by others but the same Authors as it were unhappily distracted and divided between two powerful Leaders Interest and Truth to bring in Alterations in Religion against the standing Church Authority chiefly by this way namely a Superintendency or Supremacy therein of the secular power either proceeding against all or at most joined with some inferior against the superior Clergy or some lesser against a much major part the judgment of which superior's and major part do canonically conclude the whole I think it necessary in this a matter of so great consequence to gather all those Pleas and Defences of any weight which I have met with in these Writers whereon they build the lawfulness of their Reformation by the secular Arm and to shew the invalidity of them § 34 To this purpose then I find them to alledge on the other side as if they had forgot all they had already conceded See Dr. Fern Answer to Champny p. 300. That the secular Sovereign Power is to be satisfied or as it is there § 21. to have it by Demonstration of Truth evidenced to him that what is propounded as Faith and Worship is according to the Law of Christ before he use or apply his Authority to the publick establishment of it Ibid. p. 294. And this in respect of his duty to God whose Laws and Worship he is bound to establish by his own Laws within his Dominions and is accountable for it if he do it amiss Thus Dr. Fern. Well But may the Clergy at least publish that Faith and Worship which they judge to be according to the Law of Christ in his Dominions without him Or may not the Prince also establish something as the Law of Christ when it is as he conceives evidenced to him to be so by some other without or against the Clergy or only with some minor or inferior part of them when opposed by the superior and major i. e. by the Canonical Ecclesiastical Judge The first of these is denied by him the later affirmed For saith he Ibid. p. 308. General Councils being the greatest and highest means of direction which Kings can have in matters of Religion but still with the limitation quatenus docent legem Christi of which I suppose the Prince must judge it being possible that the major part should be swayed by Factions or worldly Interest Therefore Kings and Emperors saith he may have cause given them upon Evidence of things unduly carried to use their supreme power for forbidding of their Decrees And Ibid. 2. c. p. 73. The Sovereign Prince is not bound in the way of Prudence always to receive his directions from a vote in Synod especially when there is just cause of fear that the most of them that should meet are apparently obnoxious to factious Interests And p. 72. If the Prince by the law of God stands bound to establish within his own Dominions whatsoever is evidenced to him by faithful Bishops and Learned Men of the Church to be the Law of Christ shall he not perform his known duty till the Vote of a major part of a Synod give him leave to do it Where also p. 295. he approves the Concession of the Clergy under King Henry the Eighth In binding themselves by Promise in Convocation in verbo Sacerdotis not to exact or promulge or execute any new Canons or Constitutions without the King's assent Here you see the Clergy's power so tied up that they can publish no Christian Doctrine to the People that is to Christ's Flock which they do not first evidence to the Prince and have for such publication his consent but on the other side whatever is any way evidenced to the Prince he may publish without and against their consent and yet they not he are made by these men the ordinary Judges in Spiritual matters § 35 Now here suppose the Prince receives the Directions of some Clergy men in any thing he doth yet since the Clergy is a subordinate and well regulated Government and these his Spiritual Directors oppose the main Body he is not here directed by that Clergy that ought to be his Judge but those that are against it Yet still some reason were there in this if the Prince could always be certain in his Evidence so as not to mistake i. e. to think something evidenced to him when indeed it is not and again to think other things not sufficiently evidenced when they are so there were less hazard in leaving Church matters thus to his disposal But since things are much otherwise and evidencing Truths to any one by reason of different Understandings Education Passions and Interest is a thing very casual so that what is easily evidenceable to another may happen not to be so to the Sovereign Power when not patient enough to be informed when misled and prepossessed by a Faction when not so capable as some others by defect of nature or learning and facile to be perswaded by the last Speaker c. to what an uncertain and mutable Condition are Church Affairs reduced when the Function of the Clergy depends on such Evidences made to the Prince 2. § 36 Next they urge That in regard that the Clergy may many ways fail and miscarry in delivering Christ's Laws and the Truth of the Gospel If in matters already determined by our Lord and his Apostles or Laws given to the Church by injury of time the Practice become contrary to the Law the Sovereign Power being bound to protect Christianity is bound to employ it self in giving strength first to that which is ordained by our Lord and his Apostles By consequence if those with whom the Power of the Church is trusted i.e. that Body of the Clergy whose Acts conclude the whole else if only some other Clergy miscarry this Body serves the Prince for their correction shall hinder the restoring of such Laws the Sovereign Power may and ought by way of penalty to such persons to suppress their power that so it may be committed to such as are willing to submit to the superior Ordinance of our Lord and his Apostles Thus Mr. Thorndike Rights of the Church p. 273. § 37 Now here to omit that such suppositions and fears that the Clergy taken in the largest capacity and supremest judgments to which the Prince is to repair when lower are suspected shall fail at any time in the delivering to Christians all necessary Truths are groundless of which see what hath been said in the first Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies § 6. c. And Second Discourse § 12. c. what reasonable man is there hearing this that will not presently ask Who shall judge whether that be indeed a Law ordained by our Lord or his Apostles which the Prince would introduce or restore and which the Succession of the Clergy opposeth Which Clergy surely will never confess such to be a Law of our Lord but always will profess the contrary Nay will say That the Succession of the Clergy
of God notwithstanding any secular force prohibiting the same must needs maintain by consequence that the Church hath Power in it self to hold all such Assemblies as shall be requisite to maintain the common Service of God and the Unity in it and the order of all Assemblies that exercise it Thus Mr. Thorndike § 16 Dr. Taylor in Episcopacy asserted published by the Kings Authority after that p. 236. he hath laid this ground for the security of Secular Princes That since that Christ hath professed that his Kingdome is not of this world that Government which he hath constituted de novo doth no way make any Entrenchment on the Royalty hath these Passages p. 237. he saith That those things which Christianity as it prescinds from the interest of the Republick hath introduced all them and all the causes emergent from them the Bishop is Judge of Such are causes of Faith ministration of Sacraments and Sacramentals Subordination of inferiour Clergy to their Superiours Rites Liturgies c. As for the Rights of the Secular Power he layeth down this Rule p. 236. Whatsoever the Secular Tribunal did take Cognizance of before it was Christian the same it takes notice of after it is Christened And these are all Actions civil all publick Visitations of Justice all breach of municipal Laws These the Church saith he hath nothing to do with unless by the favour of Princes these be indulged to it these by their favour then indulged but not so the former Accordingly p. 239. he saith Both Prince and Bishops have indicted Synods in several ages upon the exigente of several occasions and have several Powers for the engagements of clerical obedience and attendance upon such Solemnities That the Bishops Jurisdiction hath a Compulsory derived from Christ only viz. Inflictions of Censures by Excommunications or other minores plagae which are in order to it And that the King is supreme of the Jurisdiction viz. that part of it which is the external Compulsory i. e. as he saith before to superadd a temporal penalty upon Contumacy or some other way abet the Censures of the Church P. 243. he saith That in those cases in which by the law of Christ Bishops may or in which they must use Excommunication no Power can forbid them For what power Christ hath given them no man can take away And p. 244. That the Church may inflict her Censures upon her Delinquent Children without asking leave that Christ is her 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for that he is her warrant and security And p 245. That the King 's supreme Regal Power in causes of the Church consists in all things in which the Priestly office is not precisely by God's law employed for regiment and care of Souls I suppose those he named before p. 237. and in these also that all the external Compulsory and Jurisdiction as he expoundeth 〈◊〉 before p. 239. is the King 's And lastly p. 241. he saith That the Catholick Bishops in time of Arian Emperors made humble and fair remonstrance of the distinction of Powers and Jurisdiction that as they might not intrench upon the Royalty so neither betray the right which Christ had concredited to them to the encroachment of an exterior Jurisdiction and Power i. e. the Royal. § 17 Bishop Bramhal frequently stateth the Primacy or Supremacy of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters thus Schisme Guarded p. 61. he saith All that our Kings assume to themselves is the external Regiment of the Church by coactive Power to be exercised by persons capable of the respective branches of it And p. 63. quoting the 37 Article of the Church of England where the King's Supremacy is expressed thus To preserve or contain all Estates and Orders committed to their trust whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil in their duties and restrain contumacious offenders with the Civil Sword in which restraining offenders and containing all in their duty with the Civil Sword the Prince is willingly acknowledged by Catholicks the and the only Supreme he comments thus upon it You see the Power is Political the Sword is Political all is Political our Kings leave the Power of the Keys and Jurisdiction Spiritual purely to those to whom Christ hath left them And in answer to another Passage in the 37th Article and also in the Oath of Supremacy wherein the Bishop of Rome is denied to have any Jurisdiction in the Kingdome of England he distinguisheth between a Jurisdiction suppose to excommunicate absolve degrade purely Spiritual governing Christians in the interior Court of Conscience and extending no further and an exterior coactive Jurisdiction exercised in the exterior Ecclesiastical Courts the exterior Coaction of which he saith is originally Political and so belonging only to and held from the Prince His words are Schisme Guarded p. 160. Our Ancestors in denying any Jurisdiction that is Patriarchal to the Pope meant the very same thing that we do our only difference is in the use of the words Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction which we understand properly of Jurisdiction purely Spiritual which extends no further then the Court of Conscience But by Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction they did understand Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the exterior Court which in truth is partly Spiritual partly Political The interior habit which enableth an Ecclesiastical Judge to excommunicate or absolve or degrade is meerly Spiritual but the exterior Coaction is originally Political So our Ancestors cast out external Ecclesiastical coactive Jurisdiction the same do we They did not take away from the Pope the power of the Keys or Jurisdiction purely Spiritual no more do we And Ibid. p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and executing of them but with this caution that to make them Laws he means such laws for observance of which secular coaction might be used the confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a coactive Power to execute them the Prince's Grant or Concession was needful So that Bishops may both compose and execute Canons in the Kings Dominions and use the Ecclesiastical Censures by their own Authority without the Prince only they can use no Coaction by pecuniary or corporal punishments c. in the Execution of them without his which is granted to him Again Vindic. of the Church of England p. 269. he saith That in Cases that are indeed Spiritual or meerly Ecclesiastical such as concern the Doctrine of Faith or Administration of the Sacraments or the ordaining or degrading of Ecclesiastical persons Sovereign Princes have and have only an Architectonical Power to see that Clergy-men do their Duties i. e. not what he but what their Superiors in Spiritual matters judge to be so And Schisme Guarded p. 136. We have nothing concerning any Jurisdiction meerly Spiritual in all the Statutes of Henry the Eighth They do all intend coactive Jurisdiction in the exterior Court of the Church We give the supreme Judicature of
Rights and Estates That the Clergy pass nothing prejudicial to these Rights for which there is all good reason Again The Emperors saith he in making use of their Authority in Councils took not upon them to be infallible Judges of Doctrine but only that they might see and judge whether Bishops did propound nothing in their Convocations and Consultations but most of all in their Determinations to undermine the Emperors Authority to disturb the tranquility of the Common-wealth i. e. in their medling in civil affairs and to cross the Determinations of precedent Councils Thus King James § 26 King Charles in his last Paper in the Isle of Wight p. 3. Speaking of the several Branches of Episcopal Authority practised under Heathen Princes Tho the Bishops saith he in the times of Pagan Princes had no outward coercive Power over mens Persons or Estates as also no more have they now except from and during the Princes pleasure yet in as much as every Christian man when he became a Member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government So Christian men do still Princes and all They then exercised a very large Power of Jurisdiction in Spiritualibus In making Ecclesiastical Canons receiving Accusations conventing the accused examining Witnesses judging of Crimes against the Evangelical Law excluding such men as they found guilty of scandalous offences from the Lord's Supper enjoining Penances upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. I subsume the same making of Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons the same Examinations Excommunications and casting out of the Church c. are and must be allowed still in Christian States also being things which as Bishop Carleton Princes can neither give to nor take from the Church And therefore they must also be allowed all those means absolutely without which no such things can be done As convening keeping intelligence one with another Promulgation of their Acts and Decrees c. And when the Christian Prince or State becomes to them such as the Heathen were in his with-holding or prohibiting these necessary things then may they resume that behaviour as was practised formerly in Heathenisme i. e. do these things without the States leave or against its Prohibitions § 27 After this copious Account given you of learned and judicious Protestants touching so weighty a matter let us now look back upon them and see in what Posture things are left The Ecclesiastical Supremacy that is commonly attributed to the Civil Power seems to consist chiefly in all or in some one of these three 1. His strengthning and promoting the Acts of the Church and its Governors with the assistance of the Secular Sword and his making their laws the Laws also of the State One Branch of which power consequently is The opposing and suppressing by the hand of Civil Justice any such Ecclsiastical Acts of Inferior and Uncanonical and illegal Persons or Synods as go against the Superior and legal the Church being always the Judge in this matter what Acts are against and disowned by her which is indeed the Princes not opposing but defending the Church § 28 2. Or 2dly His opposing and abrogating some of the Churches Canons and Laws of Government in purely Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Affairs for in Civil all Princes Heathen also and Heretical may rescind any such Ecclesiastical Acts as do any prejudice to the temporal Power which God hath committed immediately into their hands as pretended contrary to the Law of Christ or to Christian liberty c. 3. Or 3dly His declaring and reforming against their Decrees in matters of Faith and Manners as some way contrary to God's Truth and the Doctrine of the Scriptures § 29 For the first of these It is an Ecclesiastical Supremacy or a Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters which the Church hath never denied to belong to Secular Princes but as obliged to them for it and many Acts thereof may be and sometimes have been performed even by Princes Heathen or Heretical Many Instances thereof are collected by Mason De Ministerio Anglicano p. 313. in Nabuchadonosor Cyrus Darius under the Old Testament Tiberius Adrian Antoninus Pius c. And afterward of several of the Gothick Kings under the New For the other two These Protestant Authors forecited grant That so often as any Prince falls into Heresy or in general opposeth the Christian Faith the exercise of such Supremacy concerning matters of Faith and Church Government returns to the Church alone as it was in the Church alone before Constantine Again the judgment of Heresy and consequently when Princes are Heretical and so fallen from the exercise of any such Supremacy is by several of the former quotations See before § 21 22. c. granted to belong to the Church But suppose the Christian Prince to be also Catholick yet the limitations of several of the forecited Authors seem hardly to allow him any such Branches of Supremacy For touching Errors of Faith or Aberrations in the performance of God's worship and service Dr. Field before § 20. saith That ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof to the Bishops and Pastors of the Church and in these things to judge according to their former resolutions or in any new matter whereof no former Definition hath been made the Prince saith Dr. Heylin before § 20. is to follow the new Resolutions that shall be made not of some few tho never so learned but of the whole body of his Clergy and by consequence to follow also not that but the Resolution of a higher Body of Clergy if this oppose that of his Clergy the one being necessarily subordinate to and conclusive by the other for preservation of the Unity and Peace of the Catholick Church So Bishop Bramhal grants That the Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons i. e. such as related only to Ecclesiastical not Civil matters both for the composing and executing of them Only to make these Canons Laws i. e. accompanied with a politick and coactive Power the Prince's Confirmation was required And Mr. Thorndike saith before § 15. That should the Prince forbid it yet the Church still ought to use that Ecclesiastical Power therein that shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church of which necessity also they not the Prince are by our Lord constituted the Judges The like saith Dr. Taylor of the Subordination of inferior Clergy to their Superiors and Bishop Bishop Carleton before § 14. of the Ordinations of the Clergy and Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures that they are proper Laws and Rights of the Church not to be changed or taken away by Princes § 30 It seems too late therefore now or in Henry the Eighth's days to project a Repeal of any of those forementioned ancient Ecclesiastical Customes and Canons which we find made or practiced by the Church under the
their Authority by the Emperors I answer All this is true 1. That the Church Canons are not of force as to any Coactive Power to he used in the Execution of them by Clergy or Laity before made the Emperor's or other Princes Laws For which take the same Bishop Bramhal's Exposition when I believe he had better considered it Schism Guarded p. 92. We see the Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors but that was by Authority meerly Spiritual They had no Coactive Power to compel any man against his will And p. 119. We acknowledge that Bishops were always esteemed the proper Judges of the Canons both for composing of them and for executing of them but with this caution That to make them Laws the Confirmation of the Prince was required and to give the Bishop a Coactive Power to execute them The Prince's Grant or Concession was needful 2. That the Church Canons are not of force at all when these Canons relate to any civil Right without the secular Magistrate's precedent admission of them of whose proper Cognizance such Rights are But meanwhile all Ecclesiastical Canons whether concerning the Faith or Government and Discipline of the Church so far as they do not encroach on any such civil Rights as I presume all those made by the Church when under Heathen Governors will be granted to be are in force in whatever Princes Dominions so as to render all the disobedient liable to the Church's Censures tho the Christian Prince never so much oppose and reject them And this granted more is not desired for thus no Members of the Church at any time can be free from the strict observance of such Canons by any secular Authority or Patronage § 54 6. They urge That in any Princes Dominions the Clergy's liberty to exercise actually their Function 6. and the application of the matter on which it worketh viz. of the Subjects of such a Dominion are held from the Crown so that a Christian Prince by denying this lawfully voids the other as he thinks fit We draw saith Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 268. or derive from the Crown Liberty or Power to exercise actually and lawfully upon the Subjects of the Crown that habitual Jurisdiction which we receive at our Ordination And in his Reply to Chalced. p. 291. he makes Ecclesiastical Persons in their excommunicating and absolving the King's Substitutes i. e. as he expounds himself afterward by the King's Application of the matter namely of his Subjects to receive their Absolution from such Ecclesiastical Persons I answer This again if meant of the liberty of the Clergy's exercising their Functions with a Coactive Power or of some persons among that Clergy which the Church owns as Catholick being admitted to exercise their Function absolutely in such Dominions and not others is very true but little to their Purpose that urge it But if understood absolutely as to the liberty of any such Clergy at all to exercise their Function at all in any Christian Prince's Dominions upon his Subjects without his leave in which sense only it besteads them is most false Neither may a Christian Prince be thought to have any priviledge herein which a Heathen hath not And as such Priviledge is most pernicious to the propagation of the Christian Religion where the Prince is Heathen So to the Conservation of the Catholick Religion where the Christian Prince happens to be Heretical or Schismatical § 55 7. They urge For the abrogating Church Canons That Ecclesiastical are only humane Institutions 7. that Authority given by the men and abused may be again suppressed by them So Rivet Grot. Discuss Dialys p. 173. in Answer to Grotius Discussio Rivet Apol. p. 69. who alledged a Jus Ecclesiasticum for the Pope's Primacy to be conceded by Protestants And ' Tho Inferiors are not competent Judges of their Superiors yet as to subordinate Superiors in matters already defined by the Church the Sentence of the Judge is not necessary the Sentence of the Law and Notoriety of the Fact are sufficient So Bishop Bramhal Vindic. of the Church of England p. 253. from whence seems to be inferred the lawfulness for a Prince within his Dominions or for a Church National totally to abrogate the forementioned Canonical Sub-ordination of such Kingdome or Church to the Patriarchal Authority when this abused § 56 To which 1st it is willingly granted That both Ecclesiastical Offices and Canons may be abrogated for abuses happening by them only that this may not be done by Inferiors or by every Authority but by the same Authority that made or set them up 2. Next for Abuses and the Notoriety of them that no Practices may be stiled so where neither Church-Definitions are found against them much less where these found for them nor where a major part of those subject to them acknowledge them as Abuses but continue their obedience therein as their Duty 3ly For such things as are notorious Abuses or most generally agreed on for such and so Obedience withdrawn herein yet none may therefore substract his obedience absolutely from such an Authority for such other matters where their Obedience is due and due it is still that was formerly so till such Power reverse that Authority and its Injunctions as set it up But whilst Obedience in the one is denyed in the other it ought still to be yielded Therefore should the Patriarch make a breach upon the Civil Rights of Princes or their Subjects these may not justly hence invade his Ecclesiastical And if the Priest Patriarch or Bishop would in some things act the Prince therefore may not the Prince justly take upon him to act the Priest or to alter any thing of that Spiritual Hierarchy established by Christ or by the Church much to the good but nothing at all to the damage of temporal States If any thing happen to be unjustly demanded it excuseth not from paying just debts The Office must not be violated for the fault of the Person And herein may the Example of other Nations be a good Pattern to ours who having made resistance to their Patriarch in some Injunctions conceived by them not Canonical yet continue still their Obedience in the rest as appears in the late Contest of the State of Venice and those Opposals both of France and Spain and England before the times of Henry the Eighth of which Bishop Bramhal In Vindic. 3d. Book 7th Chap. hath been a sufficiently diligent Collector but at last found them all to come short of Henry the Eighth's Proceedings See before § 49. Neither indeed need any Prince to fear any Ecclesiastical Tyranny so far as to pluck up the Office by the roots who holding the Temporal Sword still in his own hands can therewith divide and moderate it as he pleaseth § 57 8. The endeavour to void the Pope's Patriarchal Authority and the Canonical Priviledges belonging to it 8. by his claiming an Universal Headship by
132. Upon that one ground the Power of Kings in General and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchates whatsoever can be pretended against the lawfulness of the Reformation in these Kingdomes will easily be answered By these places you see he makes this the Regal Power to remove Patriarchates the main Bulwark for defending the Reformation from Schisme And for proof of such a Power in Kings he instanceth α. α In the Emperor Justinian § 60 his erecting the Bishoprick of Justiniana prima and afterward of Carthage β. β And the Emperor Valentinian before him his erecting Ravenna into a Patriarchship independent in Jurisdiction on that of Rome γ. γ Next he urgeth the 12th and 17th Canons of the Council of Chalcedon 38th of the Council in Trullo mentioning the Emperors Authority to erect new Mother Cities for places of Justice and the Councils ordering the Churches Metropolitan Dignity to follow it Ibid. 6. c. § 14. δ. δ And lastly he instanceth in the Kings of England anciently transferring or dividing Bishopricks and erecting new Ibid. § 15. See in the Author how he prosecutes these They labouring thus by such pretended Power of the Civil Magistrate to free a National Church from any Ecclesiastical Dependency abroad § 61 In Answer to which 1. Let it be conceded That Sovereign Princes may present such persons as they approve for discharging Ecclesiastical Functions within their Kingdomes may join divide Bishopricks transfer Metropolitan-ships or erect new ones c. Provided that the Canonical Ecclesiastical Superiors consent to the introduction of the Persons they present into such places and confer the Spiritual Authority and Jurisdiction such persons shall exercise in them and that nothing herein be done contrary to the things established by former Ecclesiastical Canons which Canons if lawfully made by the Church can be dissolved by none save the same Authority The Question therefore here is whether there being already a Subordination of Metropolitans and Primates and their Synods to the higher Patriarchs and their Synods established by the Church Canons concerning which see Consid on the Council of Trent § 9. And The Guide Second Discourse § 24. c. A Prince hath Authority to dissolve this as to its obliging the Clergy that is within his Dominions by setling this Patriarchal Authority on one of his own Metropolitans or Primates which is setled formerly by the Church on another For Example whether a Sovereign Prince of Pentapolis or Lybia can release the Bishops of Pentapolis from their Canonical Obedience to the Patriarch of Alexandria and his Synods and subject them to another Bishop of his own nomination within Pentapolis § 62 And herein 1. Their own Concessions seem against it For Bishop Bramhal thus frees the Church of England from Schisme Vindic. p. 257. Num. 1. Neither the Papal Power which we have cashiered nor any part of it was ever given to any Patriarch by the ancient Canons and by consequence the Separation is not Schismatical And A Power saith Dr. Hammond in Answer to S. W. Answer to Schism disarmed p. 164. Princes have had to erect Metropoles but if it be exercised so as to thwart known Canons and Customes of the Church this certainly is an Abuse And Schism p. 60. The uppermost of the standing Powers in the Church are Arch-Bishops Primates and Patriarchs to whom the Bishops themselves are in many things appointed to be subject and this Power and Subjection is defined and asserted by the ancient Canons and the most ancient even im-memorial Apostolical Tradition and Custome is avouched for it as may appear Conc. Nicen. 1. Can. 4.6 Concil Antioch c. 9.20 Concil Chalced. c. 19. concluding afterward p. 66. That there may be a Disobedience and Irregularity and so a Schisme even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitans and of the Authority which they have by Canon and Primitive Custome over them From which All I observe here is That he chargeth Schisme upon the Disobedience of an Ecclesiastical Authority when formerly established by Church Canon § 62 2. If this be the Prince's Right to erect new Patriarchs and null former Ecclesiastical Subordinations 1. Num. 2. Either they must claim it as a Civil Right and then the Councils have been guilty of violating it in meeting and establishing such Subordinations without asking them leave For Example The 6th Canon of Nice the first General Council and 5th of the 2d and 9th and 16th of the 4th would have been an usurpation of an unjust Authority if the Subordination of Episcopal Sees and erecting of Patriarchs had belonged to the Prince or Emperor as a Civil Right Nor could the Bishop of Rome have justly expostulated with the Oriental Bishops in the last of these Councils for passing such a Canon for advancing the Bishoprick of Constantinople into a Patriarchate next to that of Rome without his consent if this thing belonged to the Emperors Civil Power who much desired such an Exaltation of the Constantinopolitan Bishop Nor would the Oriental Bishops have forborn to have pleaded this Title especially this Council being called after the precedent that is urg'd of Valentinian touching Ravenna and in his days yet such Right of the Emperor the Eastern Bishops do not pretend to at all But in their Epistle to Leo earnestly request his consent using this as one argument to obtain it Sic enim pii Principes the two Emperors Valentinian and Theodosius complacebunt quae tanquam legem tuae Sanctitatis Judicium firmaverunt And the Emperors Presidents in the Council do Act. 16th leave the disposal thereof wholly in the Councils hands and to be directed by the former Church Canons Where Conc. Nic. 6. Mos antiquus obtineat is strongly pleaded by the Roman Legates and also afterward by Leo which voids both Justinjan's and Valentinian's or any other Emperors Innovations against the Roman Bishops former Jurisdictions further then his consent is obtained therein Again Since Heathen Princes have the same Title with Christian to all Civil Rights neither could the Church when under them have lawfully practiced such a Jurisdiction 2. Or else Princes must claim it as a thing conceded to them by the Church to change and alter such Subordinations Now any such Concession from the Church we find not but this we find in the 8th General Council 21. c. Definimus neminem prorsus mundi potentium quenquam eorum qui Patriarchalibus sedibus praesunt in-honorare aut movere a proprio Throno tentare sed omni reverentia honore dignos judicare And yet further Si vero quis aliqua seculari potestate fruens pellere tentaverit praefatum Apostolicae Papam aut aliorum Patriarcharum quenquam Anathema sit And 22. Canon Definit neminem Laicorum Principam vel Potentum semet inserere electioni vel Promotioni Patriarchae vel Metropolitae aut cujuslibet Episcopi ne videlicet inordinata hinc incongrua fiat confusio vel contentio praesertim
or express Tradition Apostolical but only educible de novo by most necessary and certain consequence from those which are so delivered which are necessary to be determined and delivered by the Church of later Ages when contrary Errors happen to appear 4. Accordingly they affirm That upon the appearance of several such dangerous Errors the Church did lawfully in the four first General Councils make and deliver some new Definitions in matters of Faith new taken in the sense expressed above Num. 2. did lawfully enlarge the former Creed and require assent or belief in the sense explained above Num. 3. unto these new Definitions under pain of Anathema 5. They maintain that all such dangerous Errors have not appeared within the times of the four first General Councils nor those Councils defined all divine Truths contrary to such Errors and therefore that the Church in later Ages may use against these her Authority to do the same things in her following Councils as in the four first 6. And consequently that it is not reasonable to require of the Church that her Definitions be shewed I say not in their necessary Principles on which she grounds them but in their formal Terms either in the Scriptures or her four first Councils or in the now extant Writings of the first Ages 7. Nor necessary that every explicite Tradition Apostolical and Principle that hath descended to the Church of later Ages most certainly thro all the former must therefore be shewed to be asserted or mentioned in the Writers of the former especially where these very few HEAD VI. Concerning Subordination of Ecclesiastical Authorities Concerning Subordination of Ecclesiastical Authorities 1. CAtholicks maintain a due Subordination both of Ecclesiastical Persons among themselves viz. Of Presbyters to Bishops Bishops to Metropolitans Metropolitans to Primates Primates to Patriarchs And of Ecclesiastical Synods viz. Diocesan to Provincial Provincial to Patriarchal Patriarchal to General 2. They willingly grant That any particular Church or Provincial or National Synod may lawfully make Definitions in matters of Faith Reformations of Errors and Manners and other Ecclesiastical Constitutions for it self without the concurrence or conjuncture at the same time of any other Church or Synod therewith But 3ly They deny that any particular Church or Provincial or National Synod may make such Determinations or Constitutions contrary to those of any present or former Authority or Synod or maintain them made contrary to such Synod present or future reversing them to which Authority either Divine or Ecclesiastical Constitution hath made them Subordinate For without destroying Government no Ecclesiastical Law can be dissolved but by the same or an equal Power to that which made it nor can a part suppose a Church Arian or Donatist as it thinketh meet from time to time free it self from the Acts of the whole especially in such things wherein it can shew in it self no particular difference or disparity from the rest of the whole And therefore 4ly They affirm that when Ecclesiastical Persons or Synods happen to oppose one another Christian Obedience is still due only to the Superiour HEAD VII Concerning Ecclesiastical Supremacy Concerning Ecclesiastical Supremacy 1. THE Catholick Church here on Earth is but one united State and Body which all seem to confess in that when any separation is made every side endeavours to remove the cause thereof from themselves And it cannot reasonably be denyed that All the Christian Churches in the world are capable of a Monarchical Government under one Bishop as well as several Nations under one Emperor or Secular Prince and that such Government much conduceth to the Church's Peace and to the preventing and suppression of Heresies and Schisms 2. Catholicks perswaded therein both by the Scriptures and Tradition do acknowledge 1. That St. Peter was made by Christ President and Head of the College of the Apostles Matt. 16.19 Jo. 21.15 being compared with Gal. 2.7 And 2dly That the Bishop of Rome is his Successor in such Supremacy as likewise Successor to St. Paul the Great Apostle of the Gentiles in that See wherein the two great Apostles last resided anciently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sedes Apostolica And 3dly That this Bishop hath by Divine Right or if it were only by Ecclesiastical Constitution and by ancient Tradition and Custome it were sufficient committed to him a Supreme Authority over the Universal Church of Christ here on Earth in the calling of Councils and in the approving and confirming their Definitions before they can be universally obligatory and in taking care in the Intervals of such Councils of the due execution and observance of their Decrees and in receiving Appeals from all parts of the Church in some matters of greater concernment And 4ly That as no temporal Power may lawfully change or annul any Ecclesiastical Constitutions or Decrees made concerning the Government of the Church or other matters meerly Spiritual so neither may such temporal Power in particular abrogate this Ecclesiastical Authority tho it were only conferred on the Bishop of Rome by the Church so far as using a Jurisdiction meerly Spiritual in Matters that are so 3dly They willingly confess That the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority cannot dispense with any Divine Law now without such Dispensation obliging but only with Ecclesiastical Laws Nor hath any Power over Princes or their Subjects in Temporal matters but only in Spiritual over all those whether Princes or Subjects who are Members of the Church 4ly That there is no Decree of the Church or Council obliging any to maintain this Supreme Magistrate of the Church to be infallible in his Decrees nor on the other side just cause for any therefore to withdraw their obedience to his Decrees because they hold him not infallible HEAD VIII Lastly Concerning the necessary Amplitude of a lawful General Council Concerning the necessary Amplitude of a lawful General Council IN which the Supreme Judgment of this united Body is placed 1. It is not necessary to the composition of a lawful General Council that all the Clergy of the Christian world be assembled therein or all the Bishops of this Clergy or amongst the Bishops some sent thither the Delegates by the rest from all particular Churches professing Christianity For 1 upon these terms the four first Councils cannot be allowed General 2 Again Thus it would be in the power of any particular Church in detaining its Bishops to hinder the Being and the Benefit of a General Council 3 Again Heretical or Schismatical Churches being no part of the Church Catholick the absence of their Bishops hinders not but that the representative of the Church Catholick in such Council may be still compleat 2. The Presence of the Delegated Bishops of all particular Catholick Churches or Provinces is not necessary in such Council to denominate it lawfully General it being provided that all are called to it and none that come excluded because this Absence of some may either be necessitated from
Magistrate to whom the Civil in honour to the Clergy hath remitted it till in case of hainous Crimes after degradation from the Sacerdotal Dignity they are returned to the Secular Justice β. β See Canon Apostol 35. Episcopos gentium singularum scire convenit quis inter eos primus habeatur quem velut caput existiment § 11 nihil amplius praeter ejus conscientiam gerant quam illa sola singuli quae parochiae propriae villis quae sub ea sunt competunt Sed nec ille praeter omnium conscientiam faciat aiiquid in eorum parochiis Sic enim unanimitas erit Concil Nicen. Can. 4. Episcopum convenit maxime quidem ab omnibus qui sunt in Provincia Episcopis ordinari Si autem hoc difficile fuerit aut propter instantem necessitatem aut propter itineris longitudinem tribus tamen omnimodis in idipsum convenientibus absentibus quoque pari modo decernentibus per scripta consentientibus tunc ordinatio celebretur Firmitas autem corum quae geruntur per unamquamque Provinciam Metropolitano tribuatur Episcopo Can. 5. De his qui. Communione privantur seu ex clero seu ex laico ordine ab Episcopis per unamquamque Provinciam sententia regularis obtineat ut hi qui abjiciuntur ab aliis non recipiantur Can. 6. Antiqua consuetudo servetur per Aegyptum Lybiam Pentapolim ita ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem quia urbis Romae Episcopo parilis mos est Similiter autem apud Antiochiam ceterasque Provincias suis privilegia serventur Ecclesiis illud autem generaliter clarum est quod si quis praeter sententiam Metropolitani fuerit factus Episcopus hunc magna Synodus definivit Episcopum esse non oportere Sin autem communi cunctorum Decreto rationabili secundum Ecclesiasticam Regulam comprobato duo aut tres propter contentiones proprias contradicant obtineat sententia plurimorum I may spare the recital of any more tho the same is frequently iterated in the following Councils See Conc. Laodic c. 12. 2. Conc. Arelat c. 5. 2. Carth. c. 12. Rhegiense c. 1. Cabilon c. 10. Epist Synodal Conc. Romani sub Siricio Papa c. 1. and see what is said of this matter in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 10. c. See likewise the Cautions used by the Council of Trent Sess 24. De Reform c. 1. And Sess 22. De Reform c. 2. concerning the approbation of such persons as are nominated for Bishopricks by other Ecclesiastical Superiors and so the Collation of these Preferments upon them by the Pope § 12 This Confirmation of all Ordinations by their Ecclesiastical Superiors for preserving the Churches Unity is freely acknowledged by Mr. Thorndike in his Book of the Rights of the Church 5. c. p. 248. Where he mentions also some of the former Canons The fourth Canon saith he of the Council of Nice requireth that all Bishops be ordained by a Council of the Bishops of the Province si fieri potest which Council because it cannot always be had therefore it is Provided there That two or three may do the work the rest consenting and authorizing the Proceeding And this is that which the ordinance of the Apostles hath provided to keep the visible Communion of the whole Church in Unity But when among the Bishops of any Province part consent to Ordination part not the Unity of the Church cannot be preserved unless the consent of the whole follow the consent of the greater part And therefore It seemeth that there can no valid Ordination be made where the greater number of the Bishops of the Province dissent which is confirmed by the Ordination of Novatianus for Bishop of Rome which tho done by three Bishops yet was the foundation of that great Schisme because Cornelius was ordained on the other side by sixteen After which in Application of these things to the Ordinations made in the Church England at the Reformation he hath this Reflection Ibid. p. 250. Now it is manifest saith he that the Ordinations by which that Order of Bishops is propagated in England at and since the Reformation were not made by consent of the greater part of the Bishops of each Province but against their mind tho they made no contrary Ordinations And by the same means it is manifest that all those Ecclesiastical Laws by which the Reformation was established in England i. e. by these new Bishops were not made by a consent capable to oblige the Church if we set aside the Secular Power that gave force unto that which was done by the Bishops contrary to that Rule wherein the Unity of the Church consisteth But in other parts the Reformation was so far from being done by Bishops and Presbyters or any consent which was able to conclude the Church by the constitution of the Church that the very Order of Bishops is laid aside and forgot if not worse i. e. detested among them Upon which precedent it sounds plausibly with the greatest part among us that the Unity of the whole being thus dissolved by the Reformation i. e. by the Reformers either being against Bishops or being Bishops made against the consent of the former Bishops the Unity of the Reformation cannot be preserved but by dissolving the Order of Bishops among us The like he saith before p. 248. If the Clergy of that time i. e. in the beginning of Qu. Elizabeth's Reformation had been supported in that Power which by the Premises set down and justified in his Book is challenged on behalf of the Clergy this Reformation could not have been brought to pass Yet notwithstanding this Learned man thinks himself still secure in that Communion by imagining first that the Apostolical Succession of the governing Clergy which Canonically concludes the whole hath in several things violated Christ's Laws but quo Judice will any such thing be cleared See below § 37. And 2dly that in any such case the Secular Power may oppose their Authority the this established by the Apostles viz. So often as either the Apostles Ordinance or Christ's Laws must necessarily one of them be infringed γ γ See Conc. Nicen. c. 6. Conc. Chalced. c. 28. And Act. 16. 8. Gen. Conc. c. 10.17.21 Where in c. 17. is mentioned the 6th Canon of the Nicene Council § 13 and thus explained Qua pro causa haec magna sancta Synodus tam in seniori nova Roma Constantinopoli quam in sede Antiochiae Hierosolymorum priscam consuetudinem decernit in omnibus conservari ita ut earum Praesules universorum Metrapolitanorum qui ab ipsis promoventur sive per manus impositionem sive per Pallii dationem Episcopalis dignitatis firmitatem accipiant habeant potestatem viz. ad convocandum eos urgente necessitate ad Synodalem Conventum vel etiam ad coercendunt illos corrigendum cum fama eos super quibusdam delictis-forsitan
accusaverit Of which Canon thus Dr. Field p. 518. Patriarchs were by the Order of the 8th General Council Can. 17. to confirm the Metropolitans subject unto them either by the imposition of hands or giving the Pall. And l. 5. c. 37. p. 551. ' Without the Patriarchs consent none of the Metropolitans subject unto them might be ordained And what they bring saith he proves nothing that we ever doubted of For we know the Bishop of Rome hath the right of confirming the Metropolitans within the Precincts of his own Patriarchship as likewise every other Patriarch had And thus Bishop Bramhal Vindic. c. 9. p. 259. c. What power the Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province the same had a Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate And afterwards Wherein then consisteth Patiarchal Authority In ordaining their Metropolitans or confirming them δ. δ Bishop Carleton in his Treatise of Jurisdiction Regal and Episcopal 4. c. p. 42. § 14 External Jurisdiction is either definitive or mulctative Authority definitive in matters of Faith and Religion belongeth to the Church Mulctative power is understood either as it is with coaction i. e. using Secular force or as it is referred to Spiritual Censures As it standeth in Spiritual Censures it is the right of the Church and was practised by the Church when without Christian Magistrate and since But coactive Jurisdiction was always understood to belong to the Civil Magistrate whether Christian or Heathen Ibid. 1. c. p. 9. As for Spiritual Jurisdiction standing in Examination of Controversies of Faith judging of Heresies deposing of Hereticks Excommunications of notorious and stubborn offenders Ordination of Priests and Deacons Institution and Collation of Benefices and Spiritual Cures this we reserve entire to the Church which Princes cannot give to nor take from the Church And by this Power saith he 4. c. p. 39. without Coaction the Church was called Faith was planted Devils were subdued the Nations were taken out of the power of darkness the world reduced to the obedience of Christ by this Power without coactive Jurisdiction the Church was governed for 300 years together But if it be enquired what was done when the Emperors were Christian and when their coactive Power came in The Emperors saith he p. 178. never took upon them by their Authority to define matters of Faith and Religion that they left to the Church But when the Church had defined such Truths against Hereticks and had deposed such Hereticks then the Emperors concurring with the Church by their Imperial Constitutions did by their coactive Power give strength to the Canons of the Church § 15 Mr. Thorndike Rights of the Church 4. c. p. 234. The Power of the Church is so absolute and depending on God alone that if a Sovereign professing Christianity should forbid the profession of that Faith or the Exercise of those Ordinances which God hath required to be served with The judgment of which Faith and Ordinances what they are Protestants also affirm to belong to the Clergy or even the Exercise of that Ecclesiastical Power which shall be necessary to preserve the Unity of the Church it must needs be necessary for those that are trusted with the Power of the Church not only to disobey the Commands of the Sovereign but to use that Power which their Quality in the Society of the Church gives them to provide for the subsistence thereof without the assistance of Secular Powers A thing manifestly supposed by all the Bishops of the ancient Church in all those actions wherein they refused to obey their Emperors seduced by Hereticks refused to obey them in forbearing to teach still and publish the Catholick Doctrine when prohibited by them and to suffer their Churches to be regulated by them to the prejudice of Christianity Which actions whosoever justifies not he will lay the Church open to ruine whensoever the Soveraign Power is seduced by Hereticks And such a difference falling out i. e. between Prince and Clergy in Church matters as that to particular persons it cannot be clear who is in the right It will be requisite saith he for Christians in a doubtful case at their utmost perils to adhere to the Guides of the Church against their lawful Sovereign tho to no other effect than to suffer if the Prince impose it for the Exercise of their Christianity and the maintenance of the Society of the Church in Unity See the same Author Epilog 1. l. 19. c. The contents whereof touching this subject he hath briefly expressed thus That that Power which was in the Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Sovereign That the interest of Secular Power in determining matters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church and the Act of it And there he giveth reasons why the Church is to decide matters of Faith rather than the State supposing neither to be infallible Ibid. c. 20. p. 158. he saith That he who disturbs the Communion of the Church remains punishable by the Secular power to inflict temporal penalties not absolutely because it is Christian but upon supposition that this temporal power maintaineth the true Church And afterward That the Secular Power is not able of it self to do any of those Acts which the Church i.e. those who are qualified by and for the Church are qualified by vertue of their Commission from Christ to do without committing the sin of Sacrilege in seizing into its own hands the Powers which by God's Act are constituted and therefore consecrated and dedicated to his own service not supposing the free Act of the Church without fraud and violence concurring to the doing of it Now among the Acts and Powers belonging to the Church which he calls a Corporation by divine right and appointment he names these 1. l. 16. c. p. 116. The Power of making Laws within themselves and then I suppose of publishing them made among all the Subjects of the Church in whatever Princes Dominions else why make them of electing Church Governors of which see 3. l. 32. c. p. 398. and of Excommunicating and 3. l. 32. c. p. 385. The Power to determine all matters the determination whereof is requisite to maintain the Communion of Christians in the service of God and the Power to oblige Christians to stand to that determination under pain of forfeiting that Communion The Power of holding Assemblies which must be by meeting together in some place or other and by some Church Authority calling them Of which he speaks thus 1. l. 8. c. p. 53. I must not omit to alledge the Authority of Councils and to maintain the Right and Power of holding them and the obligation which the Decrees of them regularly made is able to create to stand by the same Authority of the Apostles And afterward I that pretend the Church to be a Corporation founded by God upon a Priviledge of holding visible Assemblies for the common Service
Controversies of Faith to a General Council and the supreme Power of Spiritual Censures which are coactive only in the Court of Conscience and suitably in the interval of General Councils he must allow to National Synods the same Judicature and Censures abstracting from the Prince Ibid. p. 92. he saith We see the Primitive Fathers did assemble Synods and make Canons before there were any Christian Emperors And then may not they do the same still Both assemble Synods as the Apostles did at Jerusalem Act. 15. And make Canons and then also publish them made as the Apostles did when an Heretical Prince concurreth not with or also opposeth them Provided that there be no apparent danger to the Prince or State of any Sedition by such meeting But they had no coactive Power to compel any man against his will This therefore is the Power which Emperors when become Christian and her Subjects bring in and add to the Church without taking away from it any of that Power which before from Christ's time it was possessed of under Heathen Princes The Summe is He challengeth for the Prince only a double coactive Power with his temporal Sword which is either executed by himself or committed to the Church Governors one for constraining of the Laity to the obedience of the Church the other of the inferior Clergy to the obedience of their Superiors in all Spiritual matters § 18 The same saith Dr. Fern Answer to Champny 9. c. p. 284. It is a mistake that the Prince by his supreme Power in Spiritual and Ecclesiastical things is made supreme Judge of Faith and Decider of all Controversies thereunto belonging and may ordain what he thinks fit in matters of Religion Who also in his Discourse of Presbytery and Episcopacy p. 19. Grants That no Secular Prince can justly prohibit within his Dominions the exercise of Ordination and of Judicature so far as the Keys left by Christ in his Church do extend nor prohibiting is to be obeyed and Christ's Substitutes herein being denied the assistance of the Civil Power are to proceed without it And Exam. Champny p. 290. saith That the Bishops and chief Pastors of the Church are the immediate proper and ordinary Judges in defining and declaring what the Laws of Christ be for Doctrine and Discipline That they have a coercive Power in a spiritual restraint of those that obstinately gain-say So Dr. Fern. § 19 Mason de Ministerio Anglicano 3. l. 3. c. asketh the Question Quis enim nostrum unquam affirmavit Principes in causes Fidei Religionis supremos esse Cognitores Judices De hac a Cardinale Bellarmino aliis Pontificiis Ecclesiae Anglicanae illata injuria sic olim conquestus est Doctissimus Whitakerus c. § 20 Dr. Field Of the Church p 667. The State of the Christian Church the good things it enjoyeth and the felicity it promiseth being Spiritual is such that it may stand tho not only forsaken but greatly oppressed by the great men of the world And therefore it is by all resolved on That the Church hath her Guides and Rulers distinct from them that bear the Sword and that there is in the Church a Power of convocating these her Spiritual Pastors to consult of things concerning her welfare tho none of the Princes of the world do favour her And p. 81. Touching Errors of Faith or Oberrations in the performance of God's worship and service saith he There is no question but that Bishops and Pastors of the Church to whom it pertaineth to teach the Truth are the ordinary and fittest Judges and that ordinarily and regularly Princes are to leave the judgment thereof unto them And below We do not attribute to our Princes with their Civil Estates power newly to adjudge any thing to be Heresy without the concurrence of the State of their Clergy but only to judge in those matters of Faith that are resolved on i. e. in former Councils according to former resolutions And the same much what is said by Dr. Heylin Reformation Justified p. 80 81. in affirming That if the Reformation be in such Points of Doctrine as have not been before defined in such manner i. e. in a General Council or in a particular Council universally received The King only with a few of his Bishops and learned Clergy tho never so well studied in the Point disputed can do nothing in it That belongs only to the whole Body of the Clergy in their Convocation rightly called and constituted By these Expressions the Reformation allowed to Christian Princes seems only of Errors first declared such either by the Resolutions of former lawful Councils or of a new lawful Council of Clergy first had which will easily be granted them Provided that Councils be understood in their due Subordinations and according to their due votes not the Decree of some inferior Synod preferred by such Prince to the Decree of a Superior nor the vote of a Minor part in a Synod or of some Clergy out of it before that of a Major part But if they mean the Princes taking the Guidance of some Council against a Superior or of some part of the Clergy opposed by a Major this is only deluding the Reader and in effect granting nothing § 21 Again thus Dr. Field of the entring of any person into or his Deposition from the Ecclesiastical Ministry Ibid. p. 681. It is resolved that none may ordain I add or force the Clergy to ordain any to serve in the work of Ministry but the Spiritual Pastors and Guides of the Church 2dly That none may judicially degrade or put any one lawfully admitted from his Degree and Order but they alone else had the Secular Magistrate no other Power yet if he may place and displace Clergy at his pleasure within his Dominions he may hereby advance or depress what Sect of Religion what Doctrines what Discipline he pleaseth Next of the Power of the Prelates of the Church to call Councils independently on Princes p. 668. It is evident saith he that there is a Power in Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs to all Episcopal Provincial National and Patriarchal Synods and that neither so depending on nor subject to the Power of Princes but that when they are Enemies to the Faith they may exercise the same without their consent and privity and subject them that refuse to obey their Summons to such punishments as the Canons of the Church do prescribe in cases of such contempt or wilful negligence To which may be added that of Bishop Bilson Government of Christ's Church 16. c. When the Magistrate doth not regard but rather afflict the Church as in times of Infidelity and Heresy who shall then assemble the Pastors of any Province to determine matters of doubt or danger To which Question he Answers The Metropolitan When they are Enemies to the Faith saith Dr. Field I understand him either when Enemies to the Christian Faith as Heathen Princes or if Christian
to help themselves I cannot determine By what is said it may appear how improper the foresaid Instances are to prove in Christian Princes a Power to reform the supposed Errors of the Clergy in their Doctrines of Faith or Manners the second thing they have urged § 50 3. Again They urge That it is not fit nor safe that the Clergy should be able by their Constitutions and Synodical Acts to conclude both Prince and People in Spiritual matters until the Stamp of Royal Authority be imprinted on them Dr. Heylin Reformation Justified p. 86. Dr. Fern Exam of Champ. p. 295. Where were the Princes knowledge and assent required only on this account relating to the State that so nothing be passed in these Synods prejudecial to his Civil Rights it is willingly allowed but if required on another account relating to Religion that so he may prohibit and suppress so much of them as is not evidenced to him to be juxta legem Christi or as he apprehends is also against it of which thing he is not the Judge yet which hath been the Pretence of reforming Princes medling with the most speculative points in Divinity it seems not reasonable And thus an Heretical Prince will strangle as he pleaseth within his Dominions the Catholick Verities § 51 4. They urge the case of the Act of a National Clergy passing away their Spiritual Authority to a Sccular Prince 4. and investing him or whom he shall nominate and elect with that Power which formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity After which they say the Princes Act or their's he nominates have virtually the power of the Clergy or their Synod and do oblige as much as if they in terminis had agreed upon it To give you it in Dr. Heylin's words Reform Justified p. 89. The Kings of England saith he had a further Right as to this particular which is a Power conferred upon them by the Clergy whether by way of Recognition or Concession I regard not here by which the Clergy did invest the King with a supreme Authority not only of confirming their Synodical Acts not to be put in Execution without his consent but in effect to devolve on him all that Power which formerly they enjoyed in their own capacity amongst which Powers p. 85. he nameth this to reform such Errors and Corruptions as are expresly contrary to the word of God And to this we have a parallel Case in the Roman Empire in which the Supreme Majesty of the State was vested in the Senate and People of Rome till by the Law which they call Lex Regis they transferred all their Power on Caesar and the following Emperors which Law being past the Edicts of the Emperors were as binding as the Senatus-Consulta had been before The like may be affirmed of the Church of England The Clergy had self Authority in all matters which concerned Religion and by their Canons and Determinations did bind all the Subjects till by acknowledging King Henry the Eighth for their supreme Head and by the Act of Submission not long after follwing they transferred that Power upon the King and his Successors After which time whatsoever the King or his Successors did in the Reformation as it had virtually the Power of the Convocation so was it as good in Law as if the Clergy in their Convocation particularly and in terminis had agreed upon it Thus Dr. Heylin And upon this ground and title it was that the XLII Articles since reduced to XXXIX were first introduced into the Church of England being composed by certain Persons appointed by the Prince and then without any review or Confirmation of the Synod published as the Act thereof as appears by Philpot's Plea and arguing in the Synod 10. Mariae when the Clergy questioned these Articles and subscribed that they were wrongfully entitled to the Synod which had never passed them See for this matter Fox Act p. 1282. And Ib. p. 1704 Arch-bishop Cranmer's Tryal And Fuller's Hist Ecclesiast 7. l. p. 420. And Dr. Fern Exam. Champny p. 74. § 52 To all which may be answered That the Canons of the Church permit no such Translation of the Clergy's Authority to the Secular Power neither yet is the supreme Power of composing or changing Articles of Faith and Religion or making other Ecclesiastical Laws as to any Nation vested in the National Synod thereof as appears at length from the Sub-ordinations of Clergy both Persons and Synods in the Catholick Church which in several States is only one for preserving of the Churches Faith and Government for every in unity of which see more Head 6. Thes 1. c. 2 Discourse concerning the Guide in Controversies § 24. c. Consid on Council of Trent § 9. c. And so such National Synods cannot give away what they have not Nor were it so have they any Power of Alienating this Authority for which they are personally set a part from the rest of the world by our Lord with a successive solemn Ordination and of which well or ill managed they themselves must give account to our Lord No such Power of Alienation being contained in the original Grant thereof But if without such express Licence they can give away some Part to the Laity where also no necessity is pretended then why not any part of their office and so depute Laicks to ordain Ministers also and consecrate the holy Encharist To which may be added That no part of the Clergy Duty depends more on their personal Abilities and long preparation by study then this we speak of The composing of Articles and Canons the reforming of Errors c. Least of all therefore seems this committable to the Prince either that he himself should perform it whose Regal imployments require a far different Education or that he should delegate it to others by which the Clergy authorizeth they know not whom perhaps some persons heretical if such happen to be Favourites of the Prince to establish in Religion the Clergy knows not what for this Concession is made by the English Clergy without any Reservation of a Revisal § 53 5. They urge to give you it in Bishop Bramhal's words Vindic. of the Church of England 5. p. 257. ' That since the Division ' of Britain from the Empire i. e. since Brittain's being governed by Princes of its own who therefore in their Territories have the same Authority that the Roman Emperors formerly had in the Empire See Dr. Hammond Schism p. 124. No Canons are or ever were of force with us further then they were received and by their incorporation became Brittannick Laws Which as they cannot or ever could be imposed upon the King and Kingdome by a forreign Patriarch by constraint so when they are found by experience prejudicial to the publick Good they may as freely by the same King and Kingdome be rejected And so Dr. Hammond Of Schism p. 125. The Canons of Councils have mostly been set out and received
forementioned is not allowed nor other explicite Faith than the forementioned required Therefore that Proposition Haec est vera Catholica fides extra quam nemo Salvus esse potest as applied to the larger Creeds that of Athanasius or yet further to all the Decrees of all lawful Oecumenical Councils as in the Bull of Pius the Fourth ought either to be understood not distributively as if any Decree of any such Council unknown and so not believed or assented to excludeth from Salvation For how few among Christians do know or yield actual assent to all the Decrees of some one Council And how can the Doctors of that Church require such Belief to all the Decrees suppose of the Council of Trent a many of whom require it not to all the Articles of the Apostles Creed But collectively thus That all that Fides extra quam nemo Salvus is contained therein and that extra eam totaliter sumptam or si tota desit nemo Salvus esse potest As elsewhere in the same Council of Trent the Nicene Creed is called Fundamentum firmum unicum contra quod portae inferi nunquam praevalebunt Conc. Trid. Sess 3. or to be understood distributively but hypothetically thus That when any one knows any such Article to have been defined by the Church wherein a non-culpable ignorance of the Church's Definitions always excuseth he after this in non-believing or in dissenting from such Article doth by this his Pertinacy and Disobedience to the Church as by other greater sins persisted in and unrepented of incur the loss of Salvation HEAD XIV Concerning Obedience to Humane Laws made by the Ecclesiastical or Civil Magistrate Concerning Obedience required to Humane Laws 1. CAtholicks do not affirm from God's commanding Obedience to the Ecclesiastical and Civil Magistrate and to their Laws That therefore all Dis-obedience to them or their Laws is a mortal Sin For so all Dis-obedience to any of their Laws whatever tho never so light for their matter would be mortal Sin 2. It is manifest that many times the matter which these Magistrates command is antecedently our duty in obedience to some Divine Law under Penalty of Mortal Sin tho they had not commanded it As in matters of much consequence to the publick or our private good the Charity to our Neighbour or also to our selves that is commanded by God's Law requires that which the Magistrate also exacts of us In such cases therefore there may be a great and mortal Sin committed in dis-obeying the Ecclesiastical or Civil Laws but this by vertue of the Divine concurring with and corroborating them in these particular Injunctions 3. Catholicks affirm That the Breach of a humane Law made in a thing that is left indifferent by the Divine out of contempt may be a greater Sin than breaking one of the Divine Precepts out of Infirmity but this is also by vertue of our offending against another particular Divine Law prohibiting such contempt of the Magistrate But such contempt neglect c. set aside that a much greater guilt is ordinarily contracted from the breach of a Divine than only an humane command both from the greater necessity and benefit in general of the matter of the Laws Divine and from the supreme Dignity and Majesty of the immediate Legislator 4. Catholicks affirm That no humane Laws made in matters of what consequence soever do bind beyond the Law-Giver's intention so that such Laws tho given in matters of greatest moment bind not under pain of mortal Sin I mean as they are his Laws if he doth not intend them to do so In whose Power since it is to lay no obligation so not to lay the greatest 5. That whatever obligation to Sin such Laws may have from the Law-givers intention yet that in some Circumstances they may not bind at all as the Divine do as in Periculo mortis cum pergravi damno aut infamia for quod valde difficile moraliter impossibile and to Impossibles Laws bind not I say if the thing commanded appear not of a greater consequence than such private damage nor hath been expressed by the Magistrate to be esteemed so Otherwise it is presumed that the Law-Giver in that Charity which he oweth to his Subjects doth or ought to pass his Laws without any intention that they should bind under Sin in such cases 6. Most of the Church's Laws are passed without any express Declaration of her Subjects incurring mortal Sin in the Breach of them yet this rationally collected by her Doctors from the great consequence of the matter commanded the heavy punishment annexed c. And sometimes her Laws are so indulgent as to oblige to a Penalty only without any Guilt laid upon the Transgressor of them HEAD XV. Of Justification Of Justification COncerning Justification whereby man hath Right by vertue of the Evangelical Covenant to freedome from eternal Death and possession of eternal Life 1. Catholicks declare That by Justification they mean both God's pronouncing or reputing Man just or not unjust i. e. freed from his wrath and from punishment due to the unjust by God's free remission of all his former Sins And 2ly God's making and so reputing him just or holy by habitual Grace infused or by inherent righteousness Thus making God's Remission of the former Acts of Sin and our Sanctification and so by it the removal of former habits of Sin the two parts of our Justification or the two effects of God's mercy in justifying us α. α Conc. Trid. Sess 6.7 c. Hanc dispositionem Justificatio ipsa consequitur quae non est Sola peccatorum remissio sed Sanctificatio Renovatio interioris hominis c. Again In ipsa Justificatione cum Remissione peccatorum haec omnia simul infusa accipit homo per Jesum Christum cui inseritur fidem Spem Charitatem 6. Sess 11. Can. Si quis dixerit homines justificari Sola peccatorum remissione exclusa gratia charitate quae in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum infunditur Anathema sit Bellarm. de Justificationes l. 2. 6. c. Cum tam mors Christi quam resurrectio ad justificationem necessaria esset potuisset Beatus Paulus utramque partem justificationis i. e. Remissionem peccati donum renovationis tribuere morti Christi sed maluit resurrectioni tribuere renovationem Rom. 4.15 And § Deinde Justificatio non ideo Solum nobis confertur a Deo ut Gehennae paenas evadamus i. e per remissionem peccatorum sed etiam ut praemia vitae caelestis acquiramus i. e. per gratiae infusionem bona opera And see Ibid. c. 2. § Quod si Where he makes remissionem peccatorum infusionem gratiae duos effectus Dei hominem justificantis Where therefore renovatio interioris hominis per susceptionem gratiae is affirmed to be the formal cause of Justification and deletion of Sin to be the effect of it It is spoken of the only formal