also may lawfully disobey and not do it One would think either the Magistrate ought to be certain that what he commands is right before he may punish any for disobeying his command or the Subject ought to be certain that what he commands is not right before he may disobey it But yet neither is the one or the other held any certain Judg in these matters we speak of Nor yet do these men leave any third person that being so may guide and regulate them But the one lawfully commands and punishes him for that which the other lawfully disobeys Where in effect every one in things Spiritual is finally committed to his own Judgment whilst they leave none at all above others that may so decide what is contrary to God's Law what not as to constrain submission thereto further than their private judgment concurs And the only absolute obligation we have to any of their commands is to non-resistance of the punishment But then suppose one thinks this also namely that we should be bound in all cases even where we are innocent or also truly religious to non-resistance c. to be a thing contrary to Scripture as there want not many of late who have been so perswaded then their commands will oblige such an one in no sense at all and so indeed will be no commands as to such a person for effectus imperii est obligatio Lastly the authority these men do give to the Church is except that which she derives from the Civil power only regimen suasorium or declarativum and so sine obligandi jure But this is making our obedience to her if it may be so call'd at all no more than that we give to any other private man administring as we think good Counsel to us which is sufficiently confuted before Only in all this you may observe That whilst these wary Factors for Truth are afraid to acknowledg such an obedience enjoin'd to the Church as to believe that to be the meaning of the Divine Law or not to be truth or error that she tells them to be so then much less can allow such an obedience to Secular power they in avoiding these two yeild this judgment of what is truth what is not in these matters of highest concernment to be left by God to every one which exposeth the Christian world to far more and grosser errors as daily experience thereof sheweth than would in probability either of the other But yet this pleaseth because thus the staters of the question make themselves also Judges See more of this subject in Ancient Church-Government c. § 72 Christ therefore to avoid such confusion hath establish'd his Church for guiding the World for ever in his truths upon such firm Laws and Canonical Orders that no Civil Authority may be admitted at any time to meddle in stating any Church-affairs against the major part of the Clergy and its Governors And if secular Princes anciently in a Council even when they generally agreed in opinion with the Bishops had in Ecclesiastical affairs no defining but only a consenting suffrage how come they enabled to define any thing in these when they are against the Bishops See St. Ambrose his words l. 2. ep 13. quoted by Dr. Field l. 5. c. 53. when he was cited to be judg'd in a matter of Faith by Valentinian the Emperor which conclude it cannot be without usurpation of that which no way pertaineth to them that Princes should at all meddle with the judging of matters of Faith neither had it been heard of but on the contrary that Bishops might and had judg'd Emperors in matters of Faith Quando saith he speaking to Valentinian audisti clementissime Imperator in causa fidei Laicos de Episcopo judicasse Ita ergo quadam adulatione curvamur ut sacerdotalis juris simus immemores quod Deus donavit mihi hoc ipse aliis putem esse credendum Si docendus est Episcopus a Laicis quid sequetur Laicus ergo disputet Episcopus audiat Episcopus discat a Laico At certe si vel Scripturarum seriem divinarum vel vetera tempora a tractemus Quis est qui abnuat in causa sidei in causa inquam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis non Imperatores de Episcopis judicare Pater tuus Valen. sen Imp. vir maturioris aevi dicebat non est meum judicare inter Episcopos See the like in Athanasius Epist ad solitariam vitam agentes Quando unquam judicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritatem habuit See many more like testimonies collected by Champney De Vocatione Minist c 15. And see the Concessions of Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. p. 29 332. And of Calvin no zealous Vindicator of the Church's Authority Inst l. 4. c. 11. § 15. And of many others cited in Church-Government Par. 5. And see more of this matter in Church-Government Par. 1. And if the Church to use some of Mr. Thorndikes words subsisted before any secular power was Christian extended beyond the bounds of any one's Dominion in one visible Society with equal interest in the parts of it through several Dominions endow'd with such power in Spiritual matters as is set down before what Title but Force can any State have whilst this Body continues to exercise its power not only without but against it Dr. Field in Answer saith That such power belongs to the Clergy regularly but may be devolv'd to Princes in cases of necessity In what case i.e. If the Clergy through malice or ignorance fail c. That the Prince having charge over Gods people c. may condemn them falling into gross errors contrary to the common sense of Christians or into Heresie formerly condemn'd l. 5. c. 53. formerly condemn'd For saith he we do not attribute power to a Prince or Civil state to judge of things already resolved on in a general Council no not if they err manifestly and intolerably but only to judge in those matters of faith that are resolved on and that according to former resolutions From which I gather That Princes can define nothing against the Clergy i. e. the more considerable part thereof else there was never any thing so absurd a Prince can propose but that he may find or make some of the Clergy to join with him but protect what is already first defined by the Clergy in a former General Council But if so then his power with hardly extend to the points of Reformation since how few are those Heresies amongst the many points of the Roman Church from which the Reformed have departed which are solemnly condemned some of them they say are defined by General Councils I suppose therefore we must found the Princes Ecclesiastical authority on the other member if the Clergy err against the common sence of Christians or as Mr. Thorndike expresseth it when the Ecclesiastical power abolisheth any of matters already determined by our Lord and his
Apostles for all such are law given to the Church c. But alass who must judge when the Ecclesiastical power abolisheth any of matters c for the Pastors of the Church at the same time affirm and will die for it that neither against the Scriptures neither against Traditions of former Church have the transgressed nor do abolish but establish them and as for the people whom should they rather follow in matters of Divinity their Pastors or their Prince God hath given charge to the Clergy over the flock but where hath he committed the charge of the Clergy to the Prince Perhaps the common sence of Christians shall judge But are the Guides of the Church then only void of it and that in their own faculty Common sence of the Christian Laity what if they differ then in their common sence are we not then to follow the major part of them But so also the Reformed are cast the major part of Lay-Christians entertaining the Roman Tenents Again we have given up this right of the Church to the Prince where now shall we stay If one Prince may do the office of a Council and if need be decide matters of Faith for the Clergy why may not the next if need be Ordain for the Bishop or depose that Order obstinate in error Is this a dream are there not also those who claim this But then again if where the Clergy fails the Prince may take our Saviour's Chair and judge then supposing the Prince also through malice or ignorance c may fail too Is there not some Common-wealth that hath been lately under God's judgments in this condition I would gladly know whether an Ecclesiastical power may not review his Acts and reform his Errors and then why not both reform both at the same time according to their differing judgments But God is the God of order not of such confusion Thus much of the 2d thing proposed before § 1. the independency of the Ministers of Christ on any Secular power Now I shall consider the Third § 73 Next as the Ministry of Christ is secured for the perpetual continuance of their Spiritual power and office against all foreign force of Seculars which shall often rise against it by their Spiritual sword toward those Temporal Governors who fear God and by their fortitude being strengthened by Christ both in doing their duty and in suffering patiently toward Secular Governors Infidel or the Heretical so is it secured for ever for the unity of the Faith and of the Profession of it Eph. 4.5 13. against all intestine divisions amongst the Clergy which divisions often shall happen in it but shall never remain of it For it is as true that no Heresy or Schism within as that no Secular power without being only several Gates of Hell shall ever prevail against it § 74 To clear this point we must know that where ever any division happens in the Church and that one Communion which was at first established in a perfect not co but sub-ordination divides into two and each ordain Successors to their party one is to be counted no lawful succession Else since some Teachers there shall be that will differ from the rest and in all sects we may find some Clergy or other for us to follow the Church will have neither any such property as unity of her faith nor will there be any such crime as Schism from it Therefore the Church may and ought for the preservation of her purity and unity to excommunicate exauthorize and separate her self and her children from such as are false Teachers and walk disorderly that she might not be partaker of nor countenance them in nor encourage more to follow their sin according to the frequent commands of Scriptures forequoted see 2 Jo. 10 11. Matt. 18.17 1 Tim. 6.5 Tit. 3.10 1 Cor. 5.13 2 Tim. 2.19 21. compared with 18. Iniquity i.e. errors Gal. 1.8 9. Rev. 2.6 15 16. texts abused by some to justify a separation from the Church it self therefore also none can lawfully communicate both with the true and with an Heretical or Schismatical Church who tho they hold sufficient truth yet are to be refused and avoided for the breach of unity and that without respect to the numbers of the revolted or to the liability of the Church they desert to some nondestructive errors And this practice the Church hath always observed and the persons so disauthorized by it if afterward using their functions were in the Primitive times esteemed guilty of sin and sacriledge and so those also by them ordained And when returning to the Catholick faith as many Arian Bishops did they might not officiate till by a Declaration and reabilitation of the Church they were restored to the exercise of that authority of which they were by her formerly deprived For we must know that tho according to the common Tenent of die Church see Conc. Nice 8. Can. none that is ordained according to the right form of Ordination by a Heretick or Schismatick may be reordained no more than one baptized by such may be rebaptized or the Eucharist consecrated by such reconsecrated but when he recants his Heresy or Schism he being only relicensed by the Church dischargeth his function by vertue of his formerly received Orders Yet who so by Heresy or Schism is once deprived of the right of exercising his function as any one may be cannot confer this right on others but that all these afterwards stand as much suspended from any execution of their offices as himself doth Tho I cannot say but that the Effects of the Sacraments and other offices of their function as well in other things as in Baptism as in Marriages in Penance and Absolution the Eucharist c. are still valid to the simple Receiver who is guiltless of their faults the wickedness of the Minister if truly ordained not hindering the benefits to mankind which Christ hath annext to that Office and which always himself as the principal Agent by their hands confers § 75 To distinguish then true Succession which we are always to adhere and submit to 1. There is no lawful Succession where is no lawful Ordination Nor 2ly any Ordination lawful from or done by those that are condemned or guilty of Schism For to those that are guilty of this tho their former Ordination and the Character as some call that impressed by it is not annulled and blotted out for which cause as I said when such persons were reconciled and readmitted to their functions they were not reordained yet all the authority and right of discharging their function is taken away by the Church and ceaseth and consequently then ceaseth this power of ordaining others See Canon Apost 67.63 Cons. Nice can 19.8 And the same case I suppose it is of those who are condemned tho not guilty and who are excommunicated and thrust out of the Church never so unjustly for they yet desiring the communion denied them shew their approbation
three Bishops had a superiority to the rest from most ancient custom and tradition From whence their superiority over other Bishops which was rather confirm'd than given to them in the Nicene Council as appears by those words in the 6th Canon thereof Mos antiquus perduret and by those in the 7th concerning some Honour also allow'd to the Bishop of Hierusalem yet manente Metropolitanae civitatis dignitate Quoniam mos antiquus obtinuit vetusta traditio Such expressions we find also in Conc. Antioch can 9. secundum antiquam a patribus nostris regulam constitutam and in Conc. Ephes can 8. singulis Provinciis pura inviolata quae jam inde ab initio habent jura serventur wherein the Councils shew themselves very zealous for preserving all ancient customs and privileges So St. Ignatius the Martyr living presently after the Apostles times in his Epistle to the Romans stiles himself the Pastor of the Church in Syria because that whole Region belong'd also in those times to the Metropolis of Antioch as Dr. Hammond observes out of him Sch. p. 50. And this superiority over the rest these three Metropolitans had as was anciently conjectur'd from St. Peter who was first or Primate of the Apostles his being Bishop of Rome and formerly of Antioch and his having also by his Disciple Mark sent thither a more particular relation to the Church of Alexandria These therefore were call'd Apostolicae sedes which title was also sometimes anciently communicated to some other Churches besides these where any of the Apostles had for any long time made their residence as to Ephesus to Jerusalem c. but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Roman See the last and most eminent Seat of the two greatest Apostles Vid. Bell. de Roman Pont. l. 3. c. 2. l. 2. c. 27. St. Peter and St. Paul not disputing here what subordination there was between these two whose Government the Divine Wisdom thought meet to conclude in one and the same Succession is so stiled Which place from this rather than from the secular eminency and power of that City or from any other cause whatever if we may judg by the suffrages of Antiquity had the Honour and Primacy above all other Churches The secular eminency of that City was the reason indeed mention'd by the Bishops in Conc. Chalc. Act. 16. propter imperium civitatis illius because they endeavour'd the advancement of the Constantinopolitan Bishop the Patriarch of Alexandria Dioscorus being condemn'd by that Council as a Defender of Eutyches to the same priviledges with the Roman in the second place upon the like grounds But a reason disclaim'd by Leo the then Bishop of Rome and by his Legates and a reason also omitted and left out by themselves when they writ to Leo for his confirmation of their Canons who there give another reason of his Primacy viz. his Successorship in St. Peter's chair as appears below § 25. n. 2. See also Syricius Bishop of Rome A.D. 389. his Epistle ad Episcopum Tarraconensem a city in Spain Nobis major cunctis Christianae religionis zelus incumbit Portamus onera omnium qui gravantur Quinimo haec portat in nobis Beatus Apostolus Petrus qui nos in omnibus ut confidimus administrationis suae protegit tuetur haeredes See Leo serm 1. de natali Apostolorum thus speaking to Rome Per sacram Beati Petri sedem caput Orbis effecta latius praesides religione divina quam dominatione terrena And his Epist 58. to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople and Ep. 66. to the Bishops of Chalced. Conc. in answer to the Letter sent from them where he hath these words Nihil Alexandrinae sedi ejus pereat dignitatis quam per Sanctum Marcum Evangelistam B. Petri Discipulum meruit Antiochena quoque Ecclesia in qua primum praedicante Apostolo Petro Christianum nomen exortum est in paternae i.e. Patrum Concilii Niceni constitutionis ordine perseveret c. and Ep. ad Marcinamum Augustum he saith Habeat Constantinopolitana civitas gloriam suam Alia tamen ratio est rerum saecularium alia divinarum c. And in conc Chalced. 16. sess see the answer of the Roman Legats Contradictio nostra his gestis inhaereat ut noverimus quid Apostolico viro Vniversalis Ecclesiae Papae deferre valeamus And see the confessions of the Council of Chalcedon it self in Act. 2. Petrus per Leonem locutus est and in their Epistle to Leo set down below § 25. n. 2. which clearly shews them not to have held the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome to have sprung only from the Secular greatness of the city but also from the Succession of S. Peter I have staid the longer upon this because of that passage in Dr. Hammond Schism 5. c. 4. s. See the words of Anacletus Ep. 3. if those Epistles he his in Dr. Field 5. l. 31. c. p. 515. to the same purpose as Leo's See Cyprian Ep. 55. ad Cornelium Bishop of Rome de Fortunato Faelicissimo Haereticis Insuper navigare audent ad Petri cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem And Ep. 52. Antoniano Cum Fabiani locus id est cum locus Petri vacaret factus est Cornelius Episcopus i. e. of Rome after Fabianus Irenaeus who lived in the 2d Age 3. l. 3. c. Maximae antiquissime omnibus cognitae a gloriosissimis duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo fundatae constitutae Ecclesiae eam quam habet ab Apostolis traditionem annunciatam hominibus fidem per successiones Episcoporum usque ad nos pervenientem indicantes confundimus omnes eos qui per sui placentiam c praeterquam oportet colligunt Hosius in the Council of Sardica can 3. concerning Appeals to the Bishop of Rome proposing thus Si vobis placet S. Petri Apostoli memoriam honoremus ut scribatur Julio Romano Episcopo c. Hieron Ep. to Damasus concerning the word Hypostasis whether he might admit it Ideo mihi cathedram Petri fidem Apostolico ore laudatam censui consulendam Apud vos solos incorrupta Patrum servatur authoritas alias haereditas Ego nullum primum nisi Christum sequens Beatitudinis tuae i. e. cathedrae Petri communione consocior super illam Petram adificatam Ecclesiam scio And in another Ep. ad eundem Si quis cathedrae Petri jungitur meus est Greg. l. 4. Ep. 36. Quod mox idem decessor meus ut agnovit directis literis ex authoritate S. Petri Apostoli ejusdem Synodi acta cassavit And l. 6. Ep. 37. Eulogio Episcopo Alex. Quis nesciat sanctam Ecclesiam in Apostolorum Principis soliditate firmatam c. Cum multi sint Apostoli pro ipso tamen principatu sola Apostolorum Principis sedes in authoritate convaluit quae in tribus locis unius est Ipse enim sublimavit sedem in qua etiam quiescere praesentem vitam finire dignatus
the Roman Bishops power now to look a little back into the former ages wherein by reason of the persecutions by heathen Princes the Church's discipline was not altogether so perfectly formed See Athanasius de sententia Dionysii Alexandrini § 23. n. 7. where he relates how Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria living above fifty years before the Nicene Council was accus'd by some of Pentapolis as erroneous in the Doctrine of the Trinity to Dionysius the then Bishop of Rome and thereupon writ an Apology to purge himself Quidam ex Ecclesia recte quidem sentientes sed tamen ignari c. Romam ascenderunt ibique eum apud Dionysium ejusdem nominis Romanum Praesulem accusaverunt Re comperta Alexandrinus postulavit a Romano Praesule ut objecta sibi indicaret non rixandi animo sed sui purgandi Apologiam scripsit Here it seems A. D. 266. long before the cause of Athanasius his addresses were made by the Alexandrians to the Roman Bishop See St. Cyprian contemporary to Dionysius to procure the deposing of Marcianus Metropolitan Bishop of Arles in France because he sided with Novatian writes thus to Stephen Bishop of Rome about it Dirigantur in Provinciam ad plebem Arelatae consistentem a te literae quibus abstento Marciano alius in locum ejâ—s substituatur Where Dr. Field l. 5 c. 37. grams Cyprian rather writ to him to do this than did it himself because the Roman Bishop was Patriarch of the West And it appears from his 68th Epistle that in his time two Bishops of Spain Basilides and Martialis ejected for giving their consent to some Idolatry appeal'd to the Bishop of Rome to restore them to their Dignities Romam pergens i. e. Basilides Stephanum collegam nostrum longe positum gestae rei ac tacitae veritatis ignarum fefellit ut exambiret reponi se injuste in Episcopatum de quo fuerat juste depositus In which Epistle he censures Stephen indeed but not for receiving Basilides his appeal or hearing his cause but for judging it amiss yet some way excuseth him also as misinform'd Neque enim tam culpandus est ille saith he eui negligenter obreptum est quam hic execrandus qui fraudulenter obrepsit But had Stephen had no just authority to judg this matter or reponere Basilidem in Episcopatum St. Cyprian would not have accused him of negligence i. e. in believing without seeking better information what Basilides or his friends said but of usurpation and intrusion and tyranny in judging in matters no way belonging to him But he allowing the Western Patriarchs authority over the Gallican Bishops as appears in the last instance could not rationally deny him the same over the Spanish Therefore that which this Father saith before that Basilides his appeal and Stephen's sentence ordinationem jure perfect am rescindere non potuit is to be understood with reference to the justness of the cause not of the authority For one may rightly be accus'd of injustice either who doth a thing and hath no just power to do it or who hath a just power to do a thing and hath no just cause And therefore the Spanish ought to seek a reversion of such sentence by presenting to their Patriarch perfecter informations Else surely his sentence who is granted to have the supreme authority to judg is to stand and he must give account thereof to God And yet higher before Cyprian's time about A.D. 200 we find in Eus Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 22 c. that in a controversie about the celebration of Easter whether on the Lord's day or on the same day with the Jews after many Provincial Councils in a peaceful time of the whole Christian Church call'd in several Countries as well of the East as Aegypt Palestine as of the West who all agreed with the Roman Bishop excepting Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and the Bishops of Asia minor who assembled in Council as the rest resolv'd to continue their custom of keeping it the same day with the Jews and in a Letter to Rome signified so much We find I say that Victor then Bishop of Rome either intended or also executed an Excommunication upon Polycrates and his party as pertinaciously retaining a Mosaical ceremony which might be an introduction to more Executed an excommunication not negative as Dr. Field would have it p. 558. by with-drawing his own communion from them but privative and authoritative by rejecting and debarring them from communion of the whole Catholick Church tho indeed debarring them from the Roman communion debars them also from all others that communicate with the Roman for those who may not communicate with an Heretick neither may communicate with any others who by communicating with such Heretick make themselves partakers of his sin This seems to me clear by the words of Eusebius Victor totius Asiae Ecclesias a communionis societate abscindere nititur tanquam in haeresin declinantes literas mittit quibus omnes simul absque discretione ab Ecclesiastico faedere segregaret Extant Episcoporum literae quibus asperius objurgant Victorem velut inutiliter ecclesiae commodis consulentem Ecclesiae i. e. universalis And of Iraeneus who amongst the rest reprehended him quod non recte fecerit abscindens a corporis i. e. Christi not Romanae Ecclesiae unitate tot tantas Ecclesias Dei And by Polycrates his Letter Euseb l. 5. c. 22. to the Church of Rome wherein it appears both that he assembled his Asian Bishops at the Bishop of Rome's intimation and that some censure had been threaten'd him from thence upon non-conformity to which he answers That it were better to obey God than men His words are Sexaginta quinque â—nnos aetatis gerens non perturbabor ex his quae ad terrorem proferuntur quia majores mei dixerunt Obtemperare oportet Deo magis quam hominibus As for Irenaeus or other Bishops reprehending this fact or purpose of Victors it was not because he usurp'd or exercis'd an authority of Excommunication over the Asiaticks not belonging to him but that he used such authority upon no just or sufficient cause namely upon such a declination from Apostolical tradition vel per negligentiam vel per imperitiam in so small a matter some compliance with the Jews to gain them partly excusing such a practice Thus a Prince who hath lawful power to inflict punishments upon his subjects when delinquent is reprehensible when punishing the innocent To this of Victor I may add another Excommunication not long after this by Stephen Bishop of Rome either inflicted or at least threatned to some of the Asian Churches in Cyprian's time that held the necessity or Rebaptization upon the Baptism of Hereticks Concerning which see Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 4. c. 4.6 See St. Austin's Epistle 162 the great care and superintendence which Melchiades Bishop of Rome before Sylvester in Constantine's time used over the African Churches in the Schism of
more Orthodox my chief intention here was not to declare quo jure such jurisdiction was either claim'd or yeilded to but that de facto that power was so long ago assum'd which being now challeng'd is by our men deny'd and I may add assum'd with good success to the Church of God during those first Ages The Bishops of Rome having patroniz'd no Heresies at all as all the other Patriarchs at some time or other did Such were in the See of Constantinople Macedonius Nestorius Sergius Arch-hereticks in Alexandria Dioscorus the grand Patron of the Eutychians in Antioch Paulus Samosatenus the Father of the Paulianists c. All which Heresies and several other which took root in the East were suppressed and the Unity and Uniformity of the Church's Doctrine and Discipline preserved by the over-ruling power the threats the censures of this See as any not over-partial Reader of the Ecclesiastical History will easily discern And perhaps I may venture a little further That to this day in the chief point and occasion of breach for which any other Church besides the Reform'd stands divided from the Roman Communion the Reformed do justifie the Roman tenent against those Churches The chief matter of the division of the Greek Church from the Roman was besides that of the Bishop of Constantinople's using the stile of Occumenicus and the procession of the Holy Ghost as appears by the disputation in the Council of Florence where both Churches the Eastern now falling into some distress heartily sought for an accord almost wholly spent about this point Now in this article the Reform'd do side with the Roman Church and so far also as we allow of any superiority we adjudge the prime place not to the Constantinopolitan but the Roman Patriarch The chief Doctrine for which the other Orientals as the Assyrian Churches the Jacobites Armenians Cophti Aethiopians Maronites c. of which see Field l. 3. c. 1 c. stand separate from Rome whilst their publick Service and Liturgies much-what accord with the Greek or Roman is either Nestorianism or Eutychianism or Monothelitism imputed unto them in which also the Reformed adhere against them to the Roman judgment The like may be said in the ancienter controversies of the Roman Church with the Asian Churches about Easter and with the African and some of the Asian about Rebaptization Thus in the main causes of differences with the Eastern Churches the Reform'd will grant Rome to have continued orthodox and that had the other been bound effectually to have received their laws in these controversies from her they had been better guided or at least that for those 600 years she happily moderated the great Questions of the Church by her supereminent authority But if it be said again That the Bishops of Rome now claim much more power than the instances above shew them anciently to have used I desire to know first before this be examin'd whether we will grant them so much for whilst we complain that they now a-days claim more than is due to them is it not so that we deny them not the more but all And have they done well who have used the Bishops so who have used Kings so upon pretence of their exercising an illegal power § 32 And now by what hath pass'd we may the better judge of the meaning notwithstanding whatever other glosses are made upon them of those places of the ancient Fathers By the instances above judgment may be made of the sense of many other controverted Sayings of the Fathers which are quoted before § 6. To which I will here add that which follows in Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. who speaks there how Hereticks may be easily confounded by the unity of the Tradition of Apostolical Doctrine Ad hanc enim Ecclesiam i. e. a duobus Apostolis Petro Paulo Romae fundatam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique fideles conservata est ea quae ab Apostolis est traditio In qua i. e. in unione adhaesione ad quam Apostolical Tradition is more certainly preserv'd in all other Churches Let therefore potentiorem principalitatem if so you can make any sense be referr'd as it is by the Reform'd to the Roman Empire not Church yet the certain conservation of Tradition Apostolical which is the Father's reason of other Churches repairing and conforming to this that cannot be apply'd but only to the Church not as seated in the Imperial City but as founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul Of which Church Tertullian de praescript Haereticorum also saith Ista quam faelix Ecclesia cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum sanguine suo profuderunt And after him thus Cyprian in his Ep. 45. to Cornelius Bishop of Rome not to urge any of those passages in his Book de Vnit Eccl. Cath. which perhaps seem capable of the exposition which the Reformed give them Nos singulis navigantibus i.e. from Affrick into Italy rationem reddentes scimus nos hortatos eos esse ut Ecclesiae Catholicae radicem matricem i.e. Ecclesiam Romanam agnoscerent tenerent And afterward Ne in urbe in Rome schisma factum animos absentium i.e. of those in Africk incerta opinione confunderet which party they should adhere to placuit ut per Episcopos istic positos African Bishops residing at Rome literae fierent to the African Provinces ut te universi collegae nostri communicationem tuam id est Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter ac charitatem probarent firmiter ac tenerent And Epist 52. Antoniano Fratri a Bishop not communicating with Novatianus Scripsisti etiam ut exemplum earundum literarum ad Cornelium the Bishop of Rome Collegam nostrum transmitterem ut depositum omni solicitudine jam sciret te secum hoc est cum Catholica Ecclesia communicare The like expressions to which we find in Ambrose Orat. in Satyr where he saith of his Brother Satyrus about to receive the Communion that percunctatus est Episcopum si cum Episcopis Catholicis hoc est si cum Romana Ecclesia conveniret And thus Cyprian again in his Epist. 55. ad Cornelium de Fortunato Faelicissimo haereticis who condemn'd in Africk appeal'd to Rome Post ista adhuc insuper navigare audent ad Petri Cathedram atque ad Ecclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est a schismaticis Fortunato c. literas ferre nec cogitare eos i. e. tales esse Romanos quorum fides Apostolo praedicante laudata est ad quos persidia habere non possit accessum Add to these in the 46th Epistle the confession of those who return'd to Cornelius from the Schism of Novatianus made in this form Nos Cornelium Episcopum sanctissimae Catholicae Ecclesiae electum a Christo Domino nostro scimus
the true doctrine Whereas those who submitted to the Roman as the most orthodox gathered it to be orthodox as being S. Peter's Seat and the prime Apostolical See That most of these testimonies and examples are not alledged out of the first and purest times non esse ex prima antiquitate sed post Nicaenam Synodum cum schismata partium studia in Christianos valere coeperunt Yet then that as their pride claimed much as they claimed indeed great authority from the beginning so were they by the resoluteness of their fellow-Bishops as much opposed and what they decreed seldom executed And lastly That much more dominion over the Church of God than is shewed here to have bin then practised is now assumed but what is this to the vindicator only of their ancient practice and That were it not assumed yet many and unsufferable are the inconveniences of so remote a Judge of Appeals But see concerning this what is said before § 14. To such exceptions as these I will trouble you with no reply If you do not find the former passages reviewed sufficiently to justifie themselves against these limitations and restrictions and to vindicate much more authority to the Apostolical See than is here confessed §. 37. Such power anciently exercised by the Bishop of Rome not only exercised jointly with a Patriarchal Council which is by some pretended for me you may admit them for good answers Hitherto I have bin shewing you the subordinations of Clergy for regular Ordinations for setling doctrine and discipline in the Church and for deciding differences and amongst these from § 11. the great power given to Patriarchs and amongst and above them from § 21. more particularly the power and preeminence the Roman See hath anciently challenged or others yeilded to it In the next place observe That the exercise of this power anciently lay not in the Roman Bishop or other Patriarchs only as joined with or President in a Patriarchal Synod nor in Primates and Metropolitans only as President in a Provincial a refuge which many willingly fly to in their defence of a dissimilitude of the present to the ancient Government of the Church by them but in them as using only their private council or the assistance of such neighbouring Bishops as could without much trouble be convened Of which I shall give you an account out of Bishop Bramhal and Dr. Field who have made it up to my hand Thus then Dr. Field 5. l. 30. c. p. 513. Provincial Councils were by ancient canons of the Church to be holden in every Province twice every year It is very necessary say the Fathers of the Council of Nice that there should be a Synod twice in the year in every Province that all the Bishops of the Province meeting together may in common think upon those things that are doubtful and questionable For the dispatch of Ecclesiastical business and the determining of matters in controversy we think it were fit say the Fathers in the Council of Antioch that in every Province Synods of Bishops should be assembled twice every year To the same effect he quotes Conc. Chalced. 18. c. see likewise Canon Apostol 38. But in process of time when the Governours of the Church could not conveniently assemble in Synods twice a year the Fathers of the Sixth General Council decreed Can. 8. that yet in any case there should be a Synod of Bishops once every year for Ecclesiastical questions Likewise the Seventh General Council can 6. decreeth in this sort Whereas the Canon willeth judicial inquisition to be made twice every year by the assembly of Bishops in every Province and yet for the misery and poverty of such as should travel to Synods the Fathers of the 6th General Council decreed it should be once in the year and then things amiss to be redressed we renew this latter canon But afterwards many things falling out to hinder their happy meetings we shall find that they met not so often and therefore the Council of Basil appointeth Episcopal Synods to be held once every year and Provincial at least once in three years and so doth Conc. Trident. 24. sess 2. cap. pro moderandis moribus corrigendis excessibus controversiis componends c. which accordingly were kept every third year by Carlo Borrhomeo Metropolitan of Millain And so in time causes growing many and the difficulties intolerable in coming together and in staying to hear these causes thus multiplied and increased which he confesseth before to be just considerations it was thought fitter to refer the hearing of complaints and appeals to Metropolitans and such like Ecclesiastical Judges limited and directed by canons and Imperial laws than to trouble the Pastors of whole Provinces and to wrong the people by the absence of their Pastors and Guides Thus Dr. Field And much what to the same purpose Bishop Bramhal Vindic. p. 257. What power a Metropolitan had over the Bishops of his own Province by the Canon-law the same and no other had the Patriarch over the Metropolitans and Bishops of sundry Provinces within his own Patriarchate But a Metropolitan anciently could do nothing out of his own particular Diocess without the concurrence of the major part of the Bishops of his Province nor the Patriarch in like manner without the advice and consent of his Metropolitans and Bishops Wherein then consisted Patriarchal authority In convocating Patriarchal Synods and presiding in them in pronouncing sentence according to plurality of voices when Metropolitan Synods did not suffice to determin some emergent difficulties or differences I confess that by reason of the great difficulty and charge of convocating so many Bishops and keeping them so long together until all causes were heard and determined and by reason of those inconveniences which did fall upon their Churches in their absence Provincial Councils were first reduced from twice to once in the year and afterwards to once in three years And in process of time the hearing of Appeals and such-like causes and the execution of the canons in that behalf were referred to Metropolitans until the Papacy swallowed up all the authority of Patriarchs Metropolitans and Bishops Thus the Bishop Now concerning what they have said note 1. That tho Provincial Councils in some ages and places were more frequently assembled in the time of whole sitting as the assembled could do nothing without their Primate or Metropolitan so neither he without them yet in the intervals of such Synods which intervals were too long to leave all matters of controversy whatever till then in suspence and happened many times also anciently to be longer than the canons permitted the Metropolitans authority was not void but they limited and directed by the former decrees of such Synods were trusted with the execution thereof and with the doing of many things especially in ordinary causes by themselves alone but so as their acts of justice might upon complaint be reviewed in the sitting of the next Council and if
not deserting the Patriarch the things above-named both Royalty and Episcopacy peace in the State and in the Church of such countreys better preserved What former Prince or Clergy of this Kingdom under the Patriarch's obedience take him with all his faults have suffered more than these in our days have done since that yoke broken What subject trained up in his Principles hath bin so disobedient But 2ly Is any one free from a Law or Canon to eject it when he can give some reason that it is inconvenient Or did not the wisdom of those who established such Canons and such subordination to Patriarchs see their jurisdiction for example in respect of Africk to be foreign and weigh the inconveniences thereof as well as we now do but they weighed these together with the benefits serving for preserving unity for doing more entire justice being less engaged for deciding controversies more truly being persons of more eminent wisdom enabled with a more selected Council c. See before § 14. And now have other Nations lost their reason who notwithstanding the foreignness of the jurisdiction in obedience to the Church-canons submit to this power But what if a Patriarch should change the Bible into an Alcoran as he urgeth elsewhere Reply to Bishop of Chalced. should in Spiritual matters misguide us I answer when you can find any to obey who may not be faulty in his government leave the Patriarch and go to him Are we more secure then under the Supremacy of a Secular power or of some other Archbishop What if the Secular power throw down Bishops destroy the publick Liturgies silence the orthodox Ministry c And what if the Archbishop change the Bible or will we be our own Supreams and blot out the name of Canonical obedience § 43 In the next place Dr. Hammond's plea Schism 6. c. p. 115. seems to me not true nor his proofs and instances sufficient and the assertion in the consequences thereof dangerous to the government and unity of the Church Catholick where he saith That it is and hath always bin in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchats or to translate them from one city to another And therefore saith he whatever title is supposable to be acquired by the Pope in this Island upon the first plantation of the Gospel here whatever I will therefore suppose his title to have bin from ancient Church-canon and custom whereby he hath bin confirmed Patriarch of the Western Provinces I say not that such a thing was now but suppose such a thing were this cannot so oblige the Kings of England ever since but that they may freely remove that power from Rome to Canterbury and subject all the Christians of this Island to the Spiritual power of that Archbishop or Primate independently from any foreign Bishop I say this Thesis seems to me very untrue if he mean That Princes may do any such thing by their own just power without the authoritative concurrence of the Church or contrary to her former Canons and ancient Customs as his instancing in Ravenna and Justiniana prima and Carthage and Grado formerly under the jurisdiction of the Roman Patriarch imply that he means thus For example I say it is not lawful supposing ancient Canons or immemorial custom to use his own word of the Church had made the Roman Bishop Patriarch of the West or of France for the King of France either with or without the consent of his own particular Clergy within his Dominions to erect a new Patriarchate or elect another Patriarch This I think is plain from the Discourse and the Concessions preceding And he seems to say the like himself Answer to Schism Disarm'd p. 164. A power Princes have to erect Metropoles but if it be exercis'd so as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church this certainly is an abuse Thus he But how it coheres with what else is said there I see not But if secular Princes have such power to set up Patriarchs within their own Dominions I ask whether General Councils have not also the same and that within the same Dominions of Secular Princes Will he deny this power to Councils or at least their power to do it within the Secular Prince's Dominions But then the Church hath no power to do it at all For where are the Church's Subjects for whom she makes Laws as she thinks fit but under the government of some or orther Secular Power But the contrary of these things is most evident and many are her canons to this purpose The Council of Chalcedon the same upon two Canons of which Balsamon founds and by which the Doctor proves this authority of Princes to make Patriarchs did erect Constantinople into a Patriarchy next to Rome which also was done before by Conc. Constant 1. but not confirm'd by the Roman and Occidental Bishops and this not only to an empty Dignity or precedency in place but to a real jurisdiction over some of the Emperor's Provinces to receiving and judging appeals c. see Conc. Chalc. Act. 16. and Can. 9. and 16. And when the Bishop of Rome much opposed this Act of the Council the Emperor then making Constantinople the Seat of his Empire and much desiring the advancement of its Bishop yet appeared not at all in this promoting of him nor claim'd any such right as due to him tho this happen'd long after Valentinian is pretended to have advanc'd Ravenna to a Patriarchship and independency on Rome Nor the Council in their Letter to Leo see Act. 3. pleaded any such power as belonging to the Emperor at all but to themselves only they say Nos carantes tam piissimos Christi amicos Imperatores qui super hoc delectantur quam clarissimum senatum c. and sic enim pii Principes complacebunt c. This power then cannot with any modesty be deny'd to Councils If both of them then have this power and that in the same place as I have shew'd it must be what if they disagree Suppose the one gives Rome jurisdiction over Ravenna the other exempts it and makes Ravenna supreme for it self who must be obey'd If the Prince may reverse what the Council hath done then their Canons in these Spiritual matters are subordinate to his Edicts then Sedes Romana in omnibus per omnia prima Conc. Chalc. Act. 16. holds no longer than during the Emperor's pleasure Then why so much courting Leo's consent for a thing in the Emperor's gift Or doth Dr. Hammond here mean only a power in Princes to make some inferior Patriarchs subordinate not only in Dignity but Jurisdiction to these supreme ones as the name of Patriarchs in some times hath been communicated to inferior Bishops But then this Thesis of his if true will serve little to his purposes as long as he leaves his Patriarchs under the yoke of a superior You see how I cast about and yet cannot set these
Government Which Bishop sent to him Fugatius and Damianus by whom this King and his Queen and many others were converted to the Faith and receiv'd Baptisme c. Where his having already with him men learned in the Scriptures see Spelm. Apparat. p. 12. and yet sending for others from the Roman Bishop and his sending to the Bishop of Rome so remote when as there were then many Christian Bishops in France and particularly the famous Irenaeus Bishop at Lions at that very time methinks shew plainly that the Britains had learned already that there was some preeminence and authority attributed to him superior to the rest of the Occidental Prelates as likewise doth the title of that Bishop's letter to Lucius but it is much doubted whether this letter be authentick Scripsit Dominus Elentherius Papa Lucio Regi Britanniae ad correctionem Regis Procerum regni Britanniae others read it ad petitionem In which letter whereas it is urged see Hammond Schis p. 109. and Bramh. vindic p. 155. that he calls the King vicarium Dei in regno suo t is to be observed that he stiles the King so before he was Christian and seems to urge it in respect of civil laws which laws the King desiring that they would send unto him from Rome the Bishop adviseth him with his Council rather to take them out of the Bible the law of God whose Vicar he is than out of the Roman or Caesars laws But let it be granted in Ecclesiastical matters also that he is Vicarius Dei that is in promulgating the Ecclesiastical laws and enforcing them upon his subjects with the denouncing of temporal punishments but not in making them for this the Bishop of Rome cannot alienate from Synods to Princes Christian yet higher in the days of Tiberius Interea glaciali frigore rigenti Insulae Britannicae verus ille Sol universo orbi praefulgidum sui lumen ostendens radios suos primum indulget id est praecepta sua Christus Tempore ut scimus summo extremo Tiberii Caesaris quo tempore absque ullo impedimento ejus propagabatur religio indicta Senatu nolente a Principe morte delatoribus militum ejusdem Christianorum alluding to Hegesippus his story of Tiberius Thus saith Gildas a Britain who writ in the end of the 5th age and therefore why may not mos antiquus concerning the presidency of the Roman See over the West be meant of this as well as the other anciently-Christian Provinces there But when ever Britain first became Christian tho such were after the passing of that canon of Nice yet many converted since the last conversion of the Saxons here in England as the Germans and some other Northern nations some of them converted by the English have also come under the jurisdiction of that See upon the same account namely of this Bishops having committed to him the primacy over the whole Church or at least the Patriarchate of the whole West And therefore Austin the Monk required subjection to this Bishop not only of the Saxons as converted by him but also of the Britains who were Christian before subjection not upon this title of conversion but from the submission which was thought otherwise due to this prime Apostolick See The judgment and actions of which holy man by this Nation to be had in eternal veneration ought not so easily to be condemned or slighted since he was blessed here with such success and honoured by God with so many miracles Of which miracles of his and his companions Gregory who sent him overjoyed writes thus to the Patriarch of Alexandria Ep. 7. l. Indict 1.30 Ep. Jam nunc de ejus Augustini salute opere ad nos scripta pervenerunt quia tantis miraculis vel ipse vel hi qui cum eo transmissi sunt in gente eadem coruscant ut Apostolorum virtutes in signis quae exhibent imitari videantur And to Austin thus in another Epistle 9. l. 58. Ep. exhorting him to the preservation of his humility in receiving so high favours Scio quod potens Deus per dilectionem tuam in Gente quam eligi voluit magna miracula ostendit unde necesse est ut de eodem dono caelesti timendo gaudeas gaudendo pertimescas c. § 53 But if it be replied that many of the Western Nations were originally converted by that See and therefore may seem anciently to have had a nearer relation to or dependance on it but not so this Island yet That this Nation chiefly if not only owes its conversion to the Roman See 1. 3. This title of Conversion seems not wanting so much as is pretended for the plea of the Roman Jurisdiction For 1. for all the rest of this Nation except the ancient Britains namely for the Saxons and those other invaders who followed them this title is not disputed so that what was Pope Innocent's pretence see before § 3. concerning other parts of the West may be Gregory's and his Successor's concerning the chief body of this Kingdom supposing that the Church's customs or canons did entitle any authority upon this ground and for whom the Roman See hath performed the same maternal and fundative offices as for the rest of the West it seems not unreasonable that they should return her the same duty as do the rest To that objection of Dr. Hammond Schism p. 114. in behalf of these Saxons liberty That S. Paul's and his Substiture's converts yet were not all subjected to one and the same See it is granted to him That conversion doth not of it self necessarily induce subjection to the converter or to his See but nevertheless t is as true That the Church upon whose customs and canons such subjection is pleaded in her appointing some chief and Patriarchal Sees for the preserving by such subordinations unity and peace amongst her several members hath used this of conversion as a chief motive tho not this always or the only motive to subject several Churches rather to such a Mother-church than to another See before § 6. This for the Saxons §. 54. n. 1.2 and others whose race most-what we English are But then for the Britains also it seems That tho their conversion might have its first beginning in Tiberius his reign or very early yet it was for the most part of it wrought in latter times by several degrees after their subjection to the Roman Empire either by Christians who flowed in hither from Rome and Italy and other Provinces nearer hand especially in times of persecution with the Roman Officers and Lieutenants some of which before were favourers and after Constantine's time were also professors of Christianity as amongst the rest Theodosius who was Valentinian's Lieutenant here before Emperour or by several Missions from the Pope of Rome made either to plant and propagate Christianity in these Islands of Britain and Ireland or to reform it Such was that Legation of Fugatius and Damianus §
THE SECOND and THIRD TREATISES Of the First Part of Ancient CHURCH-GOVERNMENT THE SECOND TREATISE Containing a Discourse of the SUCCESSION OF CLERGY OXFORD Printed in the Year MDCLXXXVIII TO THE READER IN the First Treatise of the First Part of Church-Government Printed A. D. 1662 and Reprinted 1685 is contain'd the Succession of the Apostles to our Lord in his Pastoral Office and the Primacy of St. Peter then the Succession of Bishops to the Apostles their Authority and the Subordination to them of Presbyters In this Second Treatise is discoursed the Indeficiency of the Clergy and of the Evangelical Doctrine deliver'd to them by our Lord. In the Third is contain'd the Subordination of Bishops their several Jurisdictions and tho Primacy and Supreme Authority of the Bishop of Rome CORRIGENDA Page 6. l. 7. ought not to do the page should be 14. P. 24. l. 28. Mat. 23.2 3. P. 42. l. 30. Bishop Andrews in answer SUCCESSION OF CLERGY § 1 THese two things having been as I suppose sufficiently prov'd in a Treatise of Ancient Church-Government already published First Our Lord 's deriving his Authority and Pastoral Office here on Earth upon his Apostles and this not with an equal parity Secondly And again the Apostles transferring the same Office to others And this also for preventing Schisms and preserving Order and Peace in the Church done as before not with an exact equality amongst all the Clergy but with a certain preeminence and superiority of some above the rest the Bishops above the Presbyters and this a superiority too not only of precedence or honour which would not have cured Schisms but of Office and Authority I now proceed to shew more at large That Christ hath left the same his Ministers 1. The infallible Preservers of all necessary Faith and the supreme Judges to be submitted-to in all spiritual doubts and controversies 2. These in this their Government independent-on and not dissolvable by any external secular power 3. Firmly united among themselves in one external Profession and Communion not ruinable by any intestine Division § 2 For the first of these I shall shew you 1. That considering men's ordinary frailties and passions there is a clear necessity of such a Judg to decide Controversies resolve Doubts suppress false Doctrines c. And 2. That there hath always been appointed in the Church of God besides the Rule such a Judg both under the Law and under the Gospel and men never left to their own Conduct in Religion § 3 1. A necessity of such a Judg sufficiently appears from this 1. That never any Body of Laws hath been so punctually set down but that many doubts and questions do arise in the practice of it a thing which experience hath verified in as many such Bodies as have been made But 2. Could such a Law be yet that the Canon of Scripture is far from being such as to every part thereof is evident from the many Controversies of Religion that are on foot amongst those who all acknowledg the same Canon and who must be said at least some of them on all sides to be both of quick capacity and sober judgmemt and sufficient integrity seeing that almost whole Nations have thus opposed one another all whose capacities or integrities it were too much uncharitableness and pride to question Here therefore whereas frequently both the contrary parties use to say the Scripture is plain on their own side they both shew that it is difficult and whereas both also could wish an Arbiter of Controversies at least to silence their Adversary they mutually confess One necessary for them both And so long as sober Judgments contradict in their expositions of Scripture tho both should say that the Scripture is clear yet neither can say that in respect of all men it is so And so long there is necessary another Judg besides Scripture especially when none in Religious matters will confess that they contest about a Controtroversie which is not necessary to be decided Indeed this happens ordinarily that some sentences of Scripture seem plain on one side and other sentences thereof plain on another but since all parts of Divine truth must cohere and accord the more plainness in this manner makes it the more difficult And therefore we commonly see that in their not well-comparing of several Scriptures but fastning their thoughts only on some parcel thereof to which their fancy or interest specially guides them the more ignorant are the more confident and lest doubting and they who have least compar'd things soonest decide them And thus those who have the Scriptures the more common and open to each man's comment without dependance on any other Judg than themselves run into great varieties of Opinions and Sects 2 St. Pet. 3.16 takes notice concerning a chief part of the Scriptures and that written purposely for instruction St. Paul's Epistles but not only concerning these but the other Scriptures too see the end of v. 16. that in them there were some things hard to be understood which they that were unlearned and unstable did wrest to their own destruction These things then of consequence the mistaking of which tended to the Mistaker's destruction which yet men even in his days mistook by being unlearned i. e. not well taught in Christianity which teaching they must have from their Pastors and unstable which must be by departing from the Doctrines receiv'd from their Pastors as the words following v. 17. also imply Now I see not why the same accident concerning the same Scriptures should not happen still to the illiterate and unstable disclaiming any other Judg save these Scriptures and conceiting that God's Written Word hath render'd his Ministers useless This is said for the necessity of a Judg in matters of Religion where Scriptures indeed as St. Peter saith of them have some difficulty But 3. Since Controversies may be raised and maintain'd by the peevishness and perversness and passion of a Party even where Scriptures are clear enough here also no less necessary is a Judg juridically to suppress and silence those who irrationally and many times with autocatacrisie thus offend But 4. It is possible also that some very material Controversies there may be in Religion wherein the Scriptures have either been silent or have not spoken to them so expresly and openly but that they must be drawn out from thence by several deductions Here then also some other Judg is necessary § 4 Such a Judg therefore is necessary to be And therefore such a Judg there always hath been appointed by God to be consulted and submitted-to by his people both before the Law Written and under the Law Written and under the Gospel First In the times before the Law Written even from the very infancy of-the World God ever had a Church contradistinct after Adam's Fall of whose Sons as some were good so others were impious to the rest of the world serving God in a publick external Communion and
obey whilst meanwhile he believeth God to have commanded the contrary and that hence only he thinketh it lawful for him to do it not because God hath commanded it or hath not commanded the contrary but because God hath commanded him to obey his Superiors tho erring and decreeing a thing sometimes contrary to God's command Let it be so This sufficeth our purpose so that constant obedience be allowed to these Judges and that what they command we ought to do not only in matters of Penalty but of Duty Thus Schism is excluded thus Peace is preserved perpetually in God's Church § 10 To make things a little plainer by an instance Suppose that a controversy arose between a bounden Servant and his Master whether he were to obey his Masters commands in watering his cattel on the Sabbath day the servant arguing from Exod. 20 10. in it thou shalt do no manner of work that this is by God prohibited The matter upon this is brought before these Judges and decided for the master here the servant is bound to water the cattle of his master and therefore bound to think it not unlawful to do since none may do what they think must law and if he think it not unlawful to do so he must either now change his former opinion and think God's law not to have prohibited it or at least God to have bound him by another law to do some thing sometimes he thinks but is not certain that God's law prohibits namely so often as these Judges who are appointed God's substitutes to expound his law do mis-intepret it For in the judgment also of Protestants God hath upon some suppositions obliged us to believe and give assent to the determinations and injunctions of an erring Guide namely of our Spiritual Governours in matters Theological where ever we our selves doubt of the truth and have no certain evidence of the contrary to what they enjoin us yet in which injunctions they do grant these Governours both may and do sometimes err So likewise an erroneous conscience is granted to oblige us and that from the Divine command who hath made it sin to do otherwise which conscience also sometimes errs faultlesty i. e. out of an invincible ignorance Take therefore of the two former ways which you will the duty of the servant rectifying his opinion or of obeying the Judge and acting contrary to his-opinion where note that in such obeying he still follows his conscience for he obeys here because he first thinks that he ought to obey Obedience is the product but Obedience in the former notion is an act of more humility and charity § 11 Having faid this to explain the quality of the obedience required in this place I will set you down what Mr. Hooker hath commented upon it in his Preface sect 6. writing against Puritans and so speaking much of subordination of private opinion to the determination of Ecclesiastical authority God saith he was not ignorant that the Priests and Judges whose sentence in matters of controversy he ordained should stand both might and oftentimes would be deceived in their judgments howbeit better it was in the eye of his understanding that sometimes an erroneous sentence definitive should prevail till the same authority perceiving such oversight might afterwards correct or reverse it than that strifes should have respit to grow and not come speedily unto some end Then answering the Objection of doing nothing against Conscience ' Neither wish we saith he that men should do any thing which in their hearts they are perswaded they ought not not to do but we say this perswasion ought to be fully setled in their hearts that in litigious and controverted causes of such quality here what exceptions Mr. Hooker makes matters not for the Text makes none ' the Will of God is to have them to do whatsoever the sentence of Judicial and Final Decisions shall determine yea tho it seems in their private Opinion to swerve utterly from that which is right as no doubt many times the sentence among the Jews did unto one or other party contending and yet in this case God did then allow them to do that which in their private judgment it seemed yea and perhaps truly seemed that the Law did disallow Thus Mr. Hooker Whose last words seem to me to say either that we are to submit our private opinion or judgment i. e. those reasons that we have from the thing to think the contrary to the judgment of this Court i. e. to another reason which we have drawn from Authority Of which is spoken largely elsewhere in Obligation of Judgment § 2 c. Or else that retaining still our private Opinion yet we ought to practice contrary to what it dictates by reason of God's commanding us absolute Obedience to this Court. Which tho it doth err sometimes perhaps in matters less necessary yet much oft'ner should we err if not thus restrain'd and subjected to it And of two evils or human infirmities the lesser is to be chosen Therefore also in Secular affairs the Soldier is punished when he doth that which is better if he doth this against his General 's Command because indeed by such a liberty indulg'd how much oft'ner would he do that which is worse § 12 To this place of Deuteronomy upon which you will excuse my long stay for the freeing it from several faulty restrictions may be added many more Texts of the Old Testament to the same purpose See Ezech. 44.24 where the Prophet in the end of his Prophecy describing typically under the ancient Ceremonies the restauration and flourishing condition of God's Church at last amongst other recites this Law Deut. 17. In controversie they the Priests shall stand in judgment and they shall judg it according to my judgments See Hag. 2.11 Thus saith the Lord of Hosts Ask now the Priests saying If one bear c. According to which command the Prophet consulted them and receiv'd an answer from them ver 12 13. See Mal. 2.7 where chiding the Priests causing many to fall in the Law the Lord faith The Priests lips shall keep knowledg and they the People shall seek the Law at his mouth For he is the Angel of the Lord of Hosts If he therefore err no remedy but the People must fall See Deut. 33.9 10. comp Eccl. 45.17 And see Hos 4.4 where when God would express the extream perverseness and obstinacy of his people he compares them to those that contend with and shew disobedience to their Priest Likewise the Priest's putting difference between holy and unholy clean and unclean and accordingly admitting men to or separating them from the Congregation and in the readmission of these exercising the Ceremonies of their Cleansings for which see Lev. 10.10 11 Ezech. 44.23 Lev. ch 13. 14. are only Metaphors of the Church's Authority in Judging what is and what is not sin and trespass against God's Law in Excommunicating those whose continue in sin and in
4.19 And he must give account to the same King of Kings for killing his Subjects in their obeying their Lords commands who sent them to all Nations without asking any man's leave as they could not in doing their duty possibly wrong any man's right § 66 And if any here argue That a Spiritual Supremacy thus describ'd cannot consist with another Temporal but that one will ruine the other and probably the Ecclesiastical denouncing eternal torments the Civil threatning death temporal experience is enough to confute him which hath long shew'd the contrary Those Kingdoms where these two Scepters are set up having flourish'd I mean for any occasion of disturbance or war arising from the opposition of these two powers in long peace and prosperity whilst others where one of them hath been beaten down have either ever since been miserably afflicted with Civil Wars I mean about Religion unsetled or quite over-turned 1. Partly by reason that every one gives not the spoils of the Church's ruin'd power I mean the judging and deciding spiritual matters to another the Civil Magistrate but takes them to himself And secondly partly because one main doctrine of the Spiritual power which hath most command over men's consciences Namely this that resistance in any things by Arms to the Temporal power is unlawfu is faln together with that power And thirdly perhaps partly I may add because that where the Church-Authority is crush'd Religion and Goodness in general withers and decays and consequently with these Allegiance and Fidelity That which makes good men making good Subjects 4ly And again because That where any takes away another's right both Divine Justice sentences him to loose his own and his Example teaches others to invade it § 67 Hence it is That these Substitutes of Christ as himself being under Herod's jurisdiction yet was hindred by no threats for exercising the commission of his Father in his Dominions Luke 13.31 32. did exercise their Authority as much as ever and that for some hundreds of years even when all the temporal Magistrates and their Sovereigns opposed it for then they were sustained unarmed against all force by the power of the King of Kings JESUS and so shall be till his second coming in which time we find they had their Publick Assemblies for God's Worship revenged by Excommunications and Penance all disobedience called Councils for enacting Ecclesiastical Canons and Laws which therefore it is not absolutely necessary very convenient I grant that the Secular power should either call or assist neither may he annull them or any part thereof if purely concerning Ecclesiastical affairs but as a member also himself of the Church ought to become subject unto them and as a Prince to maintain them And hence it seems to follow That no Prince can lawfully abrogate the Authority of Patriarchs supposing it only founded on Ecclesiastical Constitutions over those who are the Churches as well as His Subjects no more then he can any other Ecclesiastical Decrees Again in which times we also find that as fast as any suffer'd by persecutions in their places they ordained others multiplied by their slaughters and ordained them without any order or nomination from the civil power who for ever neither can himself neither can cause them to lay hands on any but whom they approve nor to be partakers by this of other mens sins or errors 1 Tim. 5.22 § 68 And all this they did without the Emperour's leave nay contrary many times to their Edicts Now what Authority they had before amidst the oppositions of Secular power they cannot lose it nor any part of it since by this Powers submitting it self unto Christ's Scepter and to the Church Greater then this Church-authority might be made many ways by Princes by granting the Church now some temporal priviledges by making the Acts of the Church their Law also and by enforcing it on all their Subjects as well Clergy as Laiety with corporal punishments and the temporal sword further than the other could singly with his Spiritual which yet experience shews was able alone both to preserve order and discipline amongst its Subjects With the temporal sword I say which tho the Clergy may not use in the behalf of Religion yet He that hath it committed to him Rom. 13.4 the Civil Magistrate as a Son of the Church and the Servant of Christ upon his own subjects may and ought to use that weapon in maintaining of Christ's Laws which he may in defence of his own as who also may make Christ's Laws his own Hence Calvin Instit 4 l. 11. c. 16. sect speaking of the Primitive Governours of the Church Non improbabant saith he si quando suam authoritatem interponerent Principes in rebus Ecclesiasticis modo conservando Ecclesiae ordini non turbando disciplinae stabiliendae non dissolvendae of which I suppose the Spiritual Governors not the Princes were to judge hoc fieret Nam cum Ecclesia cogendi non habet potestatem c Principum partes sunt legibus edictis judiciis religionem sustinere But these Princes may do only according to the Priests directions Therefore all the establishing and restoring of Religion by the Kings of Judah from whose having power in advancing Religion t is strange to see how some argue their having the sole power were only by and in assistance of the Priest never against him and they commanded often the Priests to perform what the Priests together with them consented to be their duty See 2 Chr. 29.4 11. c. 17.6 8. 24.6 26.17 19.8 10. 13.9 34.5 9 14. Ezra 1.5 3.2 1 Chr. 25.1 compared with 24.31 see Deodat 2 King 23.5 2 Chr. 35.10 18. And see Deut. 17.18 19. the end of the Kings having a copy of the Law allowed him but another end of the Priests having the custody of it Deut. 17.9 and 2 Chr. 19.8 But no where can we find that they decided controversies against the Priests or that the succession of Priests maintaining a false Religion the King against them vindicated the true or in their stead because erroneous appointed and made new Priests because indeed the Succession of Priests never apostatized from the whole body of true Religion nor ever shall but should they yet why not the Prince rather and whom then finally is it fit to rely on for Religion But for those parts of true Religion wherein the Clergy was defective as it happened under the later Kings of Judah and in the times of our Saviour they were reformeable only by extraordinary Prophets sent from God whom in all times the people lawfully consulted and repaired to for judgment as they did to the Priests fee before but neither people nor Princes reformed Priests upon this pretence and therefore those Texts wherein the Prophets blame the errors of the Priests do no way warrant the Laities reforming them lest so the errors of the second be worse than that of the first See this spoken of more at large before But
so far of it as that they may not ordain others against that wherein they grant is preserved the unity of the Faith tho I think that simply an unjust Excommunication never made such a manner of division in the Church but that those who have set up new communions have still disallowed some Tenents or practices of the former for which they would not if permitted return to communicate with her tho they seem to justify their new communion chiefly upon the pretence of being cast out of the former Now Schism as the former times understood it is any relinquishing and departing upon what pretence soever from the former external communion of the Church when we cannot shew that it hath departed from the former external communion of its Predecessors where we must grant was before the unity of the faith because there was no Christian communion at all besides it and in that faith salvation undeniably to be had and its judgment in all controversies of faith and interpretations of Scriptures to be obeyed Now who depart thus are also easily discerned 1. By the paucity of their number if we look not at the Succession but at the beginning of the Breach tho afterward in some places at least it may outnumber the Orthodox So Arianism was easily discerned for Faction at the Council of Nice when it was but new planted tho not at that of Syrmium or Seleucia afterward And 2ly By their plea one alledging Truth only the other also Tradition § 76 3. By the constitutions of the Church Ordinations are unlawful not only where not such persons as the Canons of the Church have appointed do ordain as one no Bishop or not such a number as for making a Bishop less than three where cannot be shewed an irremediable necessity which necessity where truly it is and not pretended to be if you please we will suppose Presbyters also may do the Office or propagate the Order of Bishops or the Christian people create all these to themselves or in practising the duties and retaining the faith of Christianity be saved without such Ecclesiastical Administrations but what will this avail those who pretend such necessities when they live in the middle of the bosom of the Church of God and the original ministery thereof but also where-ever a greater part of the Bishops of such a Province oppose than consent to it See Mr. Thorndikes concession Right of the Church p. 148. 250. 147. The Reason because Ordinations were to have bin made only by the Provincial Councils which were to be held frequently twice a year in defect of these the execution of it was committed to three or in a case of necessity to one but presupposing the consent and that by letters of the rest or the major part of them See Conc. Nic. 4. Can. Conc. Nicen. can 6. Apost can 1.36 38. Ap. Const l. 8. c. 27. Else the unity of the Church can no way be preserv'd Therefore Novatianus ordain'd for Bishop of Rome by Three was forc'd to yeild to Cornelius Ordain'd by Sixteen Again it was caution'd That all the Bishops of a Province might do nothing in these Ordinations without the Metropolitan's consent Conc. Nic. Can. 4 6. And again these Metropolitans were subjected to a Council And what is said here of Bishops in respect of a Provincial Council the same may be said of all those of a Province or also Patriarchy in respect of a General For as in a Province disagreeing those are only to be accounted Successions lawful i. e. such as all are only to submit to which the Provincial Council allows so in greater rents of the Church only those which the General Council allows which disauthorizing of some if it be not allow'd there can be no Unity in the Church nor suppression of Heresies Schisms c. If it be allow'd there can never be two Successions opposing one another both lawfully by such Clergy exercis'd and submitted to by the people after this exauthorizing one of them by a Council And this is the reason why we find the Canons of the ancient Councils not so much busied in debating Opinions as about setling Peace and Unity and perfect Subordination amongst Ecclesiastical persons knowing that upon this more than evidence of Argument and Reason which in most men is so weak and mis-leadable depended the preservation of the Unity of the Church's Doctrines and requiring in any division of these Governors Obedience still to the major and more dignified Body of them Christ's promises of indefectability belonging to a City set on an Hill and to a Light set on a Candlestick that we should not leave this City so eminent to repair to some petty Village nor this Light that shines over the whole House to follow a Spark glistering for a while in some corner thereof § 77 Two great Divisions or Separations of external Communion there have been in Christianity before this last made after the Christian Church was fifteen hundred years old The Sect of the Arians and afterward the Division of the Eastern Churches from the Latin or Roman Now for the first of these which seemed for a time to eclipse the Church-Catholick and to be set higher on an Hill than it very small it was at first when censur'd and condemn'd in a General and unanimous Council and tho afterward it grew much bigger by being promoted by the Secular power yet it never grew to a major part as is shew'd in the Discourse Of the Guide in Controversies Disc 2. § 26. and the violence of it vanish'd in fifty years i. e. when the Secular power fail'd it and the former Church-Communion hath out-liv'd it And for the time also in which it most flourish'd the Catholicks valiantly kept both their Bishops and Communion distinct there being two Bishops at Rome at Constantinople c. one Catholich and the other Arrian and two external Communions one containing that of the former times and adhering to the General Council of Nice the other deserting and deserted by the former Communion nor admitted to any Fellowship with it till at last many of the penitent members thereof return'd to the Catholick Communion and the new Sect expired See before § 62. § 78 For the second the Division of the Greek Churches from the Western it is granted that two Churches co-ordinate may upon several pretences moving them thereto if such as are not determin'd by the Superior to them both abstain from one another's external Communion without incurring any such Schism as to cease to be still both of them true Members of the Church-Catholick But if one of these Churches either desert or be deserted by and excluded from the Communion of the other for a matter once determin'd by an Ecclesiastical Authority Superior to both and such Superior Authority be embrac'd and adher'd to by the other rejected by it Here the Church that disobeys its Superior and departs from such other Churches as are united to them is Schismatick
Church of England seems obliged in as much observance to the Rome See as the former instances have shewed the Orientals to have yeilded to it § 51. That the Church of England seems obliged to yeild the same observance to the Roman See as other Western Provinces upon the 6th Nicene Canon § 52. That this Nation owes its Conversion chiefly if not only to the Roman See § 53. And hath in ancient Councils together with other Churches subjected it self to that See before the Saxon conversion § 55. The Britains observation of Easter different from Rome not agreeing with the Orientals and no argument that they received Christianity from thence § 57. That the English Nation is sufficiently tyed to such subjection by the Decrees of latter Councils wherein her Prelats have yeilded their consents § 59. Thus the Principle upon which some set the English Clergy and Nation free from such former obligations hath bin shewed to be unsound § 60. That some Rights once resigned and parted with cannot afterward be justly resumed § 61. Dr. Field of the Church Ep. Dedicat SEing the controversies of Religion in our times are grown in number so many and in matters so intricate that few have time and leisure fewer strength of understanding to examin them what remaineth for men desirous of satisfaction in things of such consequence but diligently to search out which amongst all the Societies in the world is that blessed company of Holy ones that Houshold of faith that Spouse of Christ and Church of the Living God which is this pillar and ground of Truth that so he may embrace her Communion follow her Directions and rest in her Judgment Grot. Animadv cont Rivet ad Art 7. Rogo eos qui. verum amant ut cum legent Dav. Blondelli viri diligentissimi Librum de Primatu non inpsius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sed ipsas historias quarum veritatem Blondellus agnoscit animo a factionibus remoto expendant spondeo si id faciant inventuros in quo acquieescant S. Austin de util credendi 16. c. Authoritate decipi miserum est miserius non moveri si Dei providentia non praesidet rebus humanis nihil est de religione satagendum Non est desperandum ab eodem iposo Deo authoritatem aliquam constitutam qua velut gradu incerto innitentes attollamur in Deum Haec autem authoritas seposita ratione qua sincerum intelligere ut diximus difficillimum stultis est dupliciter nos movet partim miraculis partim sequentium multitudine 10. c. Sed inquis Nonne erat melius rationem mihi reddere ut quacunque ea me duceret sine ulla sequerer temeritate Erat fortasse sed cum res tanta sit ut Deus tibi ratione cognoseendus sit omnesque putas idonâ—os esse percipiendis rationibus quibus ad divinam intelligentiam mens ducitur humana an plures an paucos paucos ais existimo Quid caeteris ergo hominibus qui ingenio tam sereno praediti non sunt negandam religionem putas who therefore must receive this not from Reason but Authority 12. c. Quis mediocriter intelligens non plane viderit stultis utilius ac salubrius esse praeceptis obtemperare sapientum quam suo judicio vitam degere 13. c. Recte igitur Catholicae disciplinae majestate institutum est ut accedentibus ad religionem fides i.e. adhibenda authoritati Ecclesiae persuadeatur ante omnia 8. c. Si jam satis jactatus videris sequere viam Catholicae disciplinae quae ab ipso Christo per Apostolos ad nos usque manavit abhinc ad posteros manaturaest 12. Quum de religione id est quum de colendo atque intelligendo Deo agitur ii minus sequendi sunt qui nos credere vetant rationem promptissime pollicentes Rivet Apol. Discussio p. 255. Nunc plane ita sentit Grotius multi cum ipso non posse Protestantes inter se jungi nisi simul jungantur cum iis qui Sedi Romanae cohaerent sine qua nullum sperari potest in Ecclesia commune regimen Ideo optat ut ea divulsio quae evenit cause divulsionis tollantur Inter eas causas non est Primatus Episcopi Romani secundum Canones fatente Melancthone qui eum primatum etiam necessarium put at ad retinendam unitatem Neque enim hoc est Ecclesiam subjicere Pontificis libidini sed reponere ordinem sapienter insticutum Bishop Bilson in perpet governm of Christ's Church 16. c. Not Antichrist but ancient Councils and Christian Emperors perceiving the mighty trouble and intolerable charges that the Bishops of every Province were put-to by staying at Synods for the hearing and determining of all private matters and quarrels and seeing no cause to imploy the Bishops of the whole world twice every year to sit in judgment about petit and particular strifes and brabbles as well the Prince as the Bishops not to increase the pride of Arcbishops but to settle an indifferent course both for the parties and the Judges referred not the making of Laws and Canons but the execution of them already made to the credit and conscience of the Archbishop To the Fathers leave an Appeal either to the Councils or the Primate of every Nation Mr. Thorndike Epilogue 3. l. 20. c. p. 179. Of the Councils he meaneth those first Councils held in the East how many can be counted General by number of present votes The authority of them then must arise from the admitting of them by the Western Churches and this admission of them what can it be ascribed to but the authority of the Church of Rome eminently involved above all the Churches of the West in the summoning and holding of them and by consequence in their Decrees And indeed in the troubles that passed between the East and the West from the Council of Nice tho the Western Churches have acted by their Representatives upon eminent occasions in great Councils yet in other occasions they may justly seem to refer themselves to that Church as resolving to regulate themselves by the Acts of it and then he produceth several instances Whereby saith he it may appear how the Western Churches went always along with that of Rome Which necessarily argueth a singular preeminence in it in regard whereof He the Roman Bishop is stiled the Patriarch of the West during the regular government of the Church and being so acknowledged by K. James of Excellent memory to the Card. Perron may justly charge them to be the cause of dividing the Church who had rather stand divided than own him in that quality Afterward he saith p. 180. That it is unquestionable that all causes that concern the whole Church are to resort to the Church of Rome And p. 181. asks what pretence there could be to settle Appeals from other parts to Rome as such Appeals were setled in the Council of Sardica which Council he there allows and
calls General rather than from Rome to other parts had not a preeminency of Power and not only a precedence of Rank bin acknowledged originally in the Church of Rome CORRIGENDA Page 29. l. 7. else he would Page 55. l. 80. thro five or six Page 115. l. 3. except that of one or two of his Predecessors CONCERNING ANCIENT CHURCH-GOVERNMENT PART I. Of the Authority and Subordinations of Ecclesiastical Governors § 1 FOR the better Governing of the Church of Christ in Truth Unity Uniformity and Peace Subordination of Clergy and for the easier suppressing of all Errors and Divisions and for rendring all the Church of God tho dispers'd thro several Dominions but one visible compacted Society we find anciently these Subordinations of superior Clergy 1. Presbyters 2. Bishops 3. Metropolitans and amongst Metropolitans Primates 4. Patriarchs and amongst these Patriarchs a Primate § 2 Of these Patriarchs in the first General Council of Nice held A. D. 325. there were only Three call'd Three Patriarchs only at the first at the first by the common name of Metropolitants tho with a distinct authority from the rest Then by the name of Primates 2. Gen. Con. Const can 2.5 this name also being common to some others Afterward by the name of Patriarchs Conc. Chalc. Act. 3. 8 Gen. Conc. can 10 Neither was this name tho most frequently always applied only to the Patriarchs of the first Sees But we find in the East the Primates of Asia minor Pontus Thrace and many others to the number of nine or ten call'd by Socrates who writ in the fifth Age Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 8. Patriarchs call'd so as well as by the name of Primates in respect of some other Bishops or also Metropolitans subject to them yet which Patriarchs had also a subordination and subjection to some of these prime or major Patriarchs of whom we here speak as appears in the Church-History and especially in Conc. Chalced. Act. and Act. 16. And we find also in the West after A. D. 500. several Primates in France Italy Spain call'd Patriarchs as the Primate of Aquileia Gradus Lions see Conc. Matiscon 2. in praefat Priscus Episcopus Patriarcha dixit c. See Greg. Turon 5. hist 10. Paul Diacon l. 2. c. 12. Greg. Epist l. 11. ep 54. yet over whom the Roman Bishop the major Patriarch of the West exercis'd a superiority and Patriarchal jurisdiction both before and after that we read this name given to them as will appear hereafter in this discourse and more particularly in the matter of the Letters of Leo and Gregory and other Popes written upon several occasions to divers of them This I note to you that the commonness of the name may not seem to infer an equality of the authority Now to go forward § 3. n. 1. The first of these the Bishop of Rome The first and chief of these was the Bishop of Rome whose Patriarchship the Bishop of Derry Vind. Ch. Eng. c. 5. p. 62. and Dr. Hammond of schism c. 3. p. 51 52. following Ruffinus Eccl. Hist l. 1. c. 6. one less to be credited in this matter because by the Bishop of Rome formerly excommunicated see Anstasius 1. ad Johan Hierosol make very narrow and much inferior to that of the two other Patriarchs whereof one had subjected unto him all Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and the other all Syria and the Oriental Churches allowing to the Bishop of Rome only regiones suburbicarias in the Eastern parts of Italy and the Islands of Sicily Sardinia The extent of his Patriarchate and Corsica near adjoining to it But over these Churches that Bishop might have some more immediate superintendency and Metropolitan or Primat-ship contradistinct to other Metropolitans as to that of Millan c. So the Primat of all England hath yet a particular superintendency over one Diocess more than over the rest of which more particular superintendency over the regiones suburbicariae as he was their Primate or Metropolitan Ruffinus seems to speak and perhaps the 6th canon of Nice Mos antiquus perduret in Aegypto vel Lybia Pentapoli ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habet potestatem quoniam quidem Episcopo Romano parilis mos est Similiter autem apud Antiochiam caeterasque Provincias honor suus unicuique servetur Ecclesiae may be thought partly to intend it for which consider those words in that 6th Canon caeterasque Provincias compared with Concilium Constantinopolitan 2. Can. and Conc. Ephes 8. can Yet do not these Canons therefore abrogate and superior rights of any Bishop quae prius atque ab initio sub illius seu antecessorum suorum fuerit potestate to use the phrase of the forementioned 8th Canon of Ephesus but confirm them not only the Metropolitan but also whatever Patriarchal Rights they held formerly as appears in those first words of the 6th Nicene Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which see more below § 19. from which the Roman Primacy was both urged by Paschasius a Legat of the See Apostolick in the 4th General Council and also acknowledged by the Council in their Epistle to Leo. See below § 25 n. 2. And again on the other side as Bellarmin de Rom. Pontif. 2. l. 18. c. observes the Pope's being Caput Ecclesiae universae supposing him to be so in some general way of superintendency or for some particular acts and offices as suppose for receiving appeals deciding controversies between the chief Governors of the Churches admitting them to and deposing them from their places obliging them pro tempore with his decrees hinders not but that he may be also a Patriarch a Metropolitan a Bishop in respect of some other more immediate super-intendencies and offices divers from the former which he doth actually exercise over some particular Church or Churches but doth not so over others or which also he cannot exercise over the whole as he doth over those particular Churches as suppose for ordaining the inferior Bishops and Presbyters and hearing their causes personally officiating in the Word and Sacraments receiving and distributing the Ecclesiastical revenue thereof c. Nor again e converso as Cardinal Perron in answer to K. James observes doth his governing only the Roman Province as their Metropolitan or only Italy as their Primate hinder that he should govern the West also as their Patriarch Nor again doth his governing the West as their Patriarch because he was Bishop of Rome the chiefest city of the West hinder that he may not also as S. Peter and S. Paul's Successor there to one of whom the Jew and to the other the Gentiles were committed Gal. 2.7 9. have some special superintendency over all the Church Jew and Gentile I know § 3. n. 2. it is earnestly pleaded by Bishop Bramhal Vind. 8. c. p. 251. and Rep. to S.W. 10. s. p. 69. That to have an universal Headship over the Church and to have a
the are a part and to their own But when these three titles are pretended by three several persons but one of them can stand in force Or if any one will say that possession can never relate save only to one single title yet if this be granted that there may be several titles inherent in the same person of which the one failing the possession may still justly relate to another And will come to one namely this That no other can dispossess this person unless he first prove not only one but all his titles faulty Thus much that a Primatship a Patriarchiship and an Universal Headship may be well consistent in one person This rub being removed now to go on But tho the fore-nam'd Writers much straiten the Bishop of Rome's jurisdiction § 3. n. 4. and make his Primateship and Patriarchship both one yet Balsamon in his Explication of the Nicene Canons and Nilus in his Book against the Primacy no great Friends to the Greatness of Rome looking upon that authority which he always exercis'd over the other Metropolitans of the West of which more hereafter besides that which he had over his own more particular Suburbican Diocess do enlarge this his Patriarchship to all the West Quoniam Romanus Episcopus praeest Occidentalibus Provinciis saith Balsamon Balsamon and Nilus interpret the words of the Nicene Decree saith Dr. Field l. 5. c. 31. that the Bishop of Alexandria shall have the charge of Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis and the Confirming of the Metropolitans in those parts because the Bishop of Rome who hath care of the West Confirmeth the Metropolitans of the West And before these Zomaras a Greek Writer likewise on Conc. Sard. can 5. granteth the more Westernly of the Eastern Provinces at that time to have belong'd to the Roman Church To the Roman Church saith he were the subject all the Western Churches namely those of Macedonia Thessalia Illyricum Epirus which were afterward subjected to the Church of Constantinople And likewise Dr. Field being press'd with many instances not denyable concerning the Bishop of Rome's authority most anciently exercis'd over the Bishops not only of Spain France Africk c. in the West but also of some parts of Greece Thebes Thessalonica Corinth c. in the East whereby they endeavour'd to prove his Universal Vicaria Headship over all the Church is glad to plead That the Roman Bishop used such authority not as Head of all the Church but as Patriarch of the West embracing Balsamon's opinion and proving out of Cusanus that such places as are urged by the Romanists do belong to the Roman Patriarchship Which Patriarchship the other Doctors labouring to straiten how they will avoid another Universal Super-intendentship of the same Bishop urg'd by the Roman party I see not See Field l. 5. c. 37. p. 551. c. 38. p. 560. c. 39. p. 570. and p. 568. where he hath these words Appeals of ancient time wont to be made out of France to Rome no way prove the Bishop of Rome to be Universal Bishop unless we will acknowledg every one of the Patriarchs to have been so too it being lawful to appeal unto them out of any the remotest Provinces subject to them And c. 38. p. 560. where Dr. Field confesseth that Leo who liv'd in the time of the fourth General Council constituted Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica his Vicegerent for the parts thereabouts as others his Predecessors had done former Bishops of that Church which saith he causing great resort thither upon divers occasions may be thought to have been the reason why the Council of Sardica Can 20. provideth that the Clergy-men of other Churches shall not make too long stay at Thessalonica this Council of Sardica was about twenty years after that of Nice So the same Leo made Potentius the Bishop his Vicegerent in the parts of Africa Hormisda Bishop of Rome about ann 500. Salustius Bishop of Hispalis in Baetica and Lusitania and Gregory Virgilius Bishop of Arles in the Regions of France all these places being within the compass of the Patriarchship of Rome And the same may be said of the Bishop of Justiniana prima who was appointed the Bishop of Rome's Vicegerent in those parts upon signification of the Emperor's will and desire that it should be so Thus he To this I will add the testimony of Innocent I. Bishop of Rome in St. Austin's time who Epist 1. Decentio Episcopo Eugubino prescribing some Roman Orders to be observ'd in the Western Churches there gives a more particular reason of their obedience to observe the Rules and Customs of the Roman See namely their conversion to Christianity by it Quis enim nesciat saith he aut non advertat id quod a Principe Apostolorum Petro Romanae ecclesiae traditum est ac nunc usque custoditur ab omnibus debere servari c. praesertim cum sit manifestum in omnem Italiam Gallias Hispanias Aphricam atque Siciliam insulasque interiacentes nullum instituisse Ecclesias nisi eos quos venerabilis Apostolus Petrus aut ejus successores constituerunt sacerdotes c. And afterward he saith Quibus i.e. Decentius his proposals idcirco respondimus non quod te aliqua ignorare credamus sed ut majori authoritate vel tuos instituas vel si qui a Romanae ecclesiae institutionibus errant aut commoneas aut indicare i. e. to the Bishop of Rome non differas ut scire valeamus qui sint qui aut novitates inducunt aut alterius ecclesiae quam Romanae existimant consuetudinem esse servandam The sufficiency of the reason given here I will not now dispute but this appears that over all those Churches he then exercis'd some authority And see below § 23. and elsewhere many instances of the Roman Bishops authority exercis'd over the Bishops of France of Spain and other Western Provinces before the sitting of the first Council of Nice to all which therefore and not only to the regiones suburbicariae must the 6th Nicene Canon Mos antiquus perduret be extended § 4 Thus much of the first Patriarch The second was the Bishop of Alexandria The second the Bishop of Alexandria containing under his Patriarchship all the Archbishops and Bishops of Egypt and Lybia § 5 The third of Antioch containing under him all the Archbishops and Bishops of the East The third the Bishop of Antioch and amongst the rest the Bishop of Jerusalem whose Metropolitan as also of all Palestine was the Bishop of Caesarea But he subject to the Antiochian Patriarch See Hierom's Epistle to Pammachius against John Bishop of Jerusalem Ni fallor hoc ibi i. e. in Concilio Niceno ut Palestinae Metropolis Caesarea sit totius Orientis Antiochia Aut igitur ad Caesariensem Archiepiscopum referre debueras cui spreta communione tua communicare nos noveras aut si procul expetendum judicium erat Antiochiam potius literae dirigendae § 6 And these
reformare judicia quae putabantur Romam esse deferenda leviora absolvere graviora Domino Papae referre Thus He. And indeed § 20. n 2. frequent examples there are of the Bishop of Rome's using a judicial authority in some maters over the chiefest members of the Universal Church Frequent examples of wronged both Bishops and Patriarchs appealing and repairing unto him for redress even in early times when his power is said to have bin so great Which redress he afforded them By summoning their adversaries also tho under another Patriarchat to appear before him By examining their cause and declaring them innocent by and with his own Patriarchal Council or with so many Bishops as could well be conven'd if the cause were of moment By allowing and retaining them in his communion By declaring the proceedings and acts of their adversaries when discover'd by him to be against the former Ecclesiastical Canons null and void Whilst He as the prime Bishop of the world seemed to have a superintendency in the interval of General Councils for the observation of the Ecclesiastical Canons established by former Synods not only if we may judge by the practice of those ancient and holy Bishops of Rome over his own Patriarchat but over the whole Church of which see more § 21. and 25. c. by writing to other Patriarchs and Synods to do the same and to permit them quietly to enjoy their Dignities by pronouncing the sentence of Excommunication upon refractory offenders tho it were those of the highest Dignity see below § 23. n. 5 6. § 25 c. And lastly if the greatness of the cause and of the opposition and their non-acquiescence in his judgment so required by calling other Bishops of what Dignity soever before him and his Council or by citing a General Council for their relief See Dr. Field l. 5. c. 35. p. 536 538. Now why such repair was made to him and such primacy and power given him beyond all other Bishops by ancient Church-custom and Canons whether from the Dignity of the imperial City where he was Bishop or whether from St. Peter and St. Paul's last residence in this their most eminent seat and Martyrdom there leaving the Regiment of the Church of God which they both finally exercis'd in this place in that Bishop's hands when they died for some reason there must be that Antiquity so specially applied Sedes Apostolica when-as many others were so too to that See beyond all others and that the Appealants and others made their honourable addresses to it not as Sedes Imperialis for such addresses to Rome ceased not to be still when the Emperor 's chief residence was in the East but as Sedes Apostolica or whether for both these for both these are compatible enough it little concerns me to examine Only de facto such honour and respect to be given him is most evident So those famous Worthies of the Church amongst others Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria Paulus and Chrysostom Bishops of Constantinople and Theodoret a Bishop in Syria when oppressed at home appeal'd to the Bishop of Rome with his Western Synods see Field l. 5. c. 39. p. 570. In which Appeals what the Pope's power in those times was accounted to be and what interest his Authority challeng'd in respect of the Eastern parts of the Church I think you will remain partly well satisfied notwithstanding the great contests in this matter if you please to read these quotations which travelling thro by five or six of the first Ages with some trouble to my self I have transcribed to save your pains lest perhaps you should not have the opportunity or the leisure or at least the curiosity to seek them in their several Authors Wherein yet I could wish if you seriously seek satisfaction in this matter you would review them I being forc'd for avoiding further tediousness to omit many circumstances § 21 See the testimony of the Ecclesiastical Historians The seventh Chapter of the third Book of Sozomen This power exemplified in the primitive times to the end of the 6 Age the days of Gregory the Great extending to § 36. who liv'd in the fifth Age contemporary to St. Leo where concerning Paulus Bishop of Constantinople and Athanasius Patriarch of Alexandria their repair to the Bishop of Rome Julius he saith Cum propter Sedis dignitatem cura omnium ad ipsâ—m spectaret singulis suam Ecclesiam restituit scripsitque ad Episcopos Orientis eosque incusavit c. deditque mandatum ut quidam illorum omnium nomine ad diem constitâ—tum accederent Quinetiam minatus est se de reliquo non passurum c. The 11th Chapter of the second Book of Socrates where he saith Julius Bishop of Rome sent Letters to the Oriental Bishops c. quoniam Ecclesia Romana privilegium praeter caeteras obtinebat and that Paulus and Athanasius ad suas ipsorum EcclesiaÌ„s redibant literis Julâ—â— confisi concerning which priviledg we have less reason to rely on the judgment of those Arrian Bishops opposing and scoffing at them than on the orthodox Paulus and Athanasius acknowledging and seeking relief from them See the second Apology of Athanasius against the Arrians wherein he saith Judicatum est non semel secundum nos sed saepius ac saepius primum quidem in nostra Provincia c. Secundo Romae nobis caeterisque adversariis Eusebii ad ejus criminosas literas in judicio comparentibus Fuere autem in eo consensu plures quam 50 Episcopi the Pope with 50 of his Western Bishops hearing his cause The Epistle of Julius to the Oriental Bishops assembled at Antioch written before the Council of Sardica and so before the 7th Canon thereof was compos'd and publish'd by Athanasius in that his second Apology wherein are such passages as these unto them Quum iidem illi those sent from the Eastern Bishosp authores mihi fuerunt ut vos convocarem certe id a vobis aegre ferri non debuit sed potius alacriter ad citationem occurrere Cur igitur in primis de Alexandrina civitate nihil nobis scribere voluistis An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut hinc quod justum est definiri possit qua propter si istic hujusmodi suspicio in Episcopum concepta fuerat id huc ad nostram Ecclesiam referri oportuit Quae accepimus a Beato Petro Apostolo ea vobis significo And the same thing which Julius mentions here An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse c. and before it Oportuit secundum Canonem non isto modo judicium fieri c. is also found urg'd by Innocentius amongst S. Austin's Epistles Ep. 91. Quod illi i. e. Patres non humana sed divina decrevere sententia ut quicquid de disjunctis remotisque Provinciis ageretur non prius ducerent finiendum nisi ad hujus sedis notitiam perveniret
ubi tot a hujus authoritate justa quae fuerit pronunciatio firmaretur indeque sumerent caeterae Ecclesiae velut de natali suo fonte c. and mention'd in Socrates l. 2. c. 13. Canonibus nimirum jubentibus proeter Romanum nihil decerni Pontificem and in Sozomen l. 3. c. 9. Concerning which Canon much stood upon § 22. n 1. A Digression concerning the meaning of that ancient Canon Sine Romano Pontifice nihil finiendum give me leave to dilate a little before I produce any more Authorities Nothing say some of great consequence for the Vnity and Communion of the Church or also which should universally oblige to be concluded without him that is without his knowledg or without asking his consent So Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 7. s. 8. ut absente Romano Episcopo universale de religiose decretum non fiat siquidem interesse non recuset The same saith Dr. Field p. 651. No not only so for this as Bellarmin replies will signifie no more privilege to this See than any other Patriarch had and why canonically and singularly is that granted to one which is common to all In the second place therefore Nothing to be concluded by Councils without him i. e. without his giving his consent For in this sense and not only in the former Julius and the Roman Bishops urg'd it and that anciently it was taken in this sense is shew'd by the frequent Appeals of Bishops and Patriarchs to the Bishop of Rome not so to others for redress from the Decrees of Councils and those Councils some of them in some sense General as the second Ephesin Council General for the meeting but not for the vote since neither the Roman Patriarch nor his Legates nor the Western Bishops did vote with them when they thought themselves injur'd thereby So Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople see Leo Epist 23. ad Theodosium Quia nostri fideliter reclamarunt eisdem libellum appellationis Flavianus Episcopus dedit And Conc. Chalced. Act. 3. and Theodoret appeal'd to him from the second Ephesin Council which sided with Eutyches So Athanasius and Paulus and Chrysostom from several and numerous Eastern Councils Without his giving his consent then nothing of moment stood firm But thirdly Without his giving his consent indeed but so amply understood as that this his consent involve also that of all the Western Bishops of his Patriarchy few of which excepting the Pope's Legates could be personally present at those remote Councils of the East or of so many of them as he could conveniently call to Council against whom it was presum'd he would do nothing as a person standing wholly singular and universally dissented from for these making so considerable a part of the Church and as it seems by that passage in the Epistle of the Eastern Bishops to Julius Sozomen l. 3. c. 7. esteem'd more numerous than the East it was most unreasonable that any thing of moment and worthy the cognizance of a General Council amongst which this was one removing Bishops of note from their Seats or from the Communion of the Church which might cause great Schisms should stand in force without their approbation And upon this that Canon of Chalcedon advancing the Bishop of Constantinople so much urg'd justly could have no force till afterward it was condescended to by the Bishops of Rome because as not he so neither the Western Bishops allow'd it Neither upon this could the fifth Constantinopolitan Council be justly call'd General no more than the 2d Ephesin Council which being never confirm'd was never accounted such when-as neither the Bishop of Rome nor his Legates nor his Western Bishops would be present therein upon a difference between them and the Orientals not de fide wherein both sides agreed but de personis Theodorus Theodoret and Iba until it was afterward confirm'd also by the Pope and his Western Party not long after the ending thereof because they found it not so injurious to the Council of Chalcedon as was at first fear'd in like manner as the first Constantinopolitan Council where none of the West was present was counted the 2d General Council from such a post-confirmation of the West See what is said below § 25 n. 3. and § 26. But perhaps we may ascend yet a step higher 4. Nothing to be concluded by General Councils without his giving his single personal consent § 22. n. 2. tho both Western and Eastern Churches were all united in their vote yet I think it cannot be shewed that the Roman Bishop ever opposed such an universal Vote where his Western Bishops were joyned with the East against him by reason of the dignity and primacy of his See For so it was thought fit to be ordered by ancient Canons concerning Metropolitans in respect of their particular Provinces that nothing may be done without them see Conc. Antioch can 9. and Apostol Can. 35. c. and the reason given Sic enim unanimitas erit and so t is ordered concerning Princes and their Parliaments for the more peaceable government of States and why may not this Canon have the same meaning for St. Peter's chair in respect of General Councils Especially since it is not denied That as they can conclude nothing without him so neither might He without Them i.e. in the time of their sitting or assembly do any thing which was obligatory to the whole Church He may indeed in the interval of Councils take care of the due observance of former Ecclesiastical Canons and perhaps also for the present peace of the Church see § 18. and below § 34. decide dubious matters upon appeals made to him for the peace of the Church till such Council meet for t is both necessary in general that some standing supreme Tribunal there be where in the vacancies of General Synods Suits should be finally terminated and also the practice of Appeals from all parts of the Church for matters of moment to Rome do shew his in particular to be that Tribunal So Metropolitans also do act single when their Provincial Councils are not convened who in time of those Councils may act nothing without their concurrence But yet when a General Council sits it may upon mature deliberation reverse any thing he hath done without it correct any error he hath committed neither do his laws prescribe to it To which purpose hear what S. Austin saith Epistle 162. in a judgment given against the Donatists before the Nicen Council by the Roman and some other Bishops Ecee putemus illos Episcopos qui Romae judicarunt non bonos judices fuisse restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae universae Concilium Nicaenum ubi etiam cum ipsis Judicibus causa possit agitari si male judicare convicti essent eorum sententiae solverentur Solverentur therefore till such Council such sentence was obliging The issue therefore of such mutually limited power is only this which can neither damage the Churches doctrine
communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio Quicunque extra hanc domum agnum comederit profanus est c. Ideo hic colleg as tuos Aegyptios Confessores sequor communicating with them Non novi Vitalem Meletium respuo ignoro Paulinum There being much division and distraction in the Church of Antioch under which St. Hierom liv'd between Meletius and Paulinus successively Bishops thereof and Vitalis a Presbyter Cui apud Antiochiam debeam communicare significes decernite si placet obsecro non timebo tres Hypostases dicere si jubetis And in the second Epistle In tres partes scissa Ecclesia ad se rapere me festinat Ego interim clamito si quis Cathedrae Petri jungitur meus est Meletius Vitalis atque Paulinus every one of them tho of several tenents tibi haerere se dicunt possum credere si unus only one of them hoc assereret nunc vero aut duo aut omnes mentiuntur Idcirco obtestor ut mihi literis tuis apud quem in Syria debeam communicare significes Thus S. Hierom. To which Bellarmin adds Erasmus a moderate man his comment upon it videri sibi Hieronymum his verbis asserere omnes Ecclesias subjectas esse Apostolicae Sedi At least it seems in times of schisms and divisions this Father thought it for the season mention'd the safest way to adhere to the Rom. See yet speaks he not of the B. of Rome as judging singly whom he thought liable to Heresie saying in catalogo Scriptorum some such thing of Liberius subscribing Arrianism tho indeed much apology may be made for Liberius in this matter yet not such as can free him from all fault he subscribing only and that when he was tired out with banishment and other cruelties the Sirmian Creed which only omitted Consubstantialis see Part 2. § 41. but of him join'd with his Council or with his Western Bishops Therefore he saith apud vos solos c. and Decernite si placet obsequor c. Therefore the more strict vindicators of the Roman inerrability in matters of Faith take not the Bishop thereof singly and unsynodically as his private judgment may inform or passions incline him especially upon some violence and terrors used as in Liberius it was but as assisted with his Council he weigheth judgeth and defineth such matters see Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 2 3 4. in a time when a General Council is not nor cannot so conveniently be had In which intervals it may be presum'd Christ is not wanting to the supremest Guide of the Church using what helps he hath at hand considering what he saith Mat. 18.19 20. And Dr. Field in answer to these places of Hierom p. 547. goes thus far Thirdly we say it is more than probable that the whole Western Church shall never lose or forsake the true profession and therefore he may truly be judg'd a prophane person that eateth the Paschal Lamb out of the Communion of the same tho sometimes the Bishop of Rome in person be an Heretick other of his Collegues continuing faithful But then I ask according to this when-as not none at all or a few but most of his Western Collegues are join'd with the Bishop of Rome in which Communion no instance in Antiquity can shew him to have been Heretical and only a few in the West divided from him which will seem safest to those who will be guided by authority in St. Hierom's opinion to adhere to Cathedra Petri or the Cathedra elsewhere opposing it As for what is urg'd by Dr. Field ibid. out of St. Hierom Epist ad Evagrium to counterbalance these of a deprav'd custom in Rome when-as this was no way patroniz'd by any Episcopal Constitution and of his holding Presbyters and Bishops and again Bishops of Alexandria and Tanais ejusdem meriti sacerdotit when-as he meaneth ratione ordinis not jurisdictionis or jure divino not ecclesiastico for so he saith in the same Epistle Quod postea unus electus est qui caeteris praeponeretur in schismatum remedium factum est Factum est i. e. by the Apostles or the Councils which sufficiently justifies his allowance of and submission to Patriarchal authority These places seem to me of no force to null or to qualifie his former expressions to Damasus See Optatus who disputes thus l. 2. against the schismatical Donatist Bishops Videndum est qui ubi prior Cathedrâ sederet Negare non potes scire te in Vrbe Roma Petro primo Cathedram Episcopalem esse collatam in qua una Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur ne caeteri Apostoli singulas Cathedras sibi quisque defenderent ut jam schismaticus peccator esset qui contra singularem Cathedram .i. e. Petri alteram collocaret Ergo Cathedra unica sedit prior Petrus cui successit Linus Lino Clemens c. Damasus Damaso Siricius hodie qui noster est socius Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in una communionis societate concordant Vestrae Cathedrae vos originem reddite Sed habere vos in urbe Roma partem aliquam dicitis Quid est hoc quod pars vestra in urbe Roma Episcopum civem habere non potuit Vnde est quod claves regni vobis usurpare contenditis qui contra Cathedram Petri vestris praesumptionibus audaciis sacrilegio militatis Probatum est nos esse in Ecclesia sancta Catholica apud quos symbolum Trinitatis est per Cathedram Petri quae nostra est caeteras dotes apud nos esse etiam Sacerdotium c. I hope none will say that Optatus argues thus because St. Peter's Chair happen'd in his times to be orthodox but because he took it for granted that it must be orthodox and so all the Churches join'd to it because St. Peter's Chair See Damasus Epist 5. ad Africanos § 23. n. 3. Instituta esse majorum ut cuncta quae possit aliquam recipere dubitationem ad nos quasi ad caput ut semper fuit consuetudo deferre non dubitetis Of whom thus Spalatensis l. 7. c. 5. n. 23. Ex non Apocryphis Damasum primum observo qui talis sui privilegii metionem fecit ipsum vero ad sola majorum instituta refert See the Epistle of Siricius Bishop of Rome A. D. 389 to the Metropolitan Bishop of Tarracon in Spain c. 15. Explicuimus ut arbitror Frater charissime universa quae digesta sunt in querelam ad singulas causas de quibus ad Romanam Ecclesiam utpote ad caput sui corporis retulisti sufficientia quatuor opinor responsa reddidimus Nunc fraternitatis tuae animum ad servandos canones tenenda decretalia constituta magis ac magis invitamus ut haec in omnium coepiscoporum nostrorum perfâ—rri facias notionem ad universos Carthaginenses atque Baeticos Lusitanos atque Gallicos c. See the
the Eastern Bishops at Antioch judged or excommunicated Julius the Bishop of Rome who communicated with Athanasius they might justly have incurred the like censure Neither could they justly say so as they do in their Epistle to Him inter decreta Julii if it be not forged contraria celebrabimus vobiscum deinceps nec congregari nec vobis obedire volumus sed per nos quicquid melius elegerimus agere conabimur nor urge the 5. Can. of Nice against him supposing his a superior Court. He proceeds That no other particular Church or See may judge the Church of Rome seeing every other See is inferior to it but that the See of Rome i. e. the Bishops of Rome and the Bishops of the West may judge and examine the differences c but neither so peremptorily nor finally but that such judgment may be reviewed and re-examined and revers'd in a General Council Let this be agreed-to but I ask Is it no power that this See hath over the rest because this power is subordinated to a General Council But if it be granted to have the supremest power next to that of a General Council then when no General Council is in being is it not actually pro tempore the supremest and do not its determinations stand good and oblige till a General Council be assembled Else what will this mean which the Dr. saith The first See must judge and examine the differences of all others but none it if it judging and examining none are bound to submit or obey And from this namely that the first may judge i. e. excommunicate for this is the thing which is meant by judging above in the case of John Antioch and Dioscorus Alexand. inferior thrones not they it it will appear that the excommunications of the first See are either authoritative and privative in respect of other Sees i. e. rejecting them from the communion of the Church Catholick or if they are negative only i. e. withdrawing her self only from the communion of others of which two sorts of excommunication see Dr. Field 5. l. 38. c. p. 558. Bishop of Derry's vindicat 8. c. that no other Church may use a negative excommunication towards the first See i.e. may not withdraw themselves from the communion thereof but only it may do so toward others For some excommunication is granted here to die first See toward others which others have not towards it I ask therefore John Antoch excommunicating the second See and Dioscorus Alexand. excommunicating the first disallowed by two General Councils was it negative only by way of Christian caution or privative and authoritative by way of Jurisdiction Take which you will yet t is clear both by the Councils and Dr. Field's concession that in such manner the second or third See might not excommunicate the first and that in such manner the first might excommunicate the second or third But indeed it is manifest That the excommunication both of John and Dioscorus was authoritative neither would they have presumed singly to have done it but as having a party of a Council of other Bishops who were not subject to them joined with them Yet thus also were they by the Oecumenical Synods censured for making themselves heads of a Council against their Superiors the second and first See And as manifest it is that the Bishop of Rome's censures were authoritative many times deposing as well as excommunicating Bishops not under the jurisdiction of his Patriarchy as also John Antioch deposed Cyril Alexand. As for Dr. Field's very cautiously every where joining the Western Bishops with the Bishops of the first See in his exercising such judgment over other Sees he must either mean the Bishops of his ordinary Council and such others as according to the exigent he can conveniently advise with which may be conceded to Dr. Field or he must mean all the Bishops of the West assembled in a Patriarchal Council But if so their ordinary practice anciently in judging such appeals and causes shews it was otherwise and reason tells us it could not be thus unless so great a body could be so often convened as such appeals were necessary to be terminated Thus much of Dr. Field's answers Now to go on in our quotations out of Leo. See his Epistle to Dioscorus Bishop of Alexandria §25 n. 1. Quod a Patribus nostris propensiore cura novimus esse servatum a vobis quoque volumus custodiri ut non passim diebus omnibus Sacerdotalis ordinatio celâ—bretur sed mane ipso die Dominico Vt in omnibus observantia nostra concordet illud quoque volumus custodiri ut cum solennior sestivitas Conventum populi numerosioris indixerit sacrificii oblatio indubitanter iteretur Epistle 46. to Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople written to him about receiving some Bishops and others in the East followers of Eutyches and Dioscorus upon their penitence to the peace of the Church Licet sperem dilectionem tuam ad omne opus bonum esse devotam ut tamen efficacior tua fieri possit industria necessarium congruum fuit fratres meos Lucentium Episcopum Basilium Presbyterum ut promisimus destinare quibus tua dilectio societur ut nihil in his quae ad Vniversalis Ecclesiae statum pertinent aut dubie agatur aut segniter cum residentibus vobis quibus executionem nostrae dispositionis injunximus ea possint agi cuncta moderation c. De his autem qui in hac causa gravius peccavere si forte resipiscunt horum satisfactio maturioribus Apostolicae Sedis Conciliis reservetur ut examinatis omnibus c quid constitui debeat aestimetur And afterward Si de aliquibus amplius fuerit deliberandum celeriter ad nos relatio dirigatur ut pertractata qualitate causarum nostra quid observari debeat solicitudo constituat And see the Rescript of the Emperour Valentinian the Third quoted by Baron Anno 445. inter Novel Theod. tit 24. in the time of Leo a little before the Council of Chalcedon sent to Aelius his Vicegerent in France about quieting the difference between the Archbishops of Arles and Vienna after that the cause upon appeal had bin decided by Leo against Arles Wherein the Emperour hath these words Cum Sedis Apostolicae primatum S. Petri mâ—ritum sacra etiam Synodi firmarit authoritas ne quid praeter authoritatem Sedis illius inlicitum praesumptio attentare nitatur hinc enim demum Ecclesiarum pax ubique servabitur si Rectorem suum agnoscat Vniversitas Haec cum hactenus inviolabiliter fuerint constituta Hilarius contumaci ausu c. His talibus per ordinem religiosi viri urbis Papae cognitione discussis certa in eundem Hilarium lata sententia est Et erat ipsa quidem sententia per Gallias etiam sine Imperiali sanctione valitura Sed nostram quoque praeceptionem haec ratio provocavit ne ulterius cuiquam Ecclesiasticis rebus arma miscere as it
visa fuerit non eis obsit quod contra honores eorum in transmarino Concilio statutum est Then contracting what is formerly said they conclude thus id est ut ordinati in parte Donati si ad Catholicam correcti transire voluerint non suscipiantur in honoribus suis secundum transmarinum Concilium exceptis his per quos Catholicae unitati consuletur Now some difference there is between their writing to the Pope and the Bishops of the former Council ne obsit for some and maneat for the rest and their decreeing against the Pope and that Council ne obfuerit for any Now this close is thus English'd by the Doctor our of Balsamon That they that have bin Ordain'd on the part of the Donatists shall not be proceeded with according to the transmarine Synod but shall the rather be receiv'd as those that take care for the Catholick Unity How well I leave to your judgment § 36 The Protestants ordinary Replies to these to me seeming not satisfactory Now to these several instances which I have drawn out of the primitive times the answers which are usually made by some for you must expect that nothing is said by any side which is not reply'd to by the other are such as these That such places as speak of the Primacy and Principality of the Roman Bishop speak only of that of Order and Dignity not of Power or Authority Apostolicae Cathedrae Principatus i. e. say they quoad dignitatem non quoad potestatem Rector domus Dei Ecclesiae Catholicoe or universalis Episcopus i.e. say they Vnus erectoribus domus Dei unus ex Episcopis c. That such places as mention appeals to the Bishop of Rome speak of them as made to him non ut ad Judicem sed ut ad ejusdem fidei fautorem ut ejusdem fidei professores in communionem suam admitteret non ob aliquam jurisdicendi authoritatem sed ob amicam communionis ejusdem societatem That the like addresses were made to other Patriarchs and Bishops for their communion and assistance as to him and that his Letters were requested and in behalf of sufferers directed to all parts of Chcistianity not by vertue of any authority he had to correct but by reason of the power he had from the reverence they gave to the dignity of his place every where to perswade That such places of Fathers or Councils as affirm that no publick affairs of the Church may be transacted without the Bishop of Rome are not appropriate therefore only to him but verified as much of the rest of the Patriarchs as of him That those places which mention his censuring excommunicating deposing Clergy that were not under his own Patriarchy speak not of any authoritative or privative excommunication to use the Bishop of Derry's expression Vind. c. 8. by way of jurisdiction excluding such from the communion of Christ but only of a negative in the way of Christian discretion by with-drawing him or his from communion with them for fear of infection for declaring his non-currence with or countenancing of their fault c. There being great difference as Dr. Field observes p. 558. between excommunication properly so nam'd or authoritatively forbidding all men to communicate with such and such and the rejecting only of them from our communion and fellowship And I also confess and grant such negations of communicating with others anciently used and amongst rest used also by the Bishop of Rome who often prohibited his Legates and others from communicating with some other Bishop as with the Bishop of Constantinople when he used the stile of Vniversalis or from going to and being present at their celebration of Divine Service when he did not excommunicate the other nay when also he admitted the ministers of the other and those who communicated with the other to come to his communion and celebration of Divine Service See Gregory 6. l. 31. Ep. to Eulogius and Anastasius indulging this to those who were sent from Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople to him But that all the Bishops excommunications of those without his Patriarchy were only such this is the thing denied That the like may be said of his confirming or restoring his fellow-Bishops that it was done not by way of forensical justice but fraternal approbation and that all other Patriarchs used excommunicating deposing acquitting and restoring in the same manner allowing or withdrawing their communion from their fellow-Bishops as they saw fit and that they confirmed the Roman Bishop by their communicatory letters as he them Which things how well they agree with the above said forms of such Ecclesiastical censures and with other practices of the Roman Bishops towards others much differing from the practices of other Patriarchs either towards him or towards others how well they agree with the addresses made from both Church-governors and Councils upon differences and contentions in the Church to Rome addresses not used in the same manner to the other Patriarchs yet would have bin done equally to them also had all Patriarchs bin esteemed in their power equal especially how they agree with what is said § 24. and § 18. upon reviewing the instances I have given I leave to your judgment That the places which speak of his judging causes and inflicting such Ecclesiastical censures c speak not of him singly but as joined with his Western Bishops they meaning by this not some of his Western Bishops only whose assistance the Roman Bishop ordinarily useth in all his judgments but his whole Patriarchal Council That those places which do argue joining-with the Roman to be joinning with the Catholick communion see before § 23. n. 2. and n. 3. and § 32. as it must needs be that if God hath appointed any person or Council as a supreme Guide whom the rest ought to obey such members as do not obey cannot be Catholick are spoken only with respect to such a Roman Bishop at such a time who in their opinion held the true Profession and not that all the Roman Bishops at any time have or shall hold it those who made these expressions accounting the Roman Bishop orthodox and catholick because he then was of such a faith as they approved not the faith orthodox and catholick because it was the faith of the Roman Bishop or which he approved So Spalatensis in answer to the places produced out of S. Hierom. in 23. § saith 4. l. 10. c. 23. n. Quod Hieronymus Damaso hoc est Petri cathedrae consociari velit significat privilegium illius Cathedrae adhuc Hieronymi tempore vigens circa fidei puritatem and 88 n. Quasi dicat quia nunc not perpetuo in terris video Apostolicam doctrinam Romae maxime puram conservari ideo in his dissensionibus volo tibi adhaerere Which answer circularly makes him to judge first in what Church the true doctrine is who is to seek what Church to adhere to to be guided by it to
disliked repealed 2. That tho Metropolitan Synods in some times were not unfrequent yet Patriarchal Synods were never nor never well could be so nor find we any set times appointed for calling them as for calling the other so that as t is plain by many former instances that the Patriarch ordinarily did so t is all reason that he should decide some appeals without them tho in some cases extraordinary and of great consequence such Councils also were assembled 3. Since where they speak of the Metropolitans judging matters alone to have bin a practice only of latter times yet they allow this to be done upon very rational grounds observe that there were the same rational grounds of doing it anciently and again that the practice they justify for Metropolitans in latter times they have much more reason to allow to Patriarchs in all times because the greater the Councils are with the more trouble are they conven'd and lastly that the reformed Metropolitans themselves who blame the Bishop of Rome's managing Ecclesiastical affairs by himself alone i. e. without a Patriarchal Synod yet themselves think it reasonable to do the same thing themselves alone i. e. without their Provincial Synod authorizing their High-commission Court and blaming his Consistory Now what is allowed to Patriarchal proceedings without Councils in respect of appeals from their several Provinces the same it is that in the differences and contests of Patriarchs themselves and of other greater Bishops since it is meet for preserving the Church's peace and unity that some person or assembly should have the authority to decide these and since it is unreasonable and for the great trouble thereof not feisible that a General Council or also Patriarchal in all such differences should be assembled the same I say it is that by ancient custom and Ecclesiastical canons hath bin conferred on the Bishop of Rome with his Council tho granted liable to error He being more eminently honourable than the rest by reason of the larger extent of his Patriarchy of the great power and ancient renown of that City which in Spiritual matters he governed but especially of the two greatest Apostles Peter and Paul there ending their days in the government of that See and leaving him there the Successor of their power Yet is this office of supreme judicature so committed unto him that his judgments only stand in force till such a meeting and may be reviewed and where contrary to former canons reversed by it concerning which see the saying of S. Austin quoted before § 22. Restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesie universae Concilium c. and the saying of Zosimus quoted § 22. n. 2. and the Epistle of Gelasius quoted § 25. n. 3. and what is said § 22. Now all Metropolitan and Patriarchal authority in the intervals of Councils being limited to the execution of Conciliary Laws and Canons or at least to the acting nothing against them if the question be asked who shall judge whether so they do I answer none but a superior Council till which their judgment stands good For as I have largely shewed elsewhere if Litigants once may judge of this when their Judges judge rightly and not against the laws and accordingly may yeild or substract their obedience such obedience is arbitrary In civil Courts Princes or their Ministers are obliged to judge according to or not against the laws of the Kingdom may the litigant therefore reject their judgment when it seems to him contrary to these laws I believe not § 38. That it is schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power established by Ecclesiastical Canon and that no such power can be lawfully dissolved by the power Secular Thus much having bin said of the authority and jurisdiction given by Ecclesiastical constitutions and ancient customs and practice to some Ecclesiastical persons above others and amongst them supereminently above all the rest to the Roman Bishop and given to these persons not only as joined with Councils but as single Magistrates in the vacancy thereof in the next place these Propositions also I think must necessarily be granted First That whatever authority is thus setled upon any persons by the canons and customs of the Church concerning the managing of affairs not civil but meerly Spiritual and Ecclesiastical cannot be annulled and dissolved nor cannot be conferred contrary to the Church's constitutions on any other person by any Secular power neither by Heathen and unbelieving Princes who were enemies to the Church nor by Christian much less because these are in Spiritual matters Sons and Subjects of the Church and now obliged to obey her laws neither by the one who so might easily hinder the propagation of Christianity nor by the other who if happening at any time to be Heretical or Schismatical might easily hinder the profession of the Orthodox faith or disturb the Church's peace Thus Grotius a great Lawyer in Rivet Apol. discuss p. 70. Imperatorum Regum aliquod esse officium etiam circa res Ecclesiae in confesso est At non tale quale in saeculi negotiis Ad tutandos non ad violandos Canones jus hoc comparatum est Nam cum Principes filii sint Ecclesiae non debent vi in matrem uti Omne corpus sociale jus habet quaedam constituendi quibus membra obligentur hoc jus etiam Ecclesiae competere apparet Act. 15.28 Heb. 13.17 where he quotes Facundus saying of Martianus Cognovit ille quibus in causis uteretur Principis potestate in quibus exhiberet obedientiam Christiani And Obedite Praepositis etiam Regibus dictum See this discoursed more largely in Success Clerg § 64 65. 2. And further That it is Schism to deny obedience to any Ecclesiastical power so established and never since by the same Ecclesiastical laws reversed I say here concerning matters Ecclesiastical not Civil therefore let that Proposition of Dr. Hammond schism 6. c. p. 129. for me stand good That a Law tho made by a General Council and with the consent of all Christian Princes i. e. of that time yet if it have respect to a civil right may in this or that Nation be repealed i. e. by that Prince's Successors provided only That the ordaining or confirming of inferior Governors and Officers of the Church the assembling of Synods and decision of controversies of Religion the ordering Church-service and discipline the Ecclesiastical censures upon delinquents and the like for preventing or suppressing of Heresie Schism and Faction and for preserving the Church in unity of doctrine and practice Provided I say that such things be not reckoned amongst civil rights as they may not be because all these were things used by the Church under the heathen Emperors even against their frequent Edicts yet could they not have bin lawfully so used if any of these had encroached on civil rights in any of which civil rights the heathen Prince might claime as much lawful power to prohibit them as the Christian
can And because all these were continued to be used by the Church also under Christian Emperors without asking their leave to decree such things or subjecting them to their authority or depending on their consent only with humbly desiring their assistance yet so as without it resolv'd to proceed in the execution thereof as under Heathen as clearly appeared under the the Arian Emperors yet which thing she could not lawfully have done were any of these entrenching upon anothers right For example the 6th Canon of Nice and 5. Can. of Constant Council would have bin an usurpation of an unjust authority if the subordination of Episcopal Sees and erecting of Patriarchs had belonged to the Prince Upon the same grounds let also those instances collected by Bishop Bramhal Vindic. 7. c. of several Princes and States on many occasions opposing the Pope's authority stand good and be justified so far as he doth not shew these Secular powers to have opposed him in any right belonging to him by Church-canons in Ecclesiastical matters But if in any of those examples they are also found to oppose him in these the proving of such facts to have bin done justifies not their lawfulness to be done Tho also he confesseth that this fact of Hen. 8. in abolishing the usurped as he calls it jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome within his Dominions he cannot fellow abroad See what he saith Vindic. 7. c. p. 184. Neither do such facts as he urgeth to be done abroad hinder such Princes for living still in the external communion with the Church of Rome which facts he urgeth as a defence of the Reformed's necessary relinquishing this communion Again I said That no such Spiritual authority can he conferred or translated to others contrary to such Church Canons c. Else whenever it is not contrary to these Canons I grant that Inferior Councils or Church-governors or also Secular powers with their consent may change and alter many things both in respect of Ecclesiastical persons and affairs therefore many cases concerning the Kings of England with such consent of inferior Councils or Church-governors erecting or translating Bishopricks c. instanc'd in by D. Hammond or Bishop Bramhall are justifiable where any wore not contrary to the Laws of the Church i. e. of superior Councils but in any other examples where such Laws are transgressed either by the Prince or also by their particular Clergy the proving such facts to have bin done justifies not their lawfulness to be done tho such acts were done without any express or present controul Things being thus explain'd I say to give a particular instance of the former proposition No Prince or Emperor Heathen or Christian c. can for his own Dominions dissolve or abrogate the authority concerning Ecclesiastical affairs of those Patriarchs or Primates constituted or confirm'd in the 6th Canon of the Council of Nice the Church not commanding obedience to Patriarchs at random or to such as the Secular Prince should set over us but also nominating and constituting from time to time the Sees which had or should have such preeminence if these be since by no other General Council revers'd nor can any who by that Canon is subjected for instance to the Patriarch of Alexandria deny obedience in such Ecclesiastical matters to him without Schism tho his Secular Prince should command the contrary or subject him to another And if these things here said be true then also so far as the Bishop of Rome's Authority is found to be confirm'd in matters Spiritual by the Church's Canons and ancient custom over any Churches Provincial or National it will be Schism for any such Christian Prince or People to oppose it so long till the like Council reverseth it Hence to those three pretended rights of the Roman Bishop over the Church of England whereby Schism is said to be incurr'd mention'd by Dr. Hammond see Schism p. 138. namely his right 1. As St Peter's Successor or 2. By conversion of the Nation to Christianity or 3. By the voluntary concession of Kings I suppose I may add a 4th with his good leave namely his right by ancient Constitutions and Canons of the Church and may rightly affirm that if any such right could be prov'd the English Clergy must be Schismaticks in opposing it tho all the other pretences be overthrown For such a sort of Schism Dr. Hammond mentions p. 66. It may be observ'd indeed in our writers That they freely determine 1. That the Secular Prince hath a just external authority in Ecclesiastical affairs committed to him by God to enforce the execution of the Church's Canons upon all as well Clergy as Laity within his Dominions a thing denied by none 2. Again That the Secular Prince hath no internal Ecclesiastical authority delegated to him by God as to Administer the Sacraments to Absolve Excommunicate c. 3. Again That the Secular Prince hath no just authority to determine any thing concerning Divine Truths or perhaps other Ecclesiastical affairs without the Clergy's help and assistances But whether such Ecclesiastical Determinations or Laws are obligatory when the Prince makes these being assisted only with some small portion of the Clergy and oppos'd by the rest or also by a superior Council or Court Ecclesiastical Or whether the Prince against these provided that he have some lesser number of Clergy on his side may reverse former Canons or enact new to oblige the Clergy and Laity under his Dominion This they seem to me not freely to speak to most what to pass over and some of our later Writers when they are forc'd upon it rather to deny it And indeed neither is there any thing in the Oath of the King's Supremacy except it be in that general clause I will defend all Jurisdictions c. granted nor in the 37 Article of the Church of England which treats of the King's power in Ecclesiasticals that may seem to affirm or determine it For whereas the Oath in general makes the King only supreme Governor in Ecclesiasticals he may be so for some thing and yet not for every thing not therefore the supreme decider of all Divinity controversies And whereas the 34th Article expounds the Supremacy thus That he is to rule all estates and degrees committed to his charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil-doers All this he may do and yet be ty'd in all things to the Laws of the Church and to leave to the Church's sole judgment who are evil-doers or Heretical persons c. when any controversie ariseth in Divine matters about the lawfulness of some Practice or truth of some Tenet § 39 Now let us search therefore how far the concessions of Bishop Bramhall and Dr. Hammond may extend to the confirmation of the foresaid assertions The Concessions of B. Bramhall und of Dr. Hammond in this matter The Bishop Vindic. c. 8. p. 232. hath this proposition
things streight The Doctors proofs for what he saith are these § 44 The Emperor Justinian's erecting Justiniana Prima into a Patriarchate with independency on Rome and afterward Carthage to the like priviledges And the Emperor Valentinian's constituting Ravenna an independant and Patriarchal Seat To which instances see what I have said before in this Discourse § 30. and what authority the Western Patriarch exercised over the Doctor 's Patriarchs both after Justinian's days and before which argues either them not made Patriarchs in such an independency on any superior as the Doctor imagines or the Emperor's act disobey'd by the Western Patriarch as contrary to the Canons As for the reason he gives to secure the lawfulness thereof Answ to Schism Disarm'd p. 112. because never check'd at nor noted as an intrenchment on the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome that we discern or is pretended either by any Council or by any Bishops of the Church then living It seems many ways insufficient because if there be a Canon prohibiting it hence it will become unlawful and many things may be unlawfully done and yet not actually question'd and condemn'd And again may be condemn'd and yet not this condemnation recorded Yet is there record enough of the condemning of any such Supremacy in those Bishopricks in the authority we find used over them still by the Roman Patriarch Next he urgeth the 12th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon as intimating that this Prince's making Patriarchs was a frequent I suppose he means and allow'd of by the Church usage in the East at that time And after this the 17th Canon Conc. Chalc. and Can. 38. Conc. Constant in Trullo Which Canons he saith Schis p. 119. do more expresly attribute this power to the Prince or yeild it to be a power belonging to the Prince But being a little exagitated for this by the Replier especially when Balsamon whose judgment the Doctor much followeth saith the Church by these Canons conferr'd this power on the Prince he in his Answer to him p. 174 saith thus Whether it were from God immediately conferr'd on them and independantly from the Church or whether the Church in any notion were the medium that God used now under the Gospel to confer it on them truly I neither then was nor now am inclined either to enquire or take upon me to determine Now to see what may be deduced from them in this matter of no small moment I will transcribe you these three Canons Conc. Chalc. can 12. Pervenit ad nos quod quidam praeter Ecclesiasticos ordines affectantes potentiam per pragmaticam sacram i. e. by an Imperial Constitution unam Provinciam in duas dividant ita ut ex hoc inveniantur duo Metropolitani Episcopi in eadem una esse Provincia Statuit ergo sancta Synodus deinceps nihil tale attentari a quolibet Episeopo Eos vero qui tale aliquid attentaverint de proprio gradu cadere Si quae vero antea civitates per pragmaticum alias literis Imperialibus Imperialem Metropolitani nominis honore decoratae sunt nomine solo perfruantur qui Ecclesiam ejus Civitatis regit Episcopus i. e. nomine solo Metropolitani perfruatur Salvis scilicet verae Metropoli privilegiis suis Privilegio Metropolitano Episcopo jure proprio reservato Can. 17. Statutum est or decrevimus alias singularem Ecclesiasticarum rusticas Parochias Per singulas Ecclesias rusticanas Parochias sive possessiones manere immobiles apud eos Episcopos qui eas retinent c. Si vero quaelibet Civitas per authoritatem Imperialem renovata est aut si renovetur in posterum civilibus publicis ordinationibus etiam Ecclesiasticarum Parochianarum sequatur ordinatio In another Copy Si qua vero civitas potestate Imperiali novata est i. e. noviter constructa aut si protinus innovetur civiles dispositiones publicas Ecclesiarum quoque Parochiarum ordines subsequantur Conc. Constant in Trullo can 38. Canonem qui a Patribus factus est referring to this Canon Conc. Chalc. Nos quoque observamus qui sic edicit Si qua civitas a regia potestate innovata est vel innovabitur civilem ac publicam formam Ecclesiasticarum quoque rerum ordo consequatur In the first of these Conc. Chalc. c. 12. there is the Emperor by his Letters making another City upon the ambition and solicitation of the Bishop thereof Metropolitan in a Province wherein there was a Metropolitan already but this fact of the Emperors disallow'd by the Council as a thing against Canon which Canon was as the Doctor acknowledges That there should be but one Metropolitan of one Province and order'd that for the future whatever Bishop sought such a thing should be degraded and for what was already past that the City and Bishop should enjoy the Title of Metropolitan but none of the Priviledges but that these be still retain'd to the former Metropolitan When-as the Doctor pretends it was the Prince's right both to confer the Title and the Priviledges of Metropolitan on what City he pleased One would think then according to this the Doctor saith That the Council if the Bishop were faulty and offended against the Canon in soliciting such a thing should punish him only another person whom they approv'd being substituted in his place to enjoy the rights which the Prince had conferr'd upon it and not that they should by their authority as if these things were in their disposal not in the Prince's continue the Title only and reverse the Priviledges and fix them to their former possessors The Bishop might have been punish'd and yet not the Emperor's act rescinded by them as to the new Metropolitans power or priviledges as it is plain it was Yet Dr. Hammond makes use of this Canon by shewing such things were then done by Princes to prove that suppose the Bishop of Rome were Patriarch of France yet the King of France might lawfully make the Bishop of Paris Patriarch and confer the Pope's priviledges on him This S. W. replying upon his Treatise of Schism wonders at and the Doctor endeavours to clear all in following Balsamon's judgment and distinguishing between the Prince's erecting such a Metropolitanship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of his own motion when he saith it stands good Or upon base solicitation when the Council it seems may reverse it But I ask when such a thing is done of his own inclination stands it good if against the Canon that there should be but one Metropolitan in one Province if so what means he to say Answ p. 164. A Prince's power to erect Metropoles if exercised so by him as to thwart known Canons and Customs of the Church this certainly is an abuse And again p. 165. ' Such power stands valid to all effects if duly exercis'd by him without wrong to any i. e. other Metropolitan As for that which is urged from the Canon of a Council held under Alexius Comnenus an Eastern
54. n. 2. mentioned before § 52. and such that afterward of S. Germanus a French Bishop famous for learning and sanctity about A. D. 430. whom as Prosper a French Bishop who lived also in those times relateth Pope Celestin hearing that Pelagianism had gotten some footing in this Island sent hither for the suppression thereof Prosper's words are in Chronico Pelagianus Severiani Pelagiani Episcopi filius Ecclesias Britanniae dogmatis sui insimulatione corrupit sed ad actionem Palladii Diaconi Papa Caelestinus Germanum Altisiodorensem Episcopum vice sua mittit ut deturbatis Haereticis Britannos ad Catholicam fidem dirigat Vice sua as his Legat as if the care of such reformation did some way especially concern the Pope ad actionem Palladii at the suite and request of Palladius a zealous opposer of and writer also against Pelagianisme In this Legation another holy French Bishop Lupus is mentioned also to have accompanied Germanus into Britanny of which two Bishops Bede indeed Hist 1. l. 17. c. delivers the story thus That upon the request of the Britain Clergy so unwilling to receive Pelagianism as unable sufficiently to confute it these two Bishops were sent hither by a Council in France But what Bede saith being taken out of Constantius one who writ at a greater distance from Germanus his times than Prosper did is liable to the more doubt and 2ly this may well consist with what Prosper saith since all those Occidental Synods had a subjection to the Western Patriarch and might receive directions from him The same Prosper saith that the forementioned Palladius was by the same authority and care of the same Pope Celestine ordained Bishop and sent into the more Northern parts of this Island to the Scots Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a Papa Celestino Palladius primus Episcopus mittitur See the same in Bede 1. l. 13. c. Besides these Germanus and Palladius Bede and others make mention of Ninyus a Britain who finished his studies at Rome and was made Bishop and sent from thence not long after the other for the conversion of the Picts a Nation lying between the Scots and Britans Episcopus Reverendissimus Sanctissimus vir de natione Britonum qui erat Romae regulariter fidem mysteria veritatis edoctus saith Bede Hist 3. l. 4. c. Quem audiens Romanus Pontifex quosdam in occiduis Britanniae partibus necdum fidem Christi suscepisse ad Episcopatus gradum consecravit praemissae genti data benedictione Apostolum destinavit v. Broughton's Monasticon Briton 7. c. and Capgrave Catal. Sanctorum Likewise Patricius who finished the conversion of the Irish begun by Palladius is said to have received his education and learnt his Divinity from Germanus and Lupus and going to Rome and there made Bishop accepisse ab Apostolica Sede ad ejus Gentis conversionem Apostolatum V. Baron A.D. 431. Sigebert Chronol and Sir H. Spelman A.D. 449. who out of Matt. Westmon saith both of Palladius and Patricius ad Britanniam pervenisse missos a Papa Celestino ibique praedicasse verbum Dei Dubritius also the first Archbishop of Caerleon that we know of to which Archbishop only the British clergy in their conference with Augustin acknowledged their subjection was another Disciple of S. Germanus and by him and Lupus with the consent of the King and a Synod of the Clergy consecrated Bishop and possessed of this Archbishoprick See Spelman A. D. 512. and Apparat. p. 25. and in the same manner did this Brittish Archbishop receive his Commission from Germanus sent by the Roman See as the English Bishops from Augustin by the persuasion of which English or Saxon Bishops also afterwards both the Scots and some at least of the Brittains about A. D. 700 were reduc'd from those errors whereof Augustin had taxed them and conformed to the Customs of the Church Catholick V. Bede Hist l. 5. c. 16 19 22. Several of which English Clergy also in those days travel'd to Rome the more perfectly to learn the Laws and Customs of the Apostolick See or also there to receive their Ordination and St. Wilfrid among the rest went thither three several times and sate there also in a Synod and being twice ejected out of his Bishoprick twice had his cause heard there and was twice restor'd by the Pope's Letters See these things in Bede's Hist l. 5. c. 20 21. l. 5. c. 12. l. 3. c. 4 7 29. l. 4. c. 1. These particulars I have set down to shew the care interest authority esteem which the Roman Bishops had in these two Western Islands in all those ancient times wherein History gives posterity some light to know what was done in them But next however these things be Yet supposing only then the subjection of the Saxons §54 n. 3. and the English Clergy upon this title of Conversion to the Roman See it seems the Brittains for the present can claim no liberty from the same subjection because those in Wales being subject to the Bishop of Carleon or afterward to St. Davids and St. David's being subject to Canterbury I suppose this Canonically done of which see Sir Hen. Spelman's Appar p. 26. that it was order'd so by a Council at Rhemes and by the Pope to both which were made Addresses about it As for the Bribery that is by some supposed in it I see no reason why it should not be judg'd an uncharitable suspition being a thing every where imputable when rich and poor contend subjected also at that time when Canterbury was professedly subject to Rome in the Reign of K. Hen. I. Hence it follows I say that these Brittains must needs be subjects also to that See to which must Canterbury is subject and that Church hath which any Jurisdiction over Canterbury will also have the same over St. David's suppose in Appeals or the like And again those Brittains who were out of Wales dispers'd among the Saxons becoming subjects to the Saxon Bishops there who were the Pope's subjects must also be subject to the Pope Yet fourthly § 55. n. 1. And hath in ancient Councils together with other Churches subjected it self to that See before the Saxon Conversion If the Brittains were not converted by that See it may be shew'd that they had submitted themselves and join'd with the rest of Christianity in those Conciliary acts which had given some supremacy of Jurisdiction to the See of Rome amongst others over them For we find some of the Brittain Bishops present as at the Council of Ariminum where as Severus Hist l. 2. and Spelman Appar p. 24. say three of them being poor were maintain'd on the Emperor's charge so before this at the Council of Sardica assembled some twenty years after that of Nice as Athanasius who was also present there himself witnesseth see before § 23. n. 1. and therefore may the Canons of that Council be presum'd amongst the rest to be ratified by them or at
thereof and consequently by what is said § 40. to their posterity until a Council of equal authority reverse them 6. Whereas Dr. Hammond thinks to free Prince and People § 60 Laity and Clergy from any submission that former canons may require That the principle upon which Dr. Hammond sets the English clergy nation free from such former obligations hath bin shewed to be erroneous or from any concessions that the clergy or the former or also the present Prince hath made to the Bishop of Rome or to any other Patriarch upon this ground which he builds much upon That it is in the power of Christian Princes within their Dominions to erect or translate Patriarchates For thus he saith Schis p. 115. To put this whole matter out of controversy it is and hath always bin in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchates or to translate them c. And p. 132. Upon that one ground laid in the former chapter the power of Kings in general and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchats whatever can be pretended against the lawfulness of the Reformation in these Kingdoms will easily be answered And p. 137. The whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry Whether at that time of the Reign of Hen. 8. the Bishop of Rome had any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other And p. 138. The 3d. will appear to have received its determination also by the absoluteness of the power of our Princes and by the rights of Kings to remove or erect Patriarchats And p. 140 If the Pope held his Supremacy here in England by the Title of Regal concession as Dr. Hammond holds he did see p. 138. 142. then he may dispose it from him to some other as freely as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chancellor c. And p. 142. Thus certainly the King being the fountaine of all power and authority as he is free to communicate this power to one so is he equally free to recall and communicate it to another And this takes-off all obligation of obedience in the Bishops to the Pope at the first minute that he is by the King divested of that power Which freedom from that obedience immediately clears the whole business of Schism as that is a departure from the obedience of a lawful Superior Thus He. Now I say whereas he builds so much on this ground to remove thereby all difficulties and objections I think I have above by the first Proposition § 38. and by answering his proofs thereof § 43 and also by so many contrary examples brought in the former part of this Discourse sufficiently shewed it to fail him and to be untrue Only here observe one thing concerning this right of Princes That the Doctor it being much pressed by S. W. upon the Doctors quoting some Church-canons for it of which review § 44. That if Princes had any such right they had it not as their proper right independent on the Church or her canons in his answer to this p. 174. seems somewhat uncertain and wavering by what Title Princes hold it His words there are I that meant not to dispute of such mysteries of State desirous to unite the Civil and Ecclesiastical power and not to sow seeds of jealousies and dissensions betwixt them finding the same thing assumed by Kings as their right and yeilded them by the Church to be enjoyed by them thought I might hence conclude this to be unquestionably their due but whether it were from God immediately conferred on them and independently from the Church or whether the Church in any notion were the medium that God used now under the Gospel to confer it on them truly I neither then was nor now am inclined either to enquire or to take upon me to determin And afterward If it were not formerly the Prince's right but the Churche's then sure it is become so by that donation Now then if Princes should happen to hold this right only from the voluntary concessions of the Church or Councils or particularly from the clause of one canon passed in the Council of Chalcedon upon which canon the Doctor Schis p. 120 confesseth Balsamon a great stickler for Regal authority to found it then I leave to their consideration whether the same reason he pleads upon the instance of former Kings of England conceding Supremacy to the Pope for Princes reversing the donation of their right when they please may not be returned him for the Church or her representative the Council For if the Prince cannot give his right away but so that he may recall and resume it so neither can the Church And then after so many canons in and since Chalcedon reserving to such particular nominated Patriarchs their priviledges the Church of England according with the rest and extending this their jurisdiction over some Princes subjects at least who have the same power and rights as the Kings of England and expresly prohibiting Princes to remove Patriarchs 8. Gen. Counc can 21. where will his plea be § 61 Yet farther but in what I shall say now I will not be too peremptory That some rights once resigned and parted with cannot afterwards be justly resumed suppose the erecting and translating Patriarchates to be the Prince's right and that originally yet it may be such a right as once parted with cannot be resumed by the former owner For such rights there are as once passed away are not to be retracted and such as we may alienate not only from our selves but from our successors if such be the purpose of our donation And why this right may not be numbred amongst such I yet seek a reason If it be said the King cannot divest himself of such a right without which his Regal power which he intends to keep to him and his successors entire cannot subsist I willingly grant it But the Regal power may well subsist without the right of constituting or translating Patriarchs For the Regal power is entire in a Prince not Christian yet such Prince hath no power to erect or remove those Patriarchs who have a Spiritual Supremacy over his so many as are Christian Subjects Again the Prince when Christian as now being a Son of the Church must also be subject to some Patriarch i. e. supreme Church-power giving to him Ecclesiastical Laws and if need be inflicting Ecclesiastical censures c. or other and so must also his successor if Christian Neither doth his power to chuse or appoint the person bearing such Office any way lessen such submission so far as it is due neither doth it impose any more submission upon his successor than is due Why therefore this may not be a right alienable and partable with I see not When-as the Kings electing a Spiritual Supreme to be over him seems not to be like the chusing of a Chancellor or other Officers to serve under him as the Doctor compares it Sch. p. 140. but rather like the people's electing a Temporal Soveveraign Now such people in electing such a Temporal Prince transfer not their dominion and power which every single person had before over himself upon him or submit their obedience to him durante beneplacito or quamdiu se bene gesserit bene i. e. in their judgment for so who obeyeth only so long as he pleaseth needs to obey only what he pleaseth for so soon as any thing displeaseth he may change his Governors So to make instance in the matter in hand if Ambrose upon just cause exercise some Ecclesiastical censure upon Theodosius Theodosius may presently remove Ambrose his Metropolitan power to another but we tye them to Allegiance and tell them of their former right now given away and bind the Children and Successors to the act of their Forefathers Thus much of the Authority and Subordinations of the several Ecclesiastical Persons and Orders In the next Part I will proceed to shew you the Authority and Subordinations of these as they are united in several Bodies of Councils FINIS