I. PART Why is not this "the same in effect?" He that satisfieth a debt in pistoles, and he who satisfieth it in cracked groats, do both "the same thing in effect." To conclude,-they, who assume the right to be the last judges of their own liberties and privileges in all differences between them and the Court of Rome, "do the same thing in effect," whether the respective privileges of the one or the other be more or less but the emperors and the kings of England did assume to themselves the right to be the last judges of their own liberties and privileges in all differences between them and the Court of Rome: and, therefore, though the one might take (or mistake) himself to be within the old Roman Patriarchate, which the other was not, or whatsoever other differences there might be in the extent of their liberties or in their claims, yet they did "the same thing in effect." The only difference between the emperors and Henry the Eighth is this, that they denied the Papacy in parcels, and he denied it in gross. They denied his sovereign legislative power, they denied his patronage of Churches, they denied his investitures of Bishops, they denied his superiority above general Councils, they denied his tenths, and first-fruits, and pardons, and indulgences, and dispensations. So they pulled away his stolen feathers one by one, and Henry the Eighth uncased him all at once; but except some Patriarchal rites (which Britain never acknowledged, which are no parts of the Papacy), they left him as naked the one as the other. This I might well call "the same thing in effect." [R. C.'s witnesses to Papal SECTION THE THIRD. Now are we come to take a view of his witnesses, to try if he be more fortunate in offending than he is in defending. authority.] But truly they are such, that their very names and their well known acts do sufficiently confute all his evidence. 1. Constantine [the Great]. 1. The first is "Constantine the Great," who "professed openly that he could not judge of Bishops'.' f [Surv., c. vii. sect. 3. p. 106; as [x.] c. 2. from] Ruffinus, [Hist. Eccl.,] lib. III. No such thing. He said only, that "they could not be DISCOURSE judged of all mens." When all men have imperial power, his argument will have more force in it, but nothing to his purpose. The only question between us is about the Papacy, and his proof makes only for the privileges of Episcopacy. Whatso233 ever Constantine did at this time, was a mere prudential act. He had convocated the Bishops together against Arius; and instead of endeavouring to suppress the common enemy, they fell into quarrels and mutual complaints one against another, about businesses of no moment. Constantine seeing, "quod per hujusmodi jurgia causa summi negotii frustrareturh"-"that the main business" against Arius "was hindered by these unreasonable brawlings," and, "ne innotesceret ulli hominum," &c., to prevent scandal, "that the faults and contentions of priests might not appear to the world," he suppressed them, and referred them to the "judgment of God." This was a more prudent course, and more conducible at that time to the advantage of Christian religion, than to have examined every scandalous accusation of one against another. Yet even in this there appeareth sufficient proof of Constantine's judiciary power over the Bishops. First, they did all offer their mutual accusations one of another to him, as to their proper judge; secondly, he commanded them all to put their accusations in writing, and to deliver them to his hands; thirdly, he bound them all up in a bundle and sealed them; fourthly, he made them friends, and then burned them in their presence, and imposed upon them a perpetual amnesty or law of forgetfulness'. All these were judiciary acts. It is true, Constantine honoured Bishops very much; he made them his companions in his voyages, his fellow-commoners at his table; he cast his cloak over their faults. But this was not for want of judiciary power over them, but because "they were consecrated to God," and "he believed that in thus doing God would become propitious to him'." But at other times, the case is as clear as the sun,-" he prescribed I. PART to the Bishops those things which did pertain to the profit of the Churches." He referred the cause of Cæcilianus (an ecclesiastical cause) to Miltiades Bishop of Rome, and Marcus and Rheticius and Maternus and Marinus, as his delegates or commissioners; "visum est mihin"-" it hath seemed good to me," &c. He accepted appeals from the judgment of the Bishops. He commanded Cæcilianus to repair to Anulinus the Proconsul, and Patritius Vicar of the Prefects, as deputed and authorized by him as judges to do justice upon ecclesiastical delinquents. He sent for the Bishops, assembled by his commandment at a Council, first at Tyrus, then at Hierusalem, that they should "repair with speed" to Constantinople-" è vestigio ad castra nostra maturetis," to give an account to him of their actions and to shew how sincerely they had behaved themselves in their judgments. In a word, he meddled so much in ecclesiastical affairs, that he made himself " as a common Bishop constituted by God"." I will conclude with his own profession in an Epistle to the Nicomedians ;-"If we have chaste and orthodox Bishops and endowed with humanity, we rejoice; but if any one shall audaciously and unadvisedly be vehemently affected to the memory and praise of those pests" (Eusebius and other Bishops), "he shall straight be repressed by my execution as the minister of God","-and accordingly they were "spoiled of their dignities, and cast out of the cities." 2. Valentinian [the Third.] u 2. His second witness is "Valentinian in an Epistle to Theodosius ":" but which Valentinian, which Theodosius, where this "Epistle" is to be found, he is silent; and leaveth us, if it were worth the labour, to seek for a needle in a bottle of hay. But the truth is, there is nothing in it m Idem, [ibid.,] lib. iii. c. 23. [accord. to Christophorson,-24. ed. Vales.] Idem, Hist. [Eccl.,] lib. x. c. 5. [accord. to Christophorson.] • August., Epist. 162. [editt. before P Euseb., Hist. [Eccl.,] lib. x. c. 6. Euseb., De Vità Constantini, lib. III. which concerneth this question, nothing which we deny. DISCOURSE The words, as they be alleged by him, are these; "All antiquity hath given the principality of priesthood over all to the Bishop of the city of Rome." Our question is concerning the political principality of kings and emperors, and his answer is concerning "the principality of priesthood." Let them retain their "principality of priesthood," so they leave to sovereign princes their just principality of power. We are ready to give them a "principality of priesthood," if that would content them. And neither "all antiquity" nor any antiquity did ever give them a principality of power; or at least such a supremacy of single, sovereign, monarchical power, as they require, about which our controversy now is. A Lord Chief Justice hath a principality of order among his brother judges of the same Coif and Bench, and in some circumstantial respects a kind of eminency or principality of power, but no single supremacy, so as to be able to cross their votes with a non-obstante. Such a supremacy of sovereign, single, universal power of priesthood the Church of God did never know, either at Rome or elsewhere. The Bishops of Rome were so far from having power over general 234 Councils, that they had no single power over their fellowpatriarchs; so far from having power over emperors, that they have been delegated by emperors as their commissioners in ecclesiastical causes, have been convened before emperors, and deposed by emperors. Primitive Bishops use to style Popes their "brethren," their " colleagues," their "fellows," but never ecclesiastical princes. If he mean the second Valentinian, his authority weighs nothing; he was a young novice, misled by his Arian mother, a wilful ill-advised woman'. If he mean another Valentinian, I shall shew him that he exercised this political supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs, it may be to the questioning of his 'Prince of Priests.' 3. His third witness is "Theodosius the younger, in his 3. Theodosius [the Epistle to the Synod of Ephesus;" his words are these, "It younger]. PART is not lawful for him that is not a Bishop, to meddle with ecclesiastical matters"." I. Yet he did meddle with ecclesiastical matters. This is that Theodosius that argued with the Bishops upon the Holy Scriptures, as if he himself had been a Bishop". This is that Theodosius which made this following law, “We decree that who follow the ungodly Faith of Nestorius, or obey his wicked doctrine, if they be Bishops, be cast out of the holy Churches; but if laymen, anathematizedd." This is that Theodosius that convocated the general Council of Ephesus by his authority royal, and sent Candidianus thither to be his deputy, among other things "ut diligenter inspiceret," &c.-" to look diligently to the behaviours of the Bishops, to see that no dissensions did arise among them, to disturb the consultations of synodse;" and to repress them likewise; otherwise he might as well have staid at home. Among the instructions of Theodosius given to Candidianus are the words alleged, "Candidianum ad hanc sacram synodum abire jussimus, sed eá lege," &c.-"We command Candidianus to go to this holy synod, but upon this condition, that he should have nothing to do with questions and controversies which concern doctrines of faith, for it is unlawful for one not registered in the catalogue of Bishops, to thrust himself into ecclesiastical affairs and consultations." This is as much as to say, that Candidianus was not sent by the emperor to dispute in the Council about theological questions, which it is probable he did not understanding, nor to overawe the Bishops or controul their votes. We are of the same mind with Theodosius, and say as much as he, that it is not fit for every man promiscuously to dispute of theological questions: and though we give the sovereign regiment of the Church in some sense to princes within their own dominions, yet we would not have them to govern it upon their own heads, but upon mature advice of free synods of ecclesiastical persons, who are their proper counsellors in Church affairs. All men know that Candidianus could have b [Surv., c. vii. sect. 3. p. 106. See the Epistle in Labb., Concil., tom. ii. pp. 442, &c.] Socrat., [Hist. Eccl.,] lib. vii. c. 22. d Evagr., [Hist. Eccl.,] lib. [i. c.] 12. [Epist. Theodosii, as before quoted, p. 443. A.] f [Ibid., pp. 442. E, 443. A.] [?"understand."] |