the Temple to serve God with his then people Acts II. 42 44 46. V. 13. VI. 1 4. And shall wee think that all the Christians in Corinth where God had said to S. Paul that hee had many people Acts XVIII 10. could meet in one room because S. Paul sayes 1 Cor. XI 20. when yee meet together in one place For they must not onely meet together but sup together as the Apostle showes which would require a great room if God had many people there And all the believers at Jerusalem met together and supped together Acts II. 44 46. VI. 1. but not VIM in one room as I suppoâ—e Therefore at Corinth also there might be more Congregations than one where the Church was but one and all might meet together though in several places several assemblies In the mean time I do not hear what they say to that which I have alleged in my book of the Right of a Church in a Christian State pag. 44-50 to show that wee never read of more Churches than one in one City but every where of more than one in one Province in the writings of the Apostles And therefore I will here plead further That from the time of the Apostles to the Reformation which wherein it consisteth my businesse is to inquire and therefore not to suppose that it consisteth in every thing that hath been done all the Independents in the world shall never be able to show mee any thing called a Church but the Body of Christians that lived in one City and the territory of it Indeed at the first preaching of Christianity it must needs come to passe that the number of Christians in a very great City might be so little that they might meet all at once And the name of Cities might be extended to Townes and Villages that could make but few Congregations when the question was made whether they should make several Churches or resort to one As I have instanced there But because wee have yet extant antient lists of all the Churches of the Romane Empire and the Soveraignties into which it is dissolved punctually agreeing with the records of all Church Writers in comprising the whole summe of Christians within and under one City in one Church It may perhaps be found that all the Christians in a whole Nation might resort to one Church which was the Church of the Head City But that ever there were any Christians that took it for a Law that every Congregation is to be a Church before the Reformation it can by no means appear whatsoever hath been done since And therefore I challenge that all reasonable men must allow all Christians that succeeded the Apostles understood the meaning of their writings by their acts when they cast all the Christians in under one City every where into one Church then those who now challenge for a Law of God that all Congregations are to be Churches And thus farre it appears by the same evidence upon which wee accept of our common Christianity that is by the Scriptures and by the consent of all Christians that the Apostles so founded the Churches of their planting that they might be fit to concurre to the constitution of one whole Church CHAP. VII That the Apostles delivered to the Church a Summary of Christianity which all should be baptized were to profess Evidence out of the Scriptures Evidence out of the Scriptures for Tradition regulating the Communion of the Church and the Order of it Evidence for the Rule of Faith out of the records of the Church For the Canons of the Church and the pedegree of them from the Order established in the Church by the Apostles That the profession of Christianity and that by being baptized is necessary to the salvation of a Christian BUt I will grant that this were not evidence enough out of the Scriptures for a point of such consequence as it will appear to be of when it apâ—eares to be true were it not for the general inference that I made afore Here I challenge having proved against the Leviathan that whosoever acknowledges our Lord Jesus to be the Christ must acknowledge whatsoever hee teaches and delivers either by himself or the Apostles his Deputies to be Law to the Church That whatsoever it may appear any way that the Aposâ—lhs delivered to the Church to be observed in it is of that nature I say further it is evident by their writings that they delivered to the Church a certain Summary of Christianity which whosoever was admitted into the Church by Baâ—tisme underto professe and practise Indeed this is the main point now in hand that all interpretation of Scripture is to be confined within this Summary as the Rule of our common Christianity And therefore it may seem that I go about first to prove the Corporation of the Church by this Rule And then to prove the Rule by the consent of the Church whereby I pretend to evidence what the Apostles delivered to the Church for the Rule of our common Christianity But I can easily answer that it is one thing to question whether the Apostles did deliver any such Rule to the Church from the beginning or not Another what it containes and what belongs to it as part of it what not If it may appear by the writings of the Apostles that delivered it and by the acknowledgment of the Church that received it for what othâ—r meane can there be to make it appear that such a sense the Apostles did deliver to the Church it will be a great part of the evidence that they did found the Church for a Corporation wherein the profession of it might be preserved and wherein God mâ—â—â—t be served according to the profession of it And if this may appear then the consent of this Corporation will be as good evidence as the subject mater allowes whether any thing questionable be part of it or not Let us then heare the Apostles Thanks be to God saith S. Paul Rom. VI. 17. that being once slaves to sinne yee have obeyed from your heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you Had hee onely said it was dâ—livered they had not acknowledged themselves obliged but when hee sayes they obeyed it hee shows they were under the obligation that God cast on them by delivering it 2 Pet. II. 21. It had been better for them not to have owned the way of righteousnesse than having owned it to return from the holy commandement delivered What is this holy commandement what is this way of righteousnesse but in one word Christianity Which when hee saith it was delivered hee means by Metonymy that it was received because hee saith further that they had owned it The same is called by another Apostle Jude 3. the Faith once delivered to the Saints And S. Paul 2 Tim. I. 13 14. Hold fast the form of wholesom words which thou hast heard of mee in faith and love which is through Christ Jesus Keep that good
Christo Deo ad confederandam Disciplinam Homicidium Adulterium Fraudem Perfidiam caetera scelera prohibentes That hee had discovered nothing of their Sacraments or Mysteries besides obstinacy not to sacrifice but assemblies before day to sing praises to Christ and to God and to confederate their Discipline prohibiting Murther Adultery violation of Faith and other hainous deeds For the Eucharist is the Sacrament by which this discipline of Christianity is established But farr from being voluntary to those whom wee suppose Christians As for Origen in Celsum I. pag. 4. It is manifest that those private Contracts which Celsus calumniateth that the Christians made among themselves as against the State are acknowledged by him to have been those that were solemnized at their Feasts of Love That is at the Eucharist which from the beginning was a part of them whether then it were so or not And therefore the confederacy of Christians among themselves whom these Authors speak of was no otherwise voluntary than Christianity and therefore not voluntary supposing it The words of Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which I do not admit to be well corrected 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As being too obscure an expression for so clear a Writer as Origen to say that it was of force to do more mischief than the Bacchanalia which for that jealousie were put down as wee understand by Livy besides that hee must have said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not have used a general word for a particular And therefore I suppose hee alludes to the Verse of Homer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dissolving by private confederacy that publick League and Bond wherein the peace of every Commonwealth consisteth Thus then saith Origen And hee seeks to calumniate the Love so called of Christians towards one another as subsisting at the peril of the Publick and able to do the mischief of disloyalty If this will not serve the turn but it be demanded that the Communion of the Church was then frequented by voluntary agreement let mee demand whether the authority of the Apostles in the Church subsisted upon no other title For as to the credit of them in delivering the Gospel believing what God had given them to evidence it with it is not possible for any man that pretends to be a Christian to question it If then it be said that they who were tyed to believe them concerning the truth of the Gospel were not bound to receive them as chief Governors of the Church let mee demand how it came to passe that those were received all over the Church whom it was believed that they had granted their authority to or what part soever of it There being no obligation to tye them to receive such afore others and the variety of judgment which all men are subject to being such as never to agree in the same reason where nothing obliges So likewise whereas it is manifest that the Church then both had and must needs have many Rules the general importance whereof was received by all though with particular differences according to times and places I demand how any such could come in force when neither the Jewes deserved that love that all should imbrace them for their sake nor the judgments of all Christians so different in all things could concurr in any thing which their Christianity imported not Especially I demand this concerning the indowment of the Church because it is evident that as Constantine first made good by the Empire all the acts of them that had given whatsoever was ravished away by the persecution of Diocletian then gave much more of his own So all Kingdoms and Commonwealths after the example of that Empire have proceeded to indow it with the first-fruits of their goods in Houses and Glebes and Tithes and Oblations I demand then what imposture could have been then so powerfull as to seduce all the Christian world in a mater so nearly concerning their interest had they not stood convict by the constant practice of Christendom before Constantine that it was no imposture more than the Christianity brought in by the same Apostles Lastly whereas it is acknowledged what strange severity of discipline the Primitive Church was under by the Rules of Penance which then were in force though I have showed in another place that they were yet stricter under the Apostles and that the severity of them necessarily abated as the zele of Christianity under them did abate I demand what common sense can allow that all Christians should agree to make themselves fools by submitting themselves to such Rules which nothing but their own consent could oblige them to imbrace For neither can it be said that they had them from the Jews nor had they been extant among them that the Christians would have received them for their sake CHAP. XIX That Power which was in Churches under the Apostles can never be in any Christian Soveraign The difference between the Church and the Synagogue in that regard The interest of Secular Power in determining maters of Faith presupposeth the Society of the Church and the act of it No man can be bound to professe the contrary of that which hee believeth Every man is bound to professe that Christianity which hee believeth The Church is the chief Teacher of Christianity through Christendom as the Soveraign of Civil Peace thorough his Dominions Why the Church is to decide maters of Faith rather than the State neither being infallible I Shall not now need to say much to those terms which the Leviathan holds beside that which hath been already said to evidence the Society of the whole Church and the foundation thereof by the Scriptures Hee that acknowledges in the Church a Power to judge of true repentance and accordingly to binde and to loose and that upon the same score and therefore to the same effect as it baptizes together with the Power of appointing publick persons in the Church and the Church in which hee acknowledges the Power to be the Body of Christians in each City by what Title doth hee suppose the Church to hold this Power or this Right the evidence whereof hee fetches from the Scriptures whereby hee proveth it For those Scriptures do not import by what Act it is established but onely that it was in force or use at the doing of those things which they relate Can it be imagined to be any thing else than the act of the Apostles declaring the will of God in that behalf If then by divine right that is by Gods appointment and ordinance imported by those Scriptures the Church that is the Body of Christians in each City stands indowed with those rights how shall the Church that is the Soveraign Power of each State stand indowed with the same rights by the same Title that is by Gods appointment evidenced by the same Scriptures How shall Gods Law that inableth the Body of the Church to binde and to
loose to nominate and elect publick persons in the Church but requireth the Apostles and those that hold under them to pronounce the sentence and to impose hands inable the Soveraign Power to do the same and yet require those that claim from the Apostles to execute If Philosophers have the privilege to justifie such contradictions as these then may this opinion passe for a truth In the mean time to men of common reason how reasonable it will sound that the Apostles being imployed by God to order these things in the Church and that for the maintenance of Christianity received should tye themselves to execute those acts which the Body of Christians in each City should determine to be for the maintenance of that Christianity which they knew nothing what belonged to but what they had learned from them the Apostles I am well content to referr my self to judgment But alwayes there remains or may remain a difference between the Bodies of Christians in several Cities and the Soveraign Powers over them So that the rights of both cannot be derived from one and the same Title Sad experience shows that Churches may continue where the Soveraign Powers are not Christians as they subsisted before they were Shall these Soveraign Powers give sentence of binding and loosing and appoint persons to be ordained and those that claim under the Apostles be bound to execute Shall the Great Turk have Power to officiate and minister the Sacraments of divine service in the Church because whatsoever a man may do by his minister hee may do in his own person much more as this opinion pag. 297. 298 299. expresly disputes that the Soveraign may do and that imployment or more publick consequence is the onely reason why hee doth not It is said indeed pag. 299. that hee that had Power to Teach before hee was a Christian being Baptized retains the same Power to teach Christianity And so every Soveraign being the Chief Master to teach all his Subjects whatsoever the peace of his State requires by being Baptized hee gets no new right but is directed how to use that which wee had afore But if the premises be true the assumption is ridiculous A Doctor of the Synagogue duely qualified is not a Doctor of the Church because the Church stands not upon the same terms with the Synagogue Doctors and Disciples being relatives terms of a relation grounded upon the Society of the Church or Synagogue The Soveraign Power teaches by Lawes to keep the Publick peace though that it should do no more than teach were ridiculous The Church teaches the way to heaven and for that reason the bond of Publick peace not the mater of it And therefore as no man by being Baptized getteth the right of teaching by Civil Laws So hee that hath the right of teaching by Civil Laws by being baptized getteth no right to teach Christianity The Law of Moses was given to one people which had covenanted with God to be ruled by it and upon that condition to be maintained in the Land of Promise So the Covenant of the Law and the obligation of that people to it was presupposed before God had declared whom hee would make Soveraign of that people after Moses But in as much as the determination of all things that became questionable concerning the Law was to come from those Powers which were under the Soveraign it is manifest that the act of such Power secured the consciences of Inferiors For the promise of the Law being the temporal happinesse of the Land of Promise and the body of the people being by the Law to depend upon the determination of their Superiors they practising the Law according to such determination the promise thereof must needs remain indefeisible As for the inward obedience to Gods spiritual Law whereupon as I said they might and did ground a firm hope of everlasting life under the Law it concerned not the consciences of the people how the outward Laws were determined seeing howsoever they were determined this inward obedience to Gods spiritual Law received no hinderance Though the consciences of Superiors from whom those determinations proceeded were so much concerned in them that those who should violate that obedience due to the carnal commandement by determining it to an unjust intent could no wayes pretend any inward and spiritual obedience But Christianity covenanting for this inward and spiritual obedience and expressing everlasting life as the consideration of it and particular Churches being constituted upon these terms and constituting the whole Church which is nothing but the Communion of all Churches whatsoever rights are acknowledged to be in particular Churches which the precept of preaching to and the promise of calling the Gentiles shows might be under several Soveraignties being settled in them already by divine right can never accrue to a Soveraignty though constituted by right but such as God onely alloweth by commanding Government in general but appointeth not by revealing it self in particular And therefore necessarily tend to the constituting of the whole Church by the concurrence of all Churches though of several Soveraignties to the maintenance of that Christianity in which all had equal interest before any Soveraign was Christian And now I cannot mervail if hee that believes not the Scriptures to be Law to Christians otherwise than as they are injoyned by Christian Powers acknowledge no Power in the Apostles of obliging the Church or in any body else beside the Soveraign My mervail is that hee who had pretended all this should neverthelesse acknowledge a right in several Churches that is in the Bodies of Christians dwelling within several Cities the Power of Excommunications and Ordinations and that by the Scriptures that is by divine right For whatsoever act it was or whose act soever it was whereby those rights were settled upon those Churches will hee or will hee not was a Law to those that stood bound to acknowledg such right which was really nothing if no man were bound to acknowledg and to yield effect to it Neither is it mervail if hee acknowledg no Law for the indowment of the Church that acknowledgeth not the judgment of the Levitical Priesthood to have been a Law to the Jewes but by the will of the Soveraign under the Kings But those that acknowledg that indowment to be Gods act not to be voided so long as the Covenant was in force will have seen as good an argument for the like provision to be made for the Church as the correspondence between the Law and the Gospel will allow any point of Christianity from the old Scriptures And then as it hath appeared that several Churches are by Gods appointment several Bodies capable of indowment constituting one whole Church which is the Body of all Churches So by the same means it appears that what the Church is once indowed with is as much the Churches as any mans cloak is his own And as the giving of alms in general is not arbitrary
Soveraign over the Churches of these Cities For that were inconsequent to the power of the Apostles whence it proceedeth who as I have proved were equall among themselves and the authority of their companions and successors into whom it stood immediately divided But that it should have that eminence ovâ—r them and by consequence much more over the Churches of inferiour Cities as is requisite to the directing of such maters as might come to be of common interesse to the whole Church to such an agreement as might preserve the unity thereof with advantage to the common Christianity Now when I name these Churches of Antiochia and Alexandria for examples sake supposing that the Churches of the chief Cities of other Provinces of the Empire had also their eminence over the Churches of inferiour Cities within the said Provinces I suppose also that they accordingly approached to the dignity and priviledges of that at Rome the power of obliging the whole which for the State under God rested then in the Emperour alone within the Empire rosting for the Church in the successors of the Apostles according to this weight and greatnesse of their Churches For though Tertulliane de praescrip Haerct cap. XXXVI challengeth that the very Chairs which the Apostles sate in the very authentick leters which they sent to the Churches of Corinth Thessalonica Philippi and Ephesus were extant in his time in the said Churches yet doth it not therefore follow that the priviledges of those Churches should be all the same with all Churches wherein the Apostles sate which would necessarily follow if nothing were to come into consideration but that they were founded by the Apostles themselves For supposing that the Apostles themselves or their companions and successors indowed with the same Power as not confined by any act of the Apostles under whom they claimed to the contrary appointed that regard should be had to the priviledge of the Cities wherein they were planted it follows of reason that S. Peter for the Jews and S. Paul for the Gentiles at least principally should make it their businesse to plant Chistianity and to found the Church of Rome And that the eminence of these Apostles one chief by our Lords choice the other eminent for his labours may very well be alleged for the priviledges of that Church and yet the consequence not hold in other Churches for which it may be alleged that they were the seats of Apostles because the reason for which these Apostles bestowed their pains there hath a reason for it to wit the eminence of that City Here you easily see that deriving the pre-eminence of the Church of Rome not from S. Peters personall pre-eminence onely which it would be impossible to show how it comes intailed upon that Church the pre-eminence of the Apostles not resting in all their Churches but from an Order given out by the Apostles advancing the priviledges of Churches according the secular eminence of Cities I say you easily see that the concurrence of S. Paul with S. Peter to the founding of it is a confirmation of that ground whereupon the preeminence thereof standeth whereas that opinion which derives it onely from the personal eminence of S. Peter admits not the concurrence of S. Paul to the constitution of this pre-eminence Wheresoever therefore you find S. Peter and S. Paul acknowledged joynt founders thereof in the writings of the Fathers all that must be understood to setle the opinion which I here advance and to destroy that plea which derives it from the Soveraign power of S. Peter over the rest of the Apostles And Epiphanius is not the onely author where you find it the disputes of these times will afford you more then this abridgement can receive But I conceive I have made a fair way to the ground for it by observing some probabilities that S. Paul should be head of those that turned Christians of Jews as S. Peter of Gentiles at Rome Which I will here confirm by expounding the inscription of Ignatius his Epistle to the Romanes according to it othâ—rwise not to be understood It addresseth to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which governeth in the place of the fields at Rome The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is here used as many times besides speaking of those places which a man would neither call Cities nor Towns as Act. XXVII 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being to sail by the places of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is plain signifies the Country 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 then must necessarily signifie here the Vaticane lying in the fields as a suburbe to Rome and being the place where S. Peter was buried and where the Jews of Rome then dwelt as we learn by Philo Legatione ad Caium speaking of Augustus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He knew that great quarter of Rome which is beyond the River Tiber to be held and inhabitated by Jews most of whom were Romanes and Libertines For being brought captives into Italy they were set free by their Masters without constraining them to adulterate any of their Countrie Laws Hereupon the Synagogue of the Libertines Act. VI. 9. is the Synagogue of the Romane Jews Now S. Peters Church we know is to this day in the Vaticane as S. Pauls in the way to Ostia as from the beginning we understand by Caius in Eusebius Hist Eccles II. 25. the places of their burials were Which circumstance points them out Heads the one of the Jewish Christians at Rome the other of those that were converted being Gentiles For that the Vaticane was then the Jewry at Rome we learn also by Tully in his Oration pro Flacco where he complains that his cause was heard in the fields of M ars prope gradus Aurelios that the Jews who were offended at Flaccus for prohibiting them to send their oblations to Jerusalem when he was Governour of Asia might come in and discountenance the cause For plainly this was hard by the Bridge that passed out of those fields into the Vaticane where the Gate called Porta Aurelia stood hard by S. Peters Church to which Gate it seems there were steps to go up which he calleth there gradus Aurelios It is also easie to see that this supposition draweth the ground and reason of the Superiority of Churches originally from the act of Temporall Power which constituteth the eminence of Cities over other Cities But neverthelesse immediately from the act of the Church or of those that have authority to oblige the Church taking the Superiority of Cities as it is for the most reasonable ground of planting in them the most eminent Churches but by their own authority providing that so it be observed Therefore it is to be considered that the Church is by Gods command howsoever by his promise to continue one and the same till the coming of our Lord unto judgement But the dominion of this World upon which the greatnesse of Cities is founded changes as Gods providence appoints Besides that
then a Patriarch it will neverthelesse be questionable how faâ—re it injoyes the same rights throughout the West or rather unquestionable that he did noâ— consecrate all the â—iâ—â—ops of the West as he of Alexandria did all the Bishops of Egypt and he of Antiochia all those of the Eastern Diocese On the other side it will be unquestionable that all causes that conceâ—n the whole Church are to resort to it And if Innocent I. mean none but those when he sayes that they are excepted from the Canon of Nicaea that forbids appeals Epist ad Victricium Rothâ—m He sayes nothing but that which the constitution of the Church justifies Bâ—t the cases produced before out of S. Cypriane show that there was muâ—h lâ—ft for custoâ—â— to determine Nay rules of discipline which in my opinon the good of the whole Church then requirâ—d that they should be common to all the West â—re of this rank noâ— could any of then ever oblige the West without the Bishop of Rome But that he alone should give rules to ty all the West may have had a regular beginning from voluntary references of Himerius Bishop of Farracona in Spain to Syricius of Exuperius Bishop of Tolouse and Victricius of Roven to Innocentius but argues not that it is the originall right of that Church But that it hath increased by custome to that height as to help to make up a claime for that infinite power which I deny in stead of that regular Power which I acknowledge Judge now by reason supposing the obligation upon all of holding unity in the Church and the dependance of Churches the mean to compass it For this will oblige us to part here with the Parallel of the Empire which having a Soveraign upon earth will require the Ministers of thereof immediate or subordinate to be of equall power in equall rights Praefects Lieurenants and Governours But the Head of the Church being in heaven and his Body on earth being to be maintained in Unity by an Aristocraty of Superiours and Inferiours whither was it according to the intent of those who ordered the pre-eminence of greater Churches thâ—t that the Church of the greatest City should be equall in power to the head Churches of o her Dioceses Or that the general reason should take place between them all an eminence of power following their precedence in ranck So that whensoever it become requisite to limite this generality by positive constitutions the pre-eminence of right to fall upon one exclusively to oâ—hers Surely though we suppose that all Christendom of their free consent agreed in this Order yet must we needs argue from the uniformity of it that it must needs come froâ— the ground setled by the Apostles For it is manifest that the rights of the head Churches of Provinces had a beginning beyond the memory of all records of the Church which testifie the being of them at the time of all businesse which they relate That the head Churches of Diocesses were not advanced in a moment by the act of the Empiâ—e but moulded asore as â—t were and prepared to receiveâ— that impression of regular eminence over inferiouâ— Churches which the act of the State should stampe the Cities with over inâ—â—riour Cities yet cannot be maintained that the greatest respect was and is by the Apostles act to be given to the greatest Churches that is the Churches of greaâ—est Cities and yet that the â—riâ—â—ledges necessarily accruing by positive constitution might as justly have been placed upon the head Church of any Diocess as upon that of Rome I know I have no thanks for this of the Romanists for as S. Paul sâ—yes How shall I serve God and please men both in such a difference as this but seeing the canon of Nicaea doth necessarily confine the Church of Rome to a regular Power is it not a great signe of truth that those things which appear in the proceedings of the Church do concur to evidence a ground for the Rule of it inferring that pre-eminence which the Churches of Alexandria and Antiochia cannot have but the beginning of the canon establishing ancient custome settleth Let us see some of those proceedings After the Council of Nicaea the Arians having Eusâ—bius of Nicomedia for their Head desire to be heard at Rome by Pope Julius in Council concerning their proceedings against Athanasius Here shall I believe as some learned men conjecture that Pope Julius â—s meerly an Arbitratoâ— named by one part y whom the other could not refuse and that any Bishop or at least any Primate might have been named and must have been admitted as well as he Truly I cannot considering that their hope being to winne themselves credit by his sentence I must needs think that they addresse themselves to him by whose sentence they might hope to draw the greatest prejudice on their own side It cannot be denyed indeed that whereas in a case of that moment the last resort is necessarily to the whole Church whither in council or by reference by referring themselves they brought upon their cause that prejudice which necessarily lights upon all those that renounce the award of the Arbitrators whom they have referred themselves to in case they stand not to the sencentence But though they had not been chargeable with this had they not referred themselves yet must they needs have been judged by the Bishop of Rome among the rest of the Church and in the first place and his sentence must needs weigh more towards the sentence of the whole Church then the sentence of any other Arbitrator could have done For let me ask in the mean time is this an appeal to Pope Julius or to him and his Council let the sequeâ—e judge For he that condemns the Arians for not appearing at the Council which they had occasioned he that condemns the Council of Antiochia at the dedication of the golden Church presently after where they were present for revereing the Creed of Nicaea and condemning S. Athanasius notwithstanding the sentence of Julius and his Council necessarily shows us that they were not quite out of their wits to bestow so much pains for procuring a decree at the Conncil of Antiochia that must have been void ipso facto because the mater had been sentenced at Rome that is in the last resort afore Therefore I coneive Julius had right to complain that they took upon them to regulate the Churches without him nor can I much blame Socrates or Sâ—zomenus in justifying his complaint Because Athanasius his cause as well as the Creed of Nicaea concerned the whole Church And for them to condemn him whom Julius and his Council held at the instance of the Arians had justified was to make a breach in the Church though at present we say nothing of the Faith Neither had they reason to alledge the good they had done the Church of Rome by their compliance in the cause of Novatianus or to expect the like from Julius in a cause of
was unknowne and by him to his disciples whereby after the power came downe upon him from above he did miracles And that when he had suffered that which came from above flâ—w up againe from Jesus So that Jesus suffered and rose againe but the Christ which came upon him from above flew up againe without suffering which is that which came downe in the shape of a dove and that Jesus is not the Christ Where you see he makes the coming of Christ to be nothing else but an escape made by the Holy Ghost when he came upon our Lord out of the Fullnesse of the Godhead to return thither againe when he had suffered Now it is agreed upon that Cerinthus had spread his Heresies in Asia when Saint John writ his Gospell And though Epiphanius report that it was Ebion whom Saint John met with in the bath and refused to come in it so long as he was there calling away his Scholars with him Yet it must be resolved that it is a meere mistake of his memory because himselfe testifies as afore that the Heresy of Cerinthus flourished in Asia and in Galatia and because Eusebius after Irenaeus who conversed with Saint Johns Scholar Polycarpus reports it of Cerinthus As for the Heresy of Ebion it is manifest by Epiphanius himself in his Heresy that it sprung up first and flourished most in the parts of Palestine beyond or besides Jordane which they called Peraea what time the Church of Jerusalem had forsaken the City to remove themselves to Pella where God had provided for them at the destruction of it So that it appeareth not that Saint John saw the birth of it being probably removed into Asia before that time I shall therefore neede to say nothing of the Heresy of Ebion having Saint Jerome in Catalogo to witnesse that the Gospell of Saint John was written at the request of the Bishops of Asia in opposition to Cerinthus But the stocke of that evidence which I shall bring out of the Scripture for the state of our Lord Christ and his Godhead before his coming in the flesh lying therefore in the beginning of that Gospell which was writ on purpose to exclude it I shall referre the rest of that which I shall gather out of the New Testament to the sense and effect of it CHAP. XIII The Word was at the beginning of all things The apparitions of the Old Testament Prefaces to the Incarnation of Christ Ambassadors are not honoured with the honour due to their Masters The Word of God that was afterwards incarnate was in those Angels that spoke in Gods Name No Angel honoured as God under the New Testament The Word was with God at the beginning of all things as after his return THE Gospel of Saint John then beginneth thus In the beginning wâ—s the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God The same was in the beginning with God In which words the Socinians will not have the beginning to be the beginning of all things but the beginning of preaching the Gospel That is to say when John the Baptist began to preach And the Word to be the man Jesus so called because he was the man whom God had appointed to publish it So that in the beginning was the Word is in their sense When John the Baptist began to preach there was a man whom God had appointed to publish the Gospel And truly I cannot deny that the beginning here might signifie the beginning of the Gospel by the same reason as in the Scripture and in all Languages words signify more then they expresse But that reason can be no other then this because a man speakes of things mentioned afore in discourse or of that which is otherwise known to be the subject of his discourse So words signifie more then they expresse because something that is known need not be repeated at every turne What is the reason then why this addition not being expressed is to be understood Forsooth Saint Mark beginneth his Gospel thus The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Sonne of God As it is written in the Prophets Behold I send my Messenger before thy face that shall prepare thy way before thee The voice of him that cryeth in the wildernesse Prepare â—e the way of the Lord make his path plaine John was baptizing in the wildernesse Is not this a good reason Because in one Text of Saint Marke you find the beginning of the Gospel to be the preaching of John therefore wheresoever you read the beginning you are to understand by it the beginning of the Gospel At least in the beginning of S. Johns Gospel we must seek no other meaning for it But who will warrant that the word Gospel in S. Marke signifies the preaching of the Gospel as sometimes it does or this book of the Gospel which S. Mark takes in hand to write The words it is manifest may signifie either and therefore it cannot be manifest that the word beginning without any addition is put to signifie the one and not the other For if you understand the beginning of the book of the Gospel when S. John saies In the begining was the Word Their turne is not served As for the title of the Word which scarce any of the Apostles but S. John attributes to our Lord Look upon the beginning of his first Epistle That which was from the beginning which we have heard and seen and our hands have handled of the Word of Life for the Life hath been manifested and we have seen and bear witnesse and declare unto you that everlasting Life which was with the Father and hath been manifested unto us That which we have heard and seen declare we unto you Here it must be a man that S. John calls the Word when he speakes not onely of hearing but of seeing and handling the Word of Life But when he saies that the Word was with God from the beginning and since hath been made manifest to us is there nothing but the man and his office of preaching the Gospel to be considered for the reason why he is called the Word What meant then the Apostle Ebr. IV. 12 13 The Word of God is quick and active and cutteth beyond any two edged sword and cometh so farre as to divide between the soul and the spirit to the joints and marrow and judgeth the thoughts and conceits of the heart Neither is any creature obscure to it but all things naked and bare to the eyes of him whom we have to do with Where you see he begins his discourse concerning the Gospel but ends it in God And therefore attributes to the gospel under the name of the Word those things which onely God can do because to the Author of it under the Name of the Word he attributes the knowledge and governing of all things For the reason then why our Lord is called the Word we must have recourse to that which the most ancient
upon the erecting of Constantinople into the second Head of the Empire For within fifty years the Council of the East being held there makes it the second Church and head Church of Thrace Diocese which the Chalcedon Council extends to the Dioceses of Asia and Pontus exalting it so â—arre above Alexandria and Antiochia as might seem afarr of to call for a kind of subjection at their hands If this be rightfully done what shall hinder the whole Church to dispose of the superiority of Churches when the greatnesse of their Cities makes it appear that the dependence of the Churches of less Cities upon them is for the Unity of the whole in the exercise of true Christianity And what can be said why it should not be right for the East to advance Constantinople to the next to Rome the same reason being visible in it for which Rome had the first place from the beginning It is true whereas Rome was content to take no noâ—ice of the Canon of Constantinople the Legates of Pope Leo present at Chalcedon and inforced either to admit or disclaim it protested against iâ— But upon what ground can he who by being part of the Council concluâ—es himself by the vote of it refuse his concurrence to that which he alone likes not Or to what effect is that disowned which takes place without him who protests against it unless it be to set up a monument of half the Church disowning the infinite power of the Pope the other halfe not pleading it but onely Canonicall pre-eminences by the Council of Nicaea I suppose indeed the Pope had something else to fear For Illyricum being so much nearâ—r Constantinople then Rome there was always pretense of reason to subject it as Asia and Ponâ—us â—o Constantinople to the prejudice of those pre-eminences which Rome injoyed there Especially since Illyricum was surrendred by Valentinian III upon the mariage of his Sister to Theodosius the younger as that learned Gentleman John Marsham hath observed and thenceforth become part of the Eastern Empire For hereupon followed the Law omni Innovatione cessante still extant in the Code requiring the Bishops of Illyricum to give account to Constantinople of all maters that should pass Besides had the Empire continued in force in Italy why might not Constantinople in time have pretended to the first place Rome being no more the prime City and yet still of the Empire And therefore Pope Leo as wiâ—e for the privileges of his Church as stout for the Faith did his own business when hee pleaded the Canon of Nicaea and the second place for Alexandria And whatsoever contests passed afterwards between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople the privileges of Rome in Illâ—ricum continued till the time that Gregory the Second with-drew his City from the obedience of the Empire pretending his Soveraign to be an Heretick for destroying of Images I said afore in the first Book that others relate this otherwise And Anasâ—aâ—iâ—s in the lives of Gregory II and III. owns no more but that they exâ—ommunicated the Emperors which notwithstanding occasioned the Italians to â—all from the Empire But hereupon the Empeâ—oâ— commands not onely Illyricum but Sicily and that part of Italy which conâ—â—nued subject to the Empire to resort to the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of Constantinople and as in case of such jealousie was necessarily to be obeyed Hereupon Pope Adrian in his Apology for Images to Charles the Great complains that they deprived the Church oâ— Rome of the Diocese together with the patriâ—ony which it held in it when they put down Images and had given no answer from that time And Nicolas I. Epist â— revives the claime Which with the rescripts of the Popes between concerning Illyricum as well as the rest of the West see also the life of Hadriane II in Anastasius and much more that might be added shows that this was the state of the Church till that time During the time that Rome on one side stood upon these terms which Constantinople on the other â—â—de was continually harassed by the Lombards who had no reason to confide in it we see because they were not long after destroyed by it there is no marvail if Milane head of the Lombards and Ravenna head of the Exarchate that is of the Dominion that was governed by the Emperors Lieutenant there resident did by the Secular Power of their Cities set up themselves to contest with the Pope about several privileges of their Churches For alass what can this signifie of competition for the Primacy with Rome if wee compare the respect of Milane or Ravenna with that which Rome hath â—ound among other Churches in the concernments of the whole Therefore I will mention here onely one action more carried through in so high a tune by Gâ—lasius and other active Popes that it is much insisted upon by those who would plead for the Popes infinite Power if they durst because they would not have it regular which is the same for what bounds can that Power have that acknowleges no Rule to limit it It is that troublesom business that â—ell out in Egypt about the Council of Chalcedon when John of Alexandria having fallen under the jealousie of the Emperor and Acacius of Constantinople goes to Rome with Leters from Antiochia to complain of the intruding of Petrus Mongus into his Sea Who being an enemy to the Council of Chalcedon but pretending fair to promote those means by which the Emperor Zeâ—o and Acacius pretended to re-unite Aegypt to the Church having never received that Council was thereupon received into communion by Acacius The Rule of the Church being undispensable whosoever communicated with Hereticks to stand for an Heretick to the Church whatsoever hee believe otherwise This cause having bred a world of trouble for many years the Popes never condescended to be re-united in Communion to the East till it was granted that all the Bishops of Constantinople since Acacius though they had professed the true Faith and some of them suffred for it should be condemned as Hereticks by raising names out of that list in which the godly Bishops were remembred at celebrating the Eucharist Though the reason why they had continued communion with Hereticks was onely for fear of making the breaches of the Church wider and more incurable Here it may seem to have been the Power of the Pope that brought even the second person of the Church to the justice of the Canon so much more evident by how much there was lesse reason to insist upon the rigor of the Canon in comparison to the end to which it was subordinate the unity of the whole Yet to him that reasons aright it will easily appear that it was no duty that either the Emperors or the Bishops of Constantinople owed the Popes that made them submit to the Canon but the obligation they had to the Unity of the Church for the maintenance whereof the Canon was provided And that Zeno taking the
requiring of those who acknowledge the same absolute conformity in things altogether needlesse to the unity of the Church the true end of all due Power in the Church For were conformity in this point necessary to the unity of the Church had the Power of the Church of Rome and of the Pope in behalf of it been such by virtue of the first instituting of it as might have required it why then was it not required from the beginning that the service of God through the whole Empire should be celebrated in Latine being the language which the mother Church of the mother City did use and farr more frequented then in Greece than now in the West which is forced to use it Seeing then it appeareth that there is nothing at all to be alleged for so great an inconvenience but that which I have alleged for it and which I acknowledge to be truly alleged and justly but not justly admitted it remaineth that the Church is provided by God of other Laws the observation whereof is and would be a cure to the danger alleged from the change of the publick service of God into the vulgar languages For this danger proceedeth from nothing but from the false pretense of absolute and infallible authority in the Church which is indeed limited by the truth of that Christianity whereupon the Church is grounded and for the maintenance whereof it subsisteth For though this pretense may be a mean to contain simple people in obedience to any thing which shall be imposed so long as they know not any thing better that they ought to have yet if conscience be once awaked with reasons convincing that the authority instituted by God in his Church is abused to the prejudice and hinderance of the salvation of Gods people it is no marvail either that they should neglect all their interest of this world to seek themselves redress or that they should mistake themselves in seeking it and think the redress to be the destroying of all authority in the Church So that the preventing of danger by the necessary reformation of abuses in Church maters must not be thought to consist in pretenses as inconsistent with the common good of the Churches as with the truth of Christianity But in submitting to those bounds which the grounds of Christianity evidently establisheth And which unlesse Christianity make people more untractable then all the rudenesse which they are born and bred with makes barbarous Nations and wilde Beasts the sense of those mischiefs which difference of Religion hath brought in and maintained in Christendome must needs have disposed them to imbrace and to cherish for the future avoiding of the same In the next place supposing the Eucharist as the rest of the service to be celebrated in a language vulgarly understood we are to debate whither the Eucharist require Communion or whether the private Masses now allowed and countenanced in the Church of Rome be of the institution of our Lord and his Apostles Nor shall I need to use many words to free the term of private Masses from the exception which is sometimes made That all Masses are publick actions of the Church repeating the Sacrifice of Christ crucified to the benefit of his Church For seeing the term of a private Mass signifieth a thing visible The celebration of that Eucharist whereof no body but the Priest that consecrates it doth communicate I ask no man leave to use the term signifying no more by it but putting the rest to debate whither as de facto in the Church of Rome so de jure according to the institution of our Lord and his Apostles the sacrifice of Christ crucified is and ought to be either repeated or represented and commended by celebrating the Eucharist so as no body but the Priest that consecrates to communicate or whether the institution of our Lord require that Christians communicate in the Eucharist which they celebrate A dispute wherein nothing that is said in the Scripture concerning the order and practice of our Lord and his Apostles can leave any doubt For though there may be mention of celebrating the Eucharist where there is no mention of communicating in it which is an argument meerly negative not from the Scripture but from this or that Scripture and of no consequence to say S. Paul 1 Cor. XIV 14-17 1 Tim. II. 1-6 mentioneth the celebration of the Eucharist not mentioning any Communion therefore no body did communicate yet are we farr from the least inckling of any circumstance to show that there was this Sacrament celebrated when there was none but he that consecrated it to communicate Nay if we regard the institution Do this in remembrance of me referring as much to take eat and drinke as to the blessing or thanksgiving whereby I have showed that our Lord did consecrate If we regard S. Paul affirming that the bread which we bless and the cup which we drinke is the communion of the body and blood of Christ 1 Cor. X. 16. and reproving the Corinthians because the rich prevented the poor and suffered them not to communicate in their Oblations out of which the Eucharist was consecrated as I showed afore We shall be bold to conclude that so farr as appears by the Scripture all that did celebrate did communicate as all that assisted did celebrate if that be true which I proved afore that the Prayers of the Congregation is that which consecrates the Eucharist to wit supposing Gods Ordinance The same appears by Justine Martyr and other the ancientest Records of the Church that describe this office But I canot better express the sense of the Church in this point then by alleging the decretall Epistles of the Popes before Innocent the I. or his Predecessor Syricius which being forged by Isidore Mecater some DCC years after Christ as hath been discovered by men of much learning do notwithstanding contain this Rule that he who communicates not be not admitted to the service of the Church Which he that forged them would never have fathered upon the ancient Popes had it not been evident to all that were seen in the Canons of the Church that it was of old a mater of censure to be present at celebrating the Eucharist and not to communicate in it A thing evident enough by many Canons of Councils yet extant and foisted into those decretals to no other purpose but to make men believe in after ages that those Canons were made to prosecute and to bring to effect those things which the Popes had decreed afore as if their authority had been always the same as it was at the time of this forgery Now it is well enough known what pretenses have been made and what consequences drawn from the speculation of the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross repeted or represented by this Sacrament to perswade Christendom that the benefit thereof in remission of sinnes and infusion of grace and all the effects of Christs Passion is derived upon Gods
shall confirme it by so visible an instance as this Death was proposed to Adam for the mark of Gods wrath and vengeance which he was become liable to by sinne The turning of this curse into a blessing was to be the effect of Christs Crosse which was not yet to be revealed The life of the Land of Promise was proposed for the reward of keeping Gods law in stead of the life of Paradise Therefore the cutting off of that life was to be taken for a mark of that curse which mankind became subject to by the first Adam till it should be declared the way to a better life by the Crosse of Christ Therefore the Giants that left it with the markes of enmity with God upon them are described as within the dominion of Hell but not asleep unlesse we can think that it is a mark of misery to go to them that sleep when all do sleep Prov. II. 17. IX 18. XXI 17. Esay XXVI 14. For that there should be no praising of God after death holds punctually in virtue of the Old Covenant which brought no man to life and was then on foot though they who writ those things might and did know that by the virtue of the New Covenant under which they knew themselves to be they should not be deprived of the priviledge of praising God after death and before the resurrection how sparing soever they were to be in imparting this knowledge openly to all the world For how otherwise should they whom the Apostle Ebr. XI declareth to have sought the kingdom of heaven have showed themselves otherwise affected with death then the Martyrs that suffered for Christ were afterwards How could it be thought the same Spirit that moved them to such a difference of effects according to the difference of time And therefore the same Solomon that saith there is nothing to be done in the grave Eccles IX 10. saith further Eccles XII 8. that when the dust returns to the earth then the soul returns to God that gave it And when Exoch and Elias were taken away by God in their Bodies neither sleep they seeing Moses and Elias attend our Lord Christ at his transfiguration Mat. XVII 3 4. Mark IX 4 5. Luke IX 30. nor is it possible for any man that would have soules to sleep to give a reason why the Covenant by which all are ordered being the same the soules of Christians should sleep when their souls sleep not And therefore when our Lord proves the resurrection by this That God is called the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob whereas God is not the God of the dead but of the living Mat. XXII 32. Mark XII 26. Luke XX. 37. he not onely supposes that his argument is good but that his adversaries the Sadduces granted it to be good And so Saint Paul when he argues that if the dead rise not againe then are we the most miserable of all people As having no further hope then this life 1 Cor. XV. 19. For what needed more to them that owned the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ and yet would deny the world to come questioning the resurrection that supposes it For the rest I will not repeate that which I produced afore out of the Books we call Apocrypha which he that peruseth will find a difference between the language of the Patriarchs and Prophets speaking of themselves and the language of those Bookes speaking of them But I will insist upon this that our Lord when he proposeth the Parable of Dives and Lazarus manifestly accepts of that opinion which notwithstanding such difficulties from the Scriptures of the Old Testament had prevailed over the better part of that people by Tradition of the Fathers and Prophets To wit that the soules of good and bad are alive in joy and paine according to the qualities in which they depart hence and shall resume their bodies to give account in them for their workes here The same doth the appearance of Moses and Elias at his transfiguration the rendering of his soul into his Fathers hand the promise of bringing the thiefe into Paradise the same day signify Whereby it appeareth that whatsoever might seeme to argue either that the soules of the Fathers were in the devils hands till the death and resurrection of Christ or that all soules go out like sparks when men dy and are kindled anew when they rise againe prove nothing because they prove too much For if they prove any thing they must prove that there is no world to come as the disputes of Ecclesiastes and Job seem to say because by the accidents of this world there is no ground of a mans estate in it Which seeing it is so farre from leaving any dispute among Christians that among Jewes the Sadduces were reputed Sectaries It is evident that whatsoever may seem to look that way in the Old Testament cannot prove that the soules of the Fathers were in the Verge of Hell till Christ riseing againe the graves were opened and many bodies of Saints which slept arose and came out of the graves after his resurrection and went into the holy City and appeared to many as we read in the Gospel of Mat. XXVII 52 53. This indeed were something if the Scripture had said that those Saints who arose with their bodies when our Lord Christ was risen againe had ascended into heaven with him in their bodies Which because it derogates from the generallity of the last resurrection having no ground in the Scripture can beare no dispute Therefore seeing these Saints as Lazarus afore and the Widowes sonne of Naim whom our Lord raised restored their bodies to the grave there is no presumption from hence that their soules were brought from Hell by our Lord to be translated into the full happinesse of the world to come with his owne I do therefore allow that which is written in the Apocryphall 2 Esdras IV. 41 42. In the grave the chambers of souls are like the womb of a woman For like as a woman that travaileth maketh hast to escape the pressure of her travaile Even so do those places haste to deliver the things that are committed unto them And VII 32. And the earth shall restore those that are asleep in her and so shall the dust those that dwell in silence and the secret places shall deliver those soules that were committed unto them For in most of those writings which the ancient Church counteth Apocryphal because they are suspected to intend some poisonous doctrine excellent things are contained which the agreement of them with Canonicall Scripture and their consequence and dependance upon the truth which they settle renders recommendable even from dangerous authors And for that which is here said whether we suppose this book to be written by a Christian or not before Christ or after Seeing there is no mention of any Saints in those visions of the old Testament where God is represented sitting upon his Throne but
it shall appear by Eusebius that the Councile of Antiochia having created a new Bishop and adjudged the possession of the Bishops Palace to him which Paulus Samosatenus defended by force and the Emperor being appealed to by the parties for execution adjudged the possession to him whom the Bishop of Rome and Italy should account lawfull Bishop I suppose I shall not need many words to show any reasonable man the very termes which I hold in this sentence to wit that the matter of it was determined by the Church the force and execution of it came from the Power of the Empire I had purposed here to examine some of those instances produced in the first book de Synedriis cap. X. some passages of Church Writers alledged in the Oxford Doctors Paraenefis to prove the Ecclesiasticall power meerely the effect of the secular because limitable by it But having debated thus farre the bounds between Gods Law and the Lawes of the Church and found the Law of the Church to be nothing but the limitation of Gods Law the force whereof comes from Gods generall Law in founding the Church I find not the least cause to distrust him that admitteth it as one to be turned aside with pretenses of so vast consequence upon such slight appearances I shall therefore thus turn him loose to apply the generall ground upon which I proceed to the particulars that may be alledged out of the ancient Church Onely one I must not leave behinde me the contest between the Emperors and the Popes about the Investâ—â—ures of Churches as carrying in it the meanes of changing the Regular Power of the Pope which I owne into the pretense of that infinite power which infallibility speaketh Yet is it not my purpose to state the case in debate because it would require the examining of many records in point of fact not advancing the discovery of the right a whit more then supposing it stated For supposing the investiture of a Church to signifie a right of contradicting an Election or to signify a right of delivering possession no man admitting the premises can deny that all Princes and States that are Christiane have â—â— them a right to do both though the terme of Investiture seem properly to signify onely the latter as signifying the ceremony of investing some man in the rights of his Church For if the Church be protected in the rights of it by the Lawes of the Land as upon the premises it cannot be denied that upon the States acknowledging the Church as founded by God it ought to be and must needs be protected all the reason in the World will require that the secular power be inabled to except against any mans person as prejudicall to the State and to render no account of such exception to any man as having no superiour in that trust to whom to render it But if under the title of Investiture the right of electing and consecrationg originally resident in the Clergy and People of each Church and the Bishops of the Province be seized into the hands of the secular power by the force thereof constraining each party to do their own parts in admitting the nomination thereof whether allowing it or not whatsoever trouble any Soveraigne procure in such a cause is meeâ— wrong and in a wrong cause The foundation of the Church setling the rights that concurre to the doing of it upon the qualities which it self createth But this is not therefore to say that the Pope or all the Church hath any right to depose such a Prince or to move warre against such a State by what meanes soever it may be done Because that is the effect of temporall power that is soveraigne which the Church hath not in point of right but usurpeth in point of fact by so doing He that can injoyn another man either to eject a Prince or destroy a State upon what terms soever he may dispose of it when that is done as he shall make the tenures of this world to depend upon Christianity so he makes himself Soveraigne in the world that ownes him in the doing it upon the same title of Christianity So the Popes had certainly a wrong cause in stirring warre which they had no title to do The Emperors whether they had a right or a wrong cause which God would punish by suffering the Popes to move warre without a title the state of the case must judge though for the most part in warres both parties are in the wrong insisting upon that which they have no right to insist upon for the termes of peace Let us consider what brought the Popes to this height of really and actually claiming temporall power over Soveraignties that is to be Soveraigne over Soveraignes by moving warre to destroy Princes and States I will suppose here the defection of the Italian forces from the Emperour Leo Isaurus for ejecting all images out of Churches and that he in reprisall for it seized the possessions of the Church of Rome in his dominions and translated the jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall through the same upon his Church of Constantinople For in reprisall for this Pepin whose usurpation of the Crown of France Pope Zachary had allowed at the request of Pope Steven constraining the Lâ—mbards to render or to forbear those parts of the Empire which the Emperors at Constantinople were not able to maintaine any more against them bestowed them upon the Church of Rome under his own protection as the case sufficiently shewes especially admitting the Charter of Ludovieus Pius his Grandchilde to be but the confirmation of his Fathers and Grandfathers acts saving the difference of that title under which they were done For the Charter of Ludovicus Pius in Sigonins de Regno Italiae IV. manifestly reserving the Soveraignty to himself and his successors remits both the fruits and the administration of them to the Church charging himselfe to protect it in the same Which burthen we must needs understand that Pepin by his grant did undertake seeing that in point of fact the Church could neither undertake to hold them against the Lombardâ— nor against the Empire which till this act it acknowledged Soveraigne whatsoever in point of right it might do The act of Charles the Great coming between these two upon the ruine of the Lombards that is his own Soveraignty in reason must needs seem to have given the forme to the act of his son The power of this line decaying in Italy and those who had attempted to succeed it failing it is no marvaile if among the States of Italy that contracted with the Germanes to invest them in the same Soveraignty which Charles the Great and his line as Kings of Lombardy by conquest or as declared Emperor by the City of Rome the Head whereof was then the Pope whatsoever that declaration might signify the Pope in behalf of the City and Church of Rome appeared most considerable While the Germanes through their strength at home were able to