imagination of mine own but granting the unity of the Church to be of Gods Law and the means of maintaining it self to be the consent of the Church and this consent executed by the establishment of Episopacy through the whole Church I can by no means excuse those that go about to put it down from being Schismaticks Whither upon an erroneous conscience they imagine that to be a transgression of Gods Law which the whole Church for so many ages imbracing maketh evident to be according to Gods Law Or whether God having commanded the unity of his Church and his Church having introduced it for a mean to preserve that unity they think it lawfull for themselves to refuse it not believing it to be against Gods Law and therefore within the power of the Church to appoint it For whatsoever can be said of the several customes which severall Churches allowed cannot take place in that which is supposed to be setled and received in all Churches Not is it possible that the Church should continue one as a visible Society and Body
to you to be the commandements of the Lord. Which is to say that all even Prophets are to be subject to the Apostles by consequence to none but them who have received commission from the Apostles For howshal any order he setled to maintain unity in the communion of Gods service upon any other principle but that upon which the Coirnthians are obliged to rest in this which therefore being setled by order from the apostles is from thencforth trusted with the teaching of Gods people and no man further then he is trusted by the same Neither is it any marvaile that in the Church of England after orders confirmed after possession of a Church license of preaching is granted by the Bishop Because there are divers offices as well concerning the cure of soules as the service of God in the Church to which men may be appointed by the Lawes of the Church who are not to be trusted with Preaching even to their own people but upon expresse submission to the Bishops correction in behalfe of his Church For if sufficient power be reserved the Bishop to provide for his flock it will be in him to provide instruction for them by such persons as he shall think fit to trust and if it be not in him so to doe the fault is in the Lawes abridging his power of making a cheerfull account to God for his people Howsoever from hence it may appeare how ridiculous a thing it is to judge of the instruction a Bishop affords his flock by the sermons himselfe preaches unlesse it could be thought that his lungs and sides could reach all his people For his fidelity in trusting such persons as are to be trusted with teaching his people and his care in watching over the performance of their trust extendeth alike to all and maketh his Clergy his instruments in feeding his flock And whatsoever may have decayed in this Order through the Church of England the restoring thereof by wholsom Lawes aswell Ecclesiastcall as Civill had been and is the Reformation of Christianity not the rooting up of the very foundations of the Church out of zeale to exirtpate the order of Bishops And since the licentiousnesse of preaching what any man can make of the Bible hath made so faire a way for so few years to the rooting up of Christianity with the Church what will there be to secure the consciences of Gods people that they may safely go to Church and trust their soules with the means of salvation that are there to be found but the restoring of Gods Church That is to say of that authority which he by his Apostles hath provided for the determining of all things concerning his publike service supposing the profession of that faith which the whole Church hath maintained from the beginning as received from our Lord by his Apostles Which if it be true the same reason will oblige all men to provide the meanes of salvation for themselves that is to follow them of their owne choice without direction or constraint of the Lawes in the meane time I doe not conceive it becomes me to say what ought to be as I conceive it behoves me to say what ought not to be This I will say having proved that the prayses of God and Prayers much more the Eucharist are principal in comparison of preaching which is subordinate That the assemblies of Gods people ought to be more frequent for them then they can be for heareing of Sermons as I have showed by the premises S. Paul commands to pray continually and David saith the praises of God shall be alwaies in his mouth not expressing the assemblies of Gods people but inferring that which I have said of the dayly service of God in publick in my book of the assemblies of the Church Chap. VIII I maintain there is no ground no precept no example no practise of dayly preaching like this for daily prayers which if it be true the confining of assemblies to sermons is to Gods disservice It will be said that S. Paul 1 Tim. IV. 2. Thus exhorteth Preach the word be instant in season out of season examine rebuke exhort with all long suffering and meeknesse And it is as easily answered that here is nothing to the purpose Instance in the preaching of the word refers to unbelievers To induce them to be Christians though out of season is alwaies seasonable Long-suffering and meeknesse in examining rebuking exhorting of Christians privately may be publikely if not according to order must needs be unseasonable Men seeme to imagin that there were Pulpits and Churches and audiences ready to heare the Apostles preach before men were Christians When they were they shall find that meanes of meeting was provided by Christian people according to their duty the order appointed by them and their successors That they sate upon their chaires in teaching challenging the authority by which they taught the people sometimes standing somtimes allowed to sit downe None but Deacons preached standing when the order and discipline of the primitive Church was in force To deal with those that were not Christians S. Paul must goe out into the Piazza or to the Exchange to Gentiles to do that which they did in the Synagogue or in the temple to the Jewes Acts XVII 7 11. 46. In preaching to Jewes it was their advantage to observe the orders of the Synogogue And yet he that shall peruse that which I have said in the book aforenamed shall never say that those assemblies were principally for preaching which the Apostles made use of to preach to the Synagogue When they had ordered the assemblies of Churches what have you in their writings to recommed frequent preaching but S. Pauls order in the use of these miraculous graces given the Corinthians 1 Cor. XIV unlesse it be drawne into consequence that S. Paul prevailed till midnight Acts. XX. 7. as if the act of an Apostle being to depart were a precedent to the order of the Church Buâ— I have showed you in the foresaid book Chap X. that the Eucharists have a share in the use of the said graces and the worke of the said assemblies as also Hymnes of Gods praises And in â— Cor. XI you read very much of the Eucharist as also of praying Prophesying that is praysing God by Psalmes as I have said there Chap. V. without any mention of Preaching If the Doctrine of the Apostles be joyned with breaking of bread and Prayer Acts XI 42. If the Elders that laboure in the word and doctrine be preferred by S. Paul 1 Tim. V. 17. You have a solemn instruction concerning prayers and the Eucharist 1. Tim. II. 1 2. as also exhortations to frequent it Ebr. XIII 15. without any mention of preaching In fine there is nothing in the Scripture to question the ground which I setled afore As for the practice of the Church I will goe no further then Gennadius de dogmatibus Eccles Cap. LIII neither commending nor blaming those that
same ground to wit that the offenses that fall out among Gods people might not scandalize the Gentiles Therefore Saint James writing his Epistle to converted Jewes supposeth that they exercised the same power of judging between Christian and Christian as they did being Jewes between Jew and Jew And exhort them thereupon to use it like Christians James II. 1-13 for this I have shewed to be his meaning in another place And Saint Cypriane teaches Quirinus in the testimonies which he produces against the Jewes out of the Scripture III. 44. Fideles inter se disceptantes non debere Gentilem Judicem experiri In Epistola Pauli ad Corinth I. Audet quisquam vestrum That Christians being in debate among themselves are not to come to the triall of a heathen Judge For in the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians you have dare any of you In the Constitutions of the Apostles II. 45 46 47. this authority is most truly attributed to the Church by describing the manner of proceeding in it Nor will any man of reason question that the author of them though not so ancient as the title under which he goes understood the state of the Church before Constantine There he showes that the Church in the use of this power aimed at the precept of our Lord to be reconciled to our brethren before we offer sacrifice to God Mat. V. 23 24. For though the offering of beasts in sacrifice to God be ceased yet the reason of the precept holds in the Eucharist and the offering of those oblations out of which it was consecrated for Christians To this purpose he prescribeth that Consistories be held on the Munday to see what differences were on foot in the Church that they might have the week before them to set them to right that so they might offer at the Eucharist on the Lords day with a clear conscience For at the Eucharist they were to salute one another with a kisse of peace and the deacon cried aloude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man have any thing against any man let no man give the kisse of peace dissembling All evidences for the practice of the Church That which Gratiane hath alledged out of the Epistle of Clemens to James of Jerusalem Causa XI Quaest I. Cap. XXXII is found also in the life of Saint Peter out of the book of the Popes lives which you have in the Counciles though in that Copy of it which hath since been published under the name of Anastasius it appeareth not The words are these in the Epistle Si qui ex fratribus negotia habent inter se apud cognitores seculi non judicentur Sed apud Presbyterâ—s Ecclesiae quicquid illud est definitur If any of the brethren have suits among themselves let them not be judged before judges of the World But whatsoever it is let it be judged before the Priests of the Church The life of Saint Peter saith thus Hic Petrus B. Clementem Episcopum consecravit cui Cathedram vel Ecclesiam omnem disponendam commisit dicens Sicut mihi gubernandi tradita est a Domino meo Jesu Christo potestas ligandi sâ—lvendique ita ego tibi committo ut ordines dispositores diversarum causarum per quos actus non Ecclesiastici profligentur tu minime curis seculi deditus reperiâ—â— sed solummodo orationi praedicationi ad populum vacare stude This Peter consecrated B. Clement Bishop and committed to him the see or the whole Church to be ordered saying As the power of governing or binding and loosing was delivered me by my Lord Jesus Christ so do I also depute thee to ordain those that may dispose of divers causes by whom actions that are not of the Church may be dispatched so that thou be not found addicted to secular cares but onely study to attend upon prayer and preaching to the people I know the first is forged and the second of little credit And he that writ the Epistle might intend to create an authority against trying the Clergy in secular Courts which could not be the subject of any thing that Clement might write But both authors write what they might know in their time to have fitted the Apostles time There is nothing more suitable to that estate which the Apostles signify then that Clemens should appoint who should attend upon the dispatching of suits between his people that he might attend upon the principall of his Office For that all resorted not then to the Church it is ridiculous to imagine It is enough that there is no instance extant of any suit between Christians tried before Gentiles before Constantinâ— And this is the reason why Constantine undertaking the protection of Christianity made the Law that is yet extant in the Code of Theodosius de Episcopali Audientia I. that any man might appeale to the Bishop in any cause before sentence Is there any appearance that so vast a priviledge would ever have been either demanded or granted had not the matter of it been in use by the Constitution of the Church among Christians Therefore it was no marvaile that it was limited afterwards for it made the Church judge in all causes in which one party would appeal to it as it appeares by Justinians Law and other constitutions afore Justiniane For when the Empire was become Christiane the reason of our Lords and his Apostles Order was expired In the mean time the referring of causes to the Bishop upon appeale was but to referre the causes of Christians to the Bishop which belonged to his knowledge afore And when all were Christians to demand that all should resort to the Bishop had been to dissolve the Civile Government which the Church supposeth The causes that were afterward heard by Bishops of the trouble whereof Saint Augustine complaines and which Saint Peter had cause to provide that Clemens should not be oppressed with resorted to them either as arbitrators by consent of parties or as Judges delegated by the secular power in causes limited by their acts And now is the time to answer the objection against the being of the Church and the Protection which is drawn from those bounds which the power of excommunicating challenged by the Church hath been and is confined to by all Christiane states Though having made the question generall I find it requisite to extend also the answer to those other points wherein I have said the right of the Church is seen and upon which the society thereof is founded no lesse then upon the power of excommunicating And then the argument will be to this effect That seeing no Christian can deny that the Lawes the Ordinations the Censures of the Church are lawfully prohibited to take effect by the secular Powers of Christian States therefore the right of doing those acts stands not by Gods Law but by the sufferance and appointment of the same secular Powers chusing whom they please to execute their own rights
it shall appear by Eusebius that the Councile of Antiochia having created a new Bishop and adjudged the possession of the Bishops Palace to him which Paulus Samosatenus defended by force and the Emperor being appealed to by the parties for execution adjudged the possession to him whom the Bishop of Rome and Italy should account lawfull Bishop I suppose I shall not need many words to show any reasonable man the very termes which I hold in this sentence to wit that the matter of it was determined by the Church the force and execution of it came from the Power of the Empire I had purposed here to examine some of those instances produced in the first book de Synedriis cap. X. some passages of Church Writers alledged in the Oxford Doctors Paraenefis to prove the Ecclesiasticall power meerely the effect of the secular because limitable by it But having debated thus farre the bounds between Gods Law and the Lawes of the Church and found the Law of the Church to be nothing but the limitation of Gods Law the force whereof comes from Gods generall Law in founding the Church I find not the least cause to distrust him that admitteth it as one to be turned aside with pretenses of so vast consequence upon such slight appearances I shall therefore thus turn him loose to apply the generall ground upon which I proceed to the particulars that may be alledged out of the ancient Church Onely one I must not leave behinde me the contest between the Emperors and the Popes about the Investâ—â—ures of Churches as carrying in it the meanes of changing the Regular Power of the Pope which I owne into the pretense of that infinite power which infallibility speaketh Yet is it not my purpose to state the case in debate because it would require the examining of many records in point of fact not advancing the discovery of the right a whit more then supposing it stated For supposing the investiture of a Church to signifie a right of contradicting an Election or to signify a right of delivering possession no man admitting the premises can deny that all Princes and States that are Christiane have â—â— them a right to do both though the terme of Investiture seem properly to signify onely the latter as signifying the ceremony of investing some man in the rights of his Church For if the Church be protected in the rights of it by the Lawes of the Land as upon the premises it cannot be denied that upon the States acknowledging the Church as founded by God it ought to be and must needs be protected all the reason in the World will require that the secular power be inabled to except against any mans person as prejudicall to the State and to render no account of such exception to any man as having no superiour in that trust to whom to render it But if under the title of Investiture the right of electing and consecrationg originally resident in the Clergy and People of each Church and the Bishops of the Province be seized into the hands of the secular power by the force thereof constraining each party to do their own parts in admitting the nomination thereof whether allowing it or not whatsoever trouble any Soveraigne procure in such a cause is meeâ— wrong and in a wrong cause The foundation of the Church setling the rights that concurre to the doing of it upon the qualities which it self createth But this is not therefore to say that the Pope or all the Church hath any right to depose such a Prince or to move warre against such a State by what meanes soever it may be done Because that is the effect of temporall power that is soveraigne which the Church hath not in point of right but usurpeth in point of fact by so doing He that can injoyn another man either to eject a Prince or destroy a State upon what terms soever he may dispose of it when that is done as he shall make the tenures of this world to depend upon Christianity so he makes himself Soveraigne in the world that ownes him in the doing it upon the same title of Christianity So the Popes had certainly a wrong cause in stirring warre which they had no title to do The Emperors whether they had a right or a wrong cause which God would punish by suffering the Popes to move warre without a title the state of the case must judge though for the most part in warres both parties are in the wrong insisting upon that which they have no right to insist upon for the termes of peace Let us consider what brought the Popes to this height of really and actually claiming temporall power over Soveraignties that is to be Soveraigne over Soveraignes by moving warre to destroy Princes and States I will suppose here the defection of the Italian forces from the Emperour Leo Isaurus for ejecting all images out of Churches and that he in reprisall for it seized the possessions of the Church of Rome in his dominions and translated the jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall through the same upon his Church of Constantinople For in reprisall for this Pepin whose usurpation of the Crown of France Pope Zachary had allowed at the request of Pope Steven constraining the Lâ—mbards to render or to forbear those parts of the Empire which the Emperors at Constantinople were not able to maintaine any more against them bestowed them upon the Church of Rome under his own protection as the case sufficiently shewes especially admitting the Charter of Ludovieus Pius his Grandchilde to be but the confirmation of his Fathers and Grandfathers acts saving the difference of that title under which they were done For the Charter of Ludovicus Pius in Sigonins de Regno Italiae IV. manifestly reserving the Soveraignty to himself and his successors remits both the fruits and the administration of them to the Church charging himselfe to protect it in the same Which burthen we must needs understand that Pepin by his grant did undertake seeing that in point of fact the Church could neither undertake to hold them against the Lombardâ— nor against the Empire which till this act it acknowledged Soveraigne whatsoever in point of right it might do The act of Charles the Great coming between these two upon the ruine of the Lombards that is his own Soveraignty in reason must needs seem to have given the forme to the act of his son The power of this line decaying in Italy and those who had attempted to succeed it failing it is no marvaile if among the States of Italy that contracted with the Germanes to invest them in the same Soveraignty which Charles the Great and his line as Kings of Lombardy by conquest or as declared Emperor by the City of Rome the Head whereof was then the Pope whatsoever that declaration might signify the Pope in behalf of the City and Church of Rome appeared most considerable While the Germanes through their strength at home were able to
change which Temporal Power remaining in the same hands is able to produce within its own dominions The consequence of which consideration will be this that where Temporal Power makes such a change in the state of those Cities which are the seats of Churches that the Government and advancement of Christianity either may proceed changing the priviledges of the Churches or cannot proceed otherwise there the Church either may or ought to transferre the pre-eminences of Churches from City to City And therefore that where the case is otherwise the Church is not bound upon every act of Temporall Power to proceed to any change If this seem obscure being thus generally said let not the Reader despair before we have done to find instances in things that have come to pass not onely to clear my meaning but also to evidence the reason upon which I proceed It is likewise easie for him that considers this supposition and the effect and consequence of it to see that it gives no Jurisdiction to the Church of Rome much lesse to the Head thereof in behalfe of it over other Churches then those which resort immediately to it as every Diocess is concluded by the mother Church and every Province by the Synod of it much lesse the Power of giving Law to the whole but by the act of those Synods whereof the whole consists or of judging â—ny appeal that may be brought to it But it makes the Church of Rome as other Head Churches the center to which the causes that concern first the Western Churches in particular then the whole are to resort that they may find issue and be decided by the consent and to the unity of all whom they concern It is also easily to be observed that this eminence of the greatest Churches over their inferiours which originally is no further defined and limited then the consequence of this ground in respect of the rest of Christendom required might lawfully be defined and limited further either by sâ—lent custome or by express law of the Church consenting at leaâ—â—â—â—â—ffect and practice which is the onely real positive Law that rules all Societies Whereby new rights and priviledges might come to the Church of Rome as well as to other Churches which might also be for the good of the whole in â—â—intaining the unity of the Church together with the common interest of Christianity But I deny not on the other side that this Power the beginning whereof is so necessary and just the intent so excellent by the change of the world and the state of things in it may be so inhansed that though it do provide for the unity of the Church yet it shall not provide for the interess of Chistianity But of this and the consequence of it in due time For the present the reason upon which my position the effect and consequence whereof I have hitherto set forth is grounded is the effect of it in all proceedings of the Church recorded first in the Scriptures and afterwards in Church Writers as they succeed those that I must here principally consider being the very same that I considered in the first Book to make evidence of the being of the Church in point of fact as a body out of which now the right which held it together as the soul must appear Adding the consideration of such eminent passages in succeeding times as may serve to the same purpose I will not here repeat the marks of it which I have produced out of the Scriptures in the right of the Church Chap. II. For the dependence of Churches is part of this position as an ingredient without which the unity of the whole is not attainable I will onely adde here the consideration of that which I alleged in the first Book out of S. Johns last Epistle 5-10 Some have thought it so strange that Diotrephes and his faction should not acknowledge those that were recommended by S. John an Apostle that they have rather intitled the Epistle to a successor of his in the Church of Ephesus whose Tombe S. Jerome saw there besides S. John the Apostle whom Papias called John the elder as he is called in the beginning of these two Epistles Hieron Catal. in Johanne Papiâ Ens. Ecclesiast Hist II. 25. But he that considers what S. Paul writes to the Corinthians of his adversaries there will not marvail that S. John should find opposition at the hands of Diotrephes aspiring to the Bishoprick by banding a faction against the Jewish Christians whom it appears sufficiently that S. John cherished And therefore the mark here set upon Diotrephes is not for introducing Episcopacy as the Presbyterians would have it but for disobeying the superiour Church whereof S. John was head to the indangering of Unity in the Whole For could Diotrephes hope to make himselfe Bishop in his own Church when no body was Bishop in any Church besides Or might not Diotrephes hope to do it by heading a party that disallowed compliance with Judaism at that time If then the Apostles provided not that the Church should continue alwayes one if this Unity was not alwayes maintained by the dependence of Churches let this reproof have no effect in any succeeding time of the Church But if the eminence of S. Johns Church above the neighbour Churches in insuing ages was a necessary ingredient to the unity of the whole then be it acknowledged that S. Johns successors might lay the blame of Diotrephes his ambition upon any successor of his that should follow it Before I go any further I will here allege those Fathers which do teach that our Lord gave S. Peter the Keys of his Church in the person of the Church and as the figure of it Namely S. Cyprian Pacianus S. Hierom S. Augustine and Optatus whose words I will not here write out to inflame the bulk of this Book because you have them in the Archbishop of Spalato de Rep. Eccl. 1. VII 17-29 VIII 8. 9. Adding onely to them S. Ambrose de dignitate Sacerdotali cap. 1. affirming that in S. Peter the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven are given to all Priests And cap. II. speaking of the words of our Lord to S. Peter Feede my sheepe Quas oves quem gregem non solum tunc beatus suscepit Petrus sed nobiscum eas suscepit cum illo eas nos suscepimus omnes Which sheep and which flock not onely S. Peter then undertook but also he with us and with him we all undertook them And venerable Bede upon the words of our Lord Tell the Church Haec potestas sanctae Ecclesiae Episcopis specialiter commissa est generaliter vero omni Ecclesiae data creditur Nam quod dominus alibi hanc ligandi solvendique potestatem Petro tribuit utique in Petro qui typum gerebat Ecclesiae omnibus Apostolis hoc concessisse non dubitatur The power of the Keys is committed especially to the Bishops of the Holy Church but is believed to be
given generally to every Church For whereas our Lord elsewhere gives unto S. Peter this power of binding and loosing there is no doubt that in Peter bearing the form of the Church he gave it to all the Apostles Proceeding to allege S. Jerome and S. Augustine to the same purpose And upon the words of our Lord Feed my sheep Quod Petro dictum est omnibus Christi discipulis dictum est Hoc namque fuerunt caeteri Apostoli quod Petrus fuit pastores sunt omnes grex unus ostenditur qui ab Apostolis tunc unanimi consensu pascebatur deincepâ— a successoribus eorum communi curâ pascitur That which is said to Peter is said to all Christs Disciples For what Peter was that were the rest of the Apostles They are all shepherds but the flock appears to be but one which as then it was fed by the Apostles with unanimous consent so is it since fed by their successors with common care These Fathers then when they give this for the reason why our Lord gives Peter onely the Keys of the Church with the charge of feeding his flock that hee bore the person and form of the Church suppose the Church to be a body compacted of all Churches ruled by the same form of Government for the preserving of unity in the whole as the colledge of the Apostles consisteth of so many persons indowed all with one and the same power for whom one answers to signifie the unity of the whole Whereby it appeareth first negatively That the Church did uot understand any Soveraign Power to be committed to S. Peter by these words Then positively that our Lord speaking to him alone signifies there by the course which he hath established for preserving unity in the Church To wit that all Churches being governed in the same form the greater go before the lesse in ordering maters of common concernment S. Cypriane from whom all the rest have this doctrine hath cleared the intent of it when he thus writeth Epist ad Jubai LXXII Manifestum est autem ubi per quos remissa peccatorum datur quae in baptismo scilicet daâ—ur Nam Petro primum dominus super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam unde unitatis originem instituit ostendit potestatem istam dedit ut id solveretur in caelis quod ipse solvisset in terris Et post resurrectionem quoque ad Apostolos loquitur dicens Sicut misit me Pater ego mitto vos Hoc cum dixisset inspiravit aâ—t illis Accipite spiritum sanctum Si cujus remiseritis peccata remittentur illi si cujus tenueritis tenebuntur Unde intelligimus non nisi in Ecclesiâ— praepositis in Evangelicâ lege dominica ordinatione fundatis licere baptizare remissam peccatorum dare Now it is manifest where and by whom remission of sinnes is given when it is given in Baptism For our Lord first gave to Peter upon whom he built his Church and in whom and from whom he instituted and declared the original of unity in it this power that it should be loosed in heaven whatsoever he had loosed on earth And after his resurrection also speaking to the Apostles he saith As my Father sent me so send I you And having said this he breathed on them saying If ye remit any mans sinnes they shall be remitted him if ye retain any mans they shall be retained Whence we understand that it is not lawful for any but those that are set over the Church and grounded in the Evangelical Law and the Ordinance of our Lord to baptize and give remission of sinnes Because Peter received the Keys therefore all and every Church that is those that are over it and none else can give remission of sinnes by admitting to Baptism Shall we think the consequence extravagant having so clear a ground for it to wit the unity of the whole Church setled upon two ingredients the same form in all Churches but with dependence of the lesse upon the greater Churches If any man say all this is disputed by Cypriane to prove that Baptism given by Hereticks is void wherein he hath been disowned by the Church And that therefore the reasons are not well grounded from whence it is inferred The answer is easie because he inferrs upon them that which though true they do not inforce That a man cannot lawfully baptize is not so much as that if he do baptize his Baptism is void S. Cypriane took both for one and therefore his reason is good though it conclude not his purpose Why not void being unlawful I refer my self to what S. Augustine since hath disputed and the Church decreed and practised And here you have one ground for that distinction between the Power of Order and the Power of Jurisdiction comparing one with another the Bishops and Priests of several Churches according to the original constitution of the Church I allow S. Hierome to say that wheresoever there is a Bishop whither at Rome or at Eugubium an obscure City near Rome he is of the same worth as of the same Priesthood Epist LXXXV For as to the inward Court of the conscience the office that is Ministred by the Bishop or Priest of a lesse Church is no lesse effectual then by one of a greater Church But as to the outward Court of the Church supposing all Churches governed in the same form but the Churches of lesse Cities subordinate to the Churches of greater Cities by the appointment of the Apostles the act of the lesse Church of the Bishop or a Priest of it cannot be of that consequence to the whole as the act of the greater Church And so though the Bishop or the Priest of a litle Church be of the same Order with the Bishop or Priest of a great Church yet the authority of the one extendeth without comparison further then the authority of the other can do And you may perhaps dispute whether this authority produce any such as Jurisdiction or not but whether there be ground hereupon to distinguish between the Order which is the same in both and the authority which it createth in which there is so great difference you cannot dispute Certainly the office of a Deacon in a greater Church may be of more consequence to the whole then many Bishops can bring to pass As the assistance of Athanasius in the office of a Deacon to Alexander Bishop of Alexandria at the Council of Nicaea was of more consequence to the obtaining of the decree of the Council then the votes of many Bishops there CHAP. XIX Of the proceedings about Marcion and Montanus at Rome The businesse of Pope Victor about keeping Easter a peremptory instance The businesse of the Novatians evidenceth the same Of the businesses concerning the rebaptizing of Hereticks Dionysius of Alexandria Paulus Samosatenus S. Cypriane and of the Donatists under Constantine AMongst the proceedings of the Church I will first alledge that of the Church of Rome