honestis or the like licitis I mean lege divina But if we have any doubt concerning this we are to repair from him not to our own judgment but to the Spiritual Magistrates and according as they shall declare the lawfulness or unlawfulness hereof we are to yeild or withdraw our active obedience to the Civil neither can this Civil Magistrate justly punish us for not observing his Laws when pronounc'd by the Ecclesiastical Magistrate opposite to the Divine And in such case we may answer to them as the Apostles who were then the chief Ecclesiastical Judges twice answer'd to the Sanedrim which was then exauthorized that we ought to obey God rather than men But to the Ecclesiastcal Magistrate we owe an obedience advanc'd beyond the former limitation being not only to do what they command if it be lawful or subscribe or swear to what they require if it be true but to believe that to be lawful or unlawful that to be truth or error I say in these Divine matters what they tell us is so without repairing concerning these to any other Judg. We are to yeild the same obedience to these Delegates of Christ our Lord touching Divine Laws as to a Temporal Supreme Legislator concerning his own Laws that are made in things left purely indifferent by the Divine Laws The Commands of which Temporal Legislators in the foresaid matters we are to obey not only when we our selves judg that they do accord with his Laws but also when we doubt of the meaning of his Laws we are to learn their true sense from him to obey him in all his Laws and to know from him what are his Laws For as he or his Delegates have authority to determine Controversies concerning the Secular Laws to put an end to contentions so have I shew'd the Church Magistrates to have to determine Controversies concerning the Divine Laws § 56 Against this so absolute Obedience and Submission of Judgment to the Church-Governors under the Gospel there are several Scriptures urg'd and necessary to be explain'd before we proceed further which Scriptures seem to licence all men lest perhaps they should be misguided to try and that by the same Scriptures their Teachers Doctrines that so if not finding their Doctrine according with these Scriptures they may so far withhold their assent to them For this are urg'd first Joh. 5.39 Search the Scriptures for in them ye think ye have eternal life and they testifiâ— of me 2ly Act. 5 17.1â— These the Bereans were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they receiv'd the word that Paul preach'd to them with all readiness of mind and search'd the Scriptures daily whether those things were so 3ly 1 Cor. 10.15 I speak as to wise men Judg ye what I say 4ly 1 Joh 4.1 Try the Spirits whether they be of God 5ly 1 Thes 5.21 Prove all things hold fast that which is good 6ly Gal. 1.8 9. Though we or an Angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel to you then that which we have preach'd unto you let him be accursed To which Texts is added the utter uselesness as to Spiritual matters of private Judgment in such an universal submission requir'd to a Judg. § 57 In Answer to these Texts First it is to be noted in general That trial of Doctrines by Scriptures is either of the Doctrines of private Teachers made by the Church-Governors of which trial no question is made Or of the Doctrines of private Teachers made by private men And these also they may try by the Scriptures so that they guide themselves lest our trial be mistaken in the sense of these Scriptures according to the Exposition thereof by the Church i.e. in her General Councils or in the most unanimous consent of those whom our Saviour departing left to be the Guides of the Church and Expositors of the Scriptures And if thus searching we find the Doctrines of our Teachers contrary to the Scriptures so expounded we may and ought to with-draw our belief from them Or this trial 3ly by Scriptures is of the doctrines of the Church i.e. of those doctrines which are deliver'd not by a private Teacher but by a general consent of the Church-guides at least the fullest that we can discover Or by General or other Superior Councils or by the Apostles or by our Saviour himself 1. Now the allowance of such a trial may be understood in two senses 1. Either in this sense Search or try my or our Doctrine by the Scriptures for you will surely find my Doctrine agreeing thereunto if you do search right and as you ought and in this sense the trial by the Scriptures of the Doctrines of the Church nay of the Apostles S. Paul's by the Bereans nay of Christ himself Whether the Old Testament as he urged testified of him is both allowed and recommended for since there is no difference of the teaching of Christ or of S. Paul or of the Church from the teaching of the Scripture the one will never fear but freely appeal to a trial by the other if it be rightly made § 58 2. Or 2ly it may be understood in this sence Search and try my Doctrine by the Scriptures and if you in the search do not perceive it agreeable unto them I declare that you have no reason to believe or that you are excusable in rejecting my Doctrine Now in this sence our Saviour or St. Paul or the other Scriptures never recommended private mens searching or gave any such priviledge to it unless you put this clause that they have searched aright But if you put in this clause then is the searcher after his searching not yet at liberty to disbelieve the Apostles or the Churches doctrine till he is sure first that he hath searched aright I say our Saviour or the Scriptures cannot recommend Searching in such a sence or upon such conditions § 59 1. First because such a Searcher or Tryer by the Scriptures there may be as is prejudiced by passion or interest or miseducation or as searcheth negligently and coldly or as hath not a sufficient capacity to understand the Scriptures he searcheth when perhaps it is in some difficult point wherein they are not so clear as if he should search the text of the Old Testament in the point delivered by St. Paul of the abrogating of Circumcision under the Gospel neither can any body be secure of his dis-engagement from all such letts of using a right judgment in searching § 60 2. Because however the Search or the Searcher prove there are other means and m diums by which is proved to men the truth of such doctrines and by which not bearing witness to a falsity one may discover himself to have made his search of Scripture amiss so often as he thinks it to contradict them Such mediums are Miracles and other mighty operations done by the power of the Holy Ghost upon which our Saviour Jo. 5.36 and elsewhere and S. Paul Rom. â—5
sibi tentet ascribere omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent videlicet Christo per electionem Pompatici sermonis i.e. Universalis ejusdem Christi sibi studeat membra subjugare Si enim dici hoc licenter permittitur honor Patriarcharum omnium negatur fortasse is in errore perit qui Vniversalis dicitur nullus jam Episcopus in statu veritatis invenitur I say as he hath these passages for which he is quoted by the Reformed as making much against the power which the Bishops of the Roman See claim so hath he other as it were an Antidote in the very same Epistle wherein he establisheth clearly that authority of the Roman Bishop which they oppose Whence it follows either that these places are urged by the Reformed in a mistaken fence or that he palpably contradicts himself and that with the same breath as it were Thus therefore saith he in the same Epistle Relatum est ergo ad Apostolicam Sedem Johannem vos ex hac sua praesumptione ad Synodum convocare Generalem cum Generalium Synodorum convocandi authoritas Apostolicae Sedi B. Petri singulari privilegio sit tradita nulla unquam Synodus rata legatur quae Apostolica authoritate non fuit fulta Quapropter quicquid in praedicto vestro Conventiculo statuistis ex authoritate S. Petri Apostolorum Principis Domini Salavatoris voce qua B. Petro potestatem ligandi atque solvendi ipse Salvator dedit quae etiam potestas in Successoribus ejus indubitanter transivit Praecipio omnia quae ibi statuisti vana cassata esse Multis denuo Apostolicis Canonicis atque Ecclesiasticis instruimur regulis non debere absque sententia Romani Pontificis Concilia celebrari Orate Fratres ut honor Ecclesiasticus nostris diebus non evacuetur nec unquam Romana Sedes quod instituente Domino Caput est omnium Ecclesiarum Privilegiis suis usquam careat aut exspolietur Haec Fratres valde cavenda sunt praecepta Domini atque sanctae Sedis Apostolicae quae vice Domini Salvatoris legatione fungitur monita fideliter amplectenda peragenda Lastly being consulted by them concerning the subordinate judgments of the Church he writes thus Non oportet ut degradetur vel dehonoretur unaquaeque Provincia sed apud semetipsam habeat judices i. e. for its judges Sacerdotes Episcopos singulos viz. juxta ordines suos quicunque causam habuerit a suis judicibus judicetur non ab alienis id est a suae justis judicibus Provinciae non ab exteris nisi ut jam praelibatum est a judicandis fuerit appellatum Si vero inter ipsius Provinciae Episcopos discrepare coeperit ratio c ad majorem tunc Sedem referantur As to the Constantinopolitan or Antioch Et si illae facile juste non discernuntur i.e. which is the major Sedes in respect of that Province ubi fuerit Synodus regulariter congregata Canonice juste judicentur Majores vero difficiles quaestiones ut sancta Synodus statuit beata consuetudo exigit ad Sedem Apostolicam semper referantur Whereby you see that the first See of Rome interessed her self not in all but the highest and difficultest matters of controversie where former judgments were ununanimous or were appealed from Likewise by the former passages t is plain that Pelagius challengeth that Supremacy to the Roman See which is denied by Protestants and alloweth the term of Summus Patriarcha as Summus implies some power and jurisdiction over all the rest whereby they become subordinate but not of Vniversalis Patriarcha as Vniversalis implies that there can be none besides for that only is universale extra quod nihil and is a term whereby all the rest are degraded And in this fence also afterward Gregory Pelagius his Successor arguing against the same John Constant took the same word when he saith Ep. 34. Constant Augustae Despectis omnibus praedictus Frater Coepiscopus meus solus conatur appellari Episcopus See the same again Ep. 38. Johanni Episcopo Constant And Ep. 32. Vniversa Ecclesia cum statu suo corruit quando is qui appellatur Vniversalis cadit But neither Gregory nor Pelagius denied it at least as applied to the Roman Bishop in that sense in which the Reformed urge it i.e. as it implies a Supreme power in some one Bishop over all the rest and as it intimates not praeter quem nemo sit but qui remanentibus partibus integris ipse caeteris superemineat as Baronius hath it Since in the same place where they deny the one as it were with the same breath they maintain the other and since in that sense this Title was sometimes given to the Roman Bishops tho Pelagius and Gregory do not like the name because so easily interpretable in a sense not justifiable or rather jealous that the Constantinopolitan Bishop as presiding in the Imperial City in using that word unjustly sought to undermine them in their Primacy at least for the Eastern parts of the Church they extend the sense of the word to its whole latitude and further than in all probability he meant it to make it be the sooner laid aside But not long after within two or three years of Gregory's death by the Emperour Phocas offended with Cyriacus the then Patriarch of Constantinople as this title was taken from the Constantinopolitan so was it inoffensively applied to the Roman See Yet without the attribution or access of any authority to that See which cannot be shewed to have bin formerly practised by it as also this title had bin aforetime in the Council of Chalcedon given that Bishop without any contradiction of those Fathers See Concil Chalced. Act. 3. Thus much concerning the Title of Oecumenicus or Vniversalis § 27 In the last place for the anciently-great authority of the Roman Bishop see the Epistles of Gregory the Great who tho with Pelagius his Predecessors he much disrellished the name of Vniversal Bishop or Pastor yet it appears out of these that he both claimed and exercised such an universal superiority and jurisdiction over other both Bishops and Patriarchs as the Reformed will by no means approve and as we may gather by his words 4. l. 37. Ep. thought a vindication of his just authority well consistent with true humility There he saith Dum Praedicator egregius dicat Ministerium meum honorificabo Rom. 11.13 qui rursus alias dicens facti sumus parvuli in medio vestrum 1 Thes 2.7 exemplum proculdubio nobis se sequentibus ostendit ut humilitatem teneamus in mente tamen ordinis nostri dignitatem servemus in honore quatenus nec in nobis humilitas timida nec erectio sit superba This premised see what follows in the same Epistle Johannes Constantinopolitanus in Constantinopolitana urbe Synodum secit in qua se Vniversalem appellare conatus est quod
not also after this be reasonably deduced that they are so too for all other truths that are so far necessary as that the error contrary to them some way hazards salvation or by some consequence overthroweth any absolutely necessary truth I say may not this also reasonably be concluded for these Reasons 1. Because we find no restriction of our Saviour's promise of assistance only for these absolutely necessary fundamentals and there must be granted need of this his assistance further so long as there is granted further danger 2. Because if we confine the non-failing guidance of these Church-guides only to absolute necessaries this will not extend so far as the points of the three Creeds a very few Articles of which are by the Learned thought Truths absolutely necessary 3. Because those of the Church-Doctors will not consent to an universal inerrability of these Church-guides but restrain it only to some truths whereas the Scriptures make no limitation but do it on such pretences as these 1. Because those wherein they say these may err are by-and unnecessary truths to which the Churches curiosity or weakness may carry her beyond her Rule See Bishop Laud § 21. n. 5. 2ly Because they are unprofitable curiosities and unnecessary subtilities for which the Promise was not made because Deus non abundat in superfluis Because they are such points as may be variously held and disputed without hurt or prejudice to faith See Dr. Potter § 5. p. 150. c. 3ly So then in all dangerous points as well as in absolutely necessary the Divine assistance and the Church-guides infallibility I hope will be still allowed 2ly They say the Church errs not in absolutely Fundamentals because the Word of God in all such points is so plainly and manifestly delivered unto Her that it is not possible that she should universally fall from it or teach against it See Bishop Laud § 21. n. 5 But then there seems also to be good reason why other points dangerous to salvation or undermining fundamentals should be delivered clearly in the same Word of God or if not clearly there is the more reason still that the Churches-guides should be infallibly assisted in these which both are dangerous and the Churches Rule the Scriptures in them obscure See more of this in Ch. Government 2. part § 32. 7. If these Church-guides have at least a Promise to be infallible in Necessaries § 50 this again setting aside now those forementioned texts which enjoin it will infer the obedience of Assent at least to some of their decisions namely those made in Necessaries for who can deny assent to a granted infallible Proponent And if assent must be granted to them in necessaries then as Mr. Chillingworth most acutely observed to all that they shall judge a Necessary If saith he p. 150. the Church be an infallible Director in Fundamentals then must we not only learn fundamentals of Her but also learn of Her what is fundamental and take for fundamental which she believes to be such In performance whereof saith he if I knew any one Church to be infallible I would quickly be of that Church This will hold at least for so many of Christians as will not pretend the skill themselves of separating necessaries and not-necessaries And these Church-guides judging what is necessary especially if they take it in such a larger sence as we have shewed but now that they have reason to presume of our Saviour's assistance therein then perhaps so many of their decisions will receive from them the denomination of Necessary as that we shall not think meet whilst assenting to all these to dissent from them in the rest But however if we yeild assent to all these good reason there is why we should also in all the rest abstracting from matters of fact and matters not Spiritual only putting in this exception unless any happen to be infallibly certain of the contrary to what they decide for whosoever is so I grant cannot yeild assent but how any one should be so debarring new revelations and his having any Divine evidence which the Church-guides have not as well as He I do not see especially when also having proposed to these Church-guides all the reasons and grounds of his infallible certainty yet he hath not made them so § 51 But if any one be so infallibly certain yet I say all the rest of Christians who have not attain'd such certainty have good reason to yeild assent to these Church-Guides also in all their Decisions even touching non-necessaries 1. Seeing that if I may transfer the Apostle's argument 1 Cor. 6. 3. from persons to things these being set over us to regulate our Judgment in the greatest matters how can they be conceiv'd unfit to do it in the lesser 2. Seeing that by our not-yeilding assent to all their Decisions even those also in non-necessaries so long as they have made no distinct partition of these two we may incur a peril of with-drawing our assent in some thing necessary but by assenting to all we are sure to have a right perswasion in all necessaries wherein these Guides have a Warrant not to fail but not so private men undertaking to Guide themselves 3. Seeing that in our erring together with our Guides who are thus also to give an account for our errors Heb. 13.17 so long as it is in non-necessaries our condition is not dangerous but on the other side there may be a great fault in us in denying due obedience tho in small matters 4. Seeing that those who most vindicate the liberty of their own judgments do to make these Guides the more liable to fallibility in non-necessaries plead the Scriptures to be in such points less perspicuous but on the contrary this imperspicuity of them in the Scriptures argues the more need in them of Guides 5. Seeing that private men have reason to presume that the Judment of so many so learned so ancient as these Ecclesiastical Courts use to consist of is where not absolutely infallible yet much to be preferr'd before their own i.e. that of one single person or of a few not so learned not so experienc'd So Children wisely follow their Parents and Scholars their Masters tho fallible Judgments Or putting our selves equal every-way in parts in learning c. to all these yet what help or means have we or what diligence do we use to discern Truth which these do not Consult we former Church and Tradition so do they And since the Writings of the Fathers as well as the Divine are liable to divers constructions and misunderstandings doubtless their exposition of these as well as of the Scriptures is to be preferr'd to private men's Again these present Church-Guides in any opposition or difference from the former Church-Guides having as high an authority as they if we pretend to yeild obedience to the one so we must to the other Consult we the Holy Scriptures and what Scriptures have we which they
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
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