GIFT, WHIT- which way can Antichrist go farther at his appearing? Will Abp. Cant. he not find precedents from this court to plain his way, and carry on his imposture? For this prince invades the right of the consistory, makes his palace the court for ecclesiastical causes, and is both prosecutor and judge himself; and when he finds the indictment flag, and the evidence at a stand, his majesty sets forth the charge, and turns manager. And thus those who are unjustly delated, are overborne by force." He was plainly thus biassed with passion in Athanasius's cause; for when the bishops, Paulinus, Lucifer, Dionysius and Eusebius, took the freedom to produce the retractation of Ursacius and Valens's testimony against Athanasius, the emperor refused to give any credit to the record of their confession; but rising up in court, declared himself an evidence against Athanasius. Upon this the bishops told him, his majesty could not be a Jegal evidence, unless the person impeached was brought into court, and allowed to make his defence; that since it was not a matter of property, or civil justice, the emperor's testimony could not be taken upon content; that since a bishop was to be tried, Constantius would be obliged to wave his imperial character, to submit to the customary forms, and manage upon a level with the criminal. The emperor, as Athanasius goes on, taking this discourse for an excess of liberty, banished the four bishops; and now being more incensed against Athanasius, he published a severe proclamation, ordered the Arians his diocese, and gave them leave to manage at discretion. "These proceedings," saith Athanasius, "are frightful excesses, and lively representations of Antichrist. For who can see the emperor leading the pretended bishops, and presiding upon the ecclesiastical bench, without saying, 'the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet,' has received its accomplishment? For since this prince, who wears the character of a Christian, presses into the holy place, and standing there, harasses the Churches, overbears the canons, and makes them give way to his secular authority,—since things are thus managed, who can say the Christians enjoy any peace under this reign? Who can deny but that they are rather in a state of persecution, and such a persecution as never was 2 Thess. ii. heard of, nor it may be never will be, till it is raised by that See Records, son of perdition?" 3. num. 92. Notwithstanding the great plainness of this remonstrance, BETH. we do not find Athanasius censured by any of the ancients ELIZAupon this score. St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and many others of the fathers, give him an extraordinary character. And, which is somewhat more remarkable, Constantine junior, Constantine the Great his son, Jovian, Marcian and Justinian, mention him with great regard, and without the least abatement. Now this would scarcely have been done, had he abetted any ecclesiastic encroachment upon the crown. But Vid. Elogia to argue in defence of the learned bishop and famous con- Athanasio fessor Athanasius, would be an injury to his memory, and a Athanas. very unnecessary undertaking. St. Hilary, an eminent prelate vol. 1. and confessor, in his address to the emperor Constantius, speaks to the same meaning and plainness with St. Athana sius. Veterum tributa. Hilar. Lib. ad Constant. clarations of the To proceed the emperor Marcian delivered in three articles Several emto the general council of Chalcedon, to be passed into canons. perors' deHe declares he reserved these points to be settled by them, against interposing in thinking it much more proper they should be decreed by the the discipline council, than established by a civil sanction. This draught Church. was passed into canons, but not in the same form drawn up by Concil. his majesty. Thus, though the emperor observed some Act. 6. instances of misbehaviour in the monks and clergy, which required discipline, yet he thought it too much to make a provision himself, but left the correction to the synod, as being the proper seat of authority for these matters. This council affords another remarkable instance: for here, in the case of Photius, metropolitan of Tyre, it is determined by the synod, that the imperial rescript is of no force against the canons and yet this case related only to a contest of jurisdiction between a metropolitan and one of his provincial bishops. And which is farther observable, the emperor's rescript carried the whole authority of the civil legislature; for neither the nobility nor the commons had any share in making laws: this privilege was resigned long ago in the Lex Regia, which enacts the prince's pleasure a law; the words are, "quicquid principi placuit, legis vigorem habeat.” Farther, the western emperor Honorius was of the same opinion with Marcian, and speaks somewhat fuller to the point. The passage in his letter to his brother Arcadius, who reigned in the east, stands thus: "If any religious controversy happens among the governors of the Church, the matter ought Chalced. WHITGIFT, Abp. Cant. 614. "Cum si tur, episco to be tried by the bishops; it is their business to interpret the divine laws, and ours to practise accordingly." The emperor Justinian's Novels run much to the same sense : "If any ecclesiastic's misbehaviour calls for correction, the quid de causa matter shall be decided, and the punishment appointed by the religionis inter anti- bishops. Of these things the temporal judges shall take no stites agere- cognizance; for we will not have business of this kind pale oportu- brought before them. Inquiries and prosecutions of this erit esse judicium. Ad nature ought to be made in ecclesiastical courts, and corrected divinarum by the censures of the Church, pursuant to the regulation of rerum inter- the canons, and the tenor of our holy religion. Neither is the nos spectat management of Church discipline in this manner any ways religionis obsequium." derogatory to the laws of our empire.' illos enim pretatio, ad Justin. Novel. 83. cap. 81. Basil. Imp. in Octav. Synod. Act. 10. p. 682. edit. Colon. Beveridg. Annot. in Can. Conc. Chalcedon. p. 109, 110. To give another instance, nothing can be more full than the emperor Basilius's declaration at the eighth general council of Constantinople. "I pronounce it," says this prince, "utterly unlawful for any lay-person whatever to debate any ecclesiastical argument, or to oppose the universal Church, or any ocumenical synod; for the discussing points of religion belongs to patriarchs, bishops, and spiritual guides, with whom God has entrusted the power of binding and loosing: for a layman, though never so well qualified in point of virtue, learning and discretion, is still but a layman; he is a sheep, and no shepherd. But on the other side, a bishop, though he fails remarkably in regularity, is notwithstanding a spiritual pastor, as long as his character continues upon him: and it does by no means become the sheep to rise upon the shepherd." From hence it is evident the emperor bars himself, no less than his lay-subjects, from being judges in ecclesiastical affairs. Upon the whole, as the learned Beveridge observes, it is clear by this testimony, and the others above-mentioned, that the Christian emperors left the discipline of the clergy, considered as clergy, and all ecclesiastical contests, between those of their own order; and, in short, all Church matters of what kind soever, to ecclesiastical judges: that is, to the bishops who are commissionated by our Saviour for this purpose. And for this reason it is, that these emperors never made any laws for ecclesiastical regulations, either with respect to things or persons, till the matter of these civil provisions had been first decreed in some episcopal synod. Farther, in the first council of Arles, held in the reign of BETH. Constantine the Great, it is decreed, that if any magistrate ELIZAwho professed Christianity should break in upon the discipline of the Church, he was to be excommunicated. The decrees of the coun and Antioch Can. 6. Arelat. Antioch. can. 12. And even in the reign of Constantius himself, who carried cil of Arles the regale much higher than any prince of those times, it is to this purordained at the council of Antioch, that if any bishop deposed pose. by a synod should, instead of appealing to a more numerous Conc. 1. council, apply to the emperor for redress, and refer the cause to his majesty, if any bishop should manage in this manner, he was not so much as to be heard by the episcopal college in his defence, nor ever to expect the recovery of his see. St. Chry- Concil. sostom lost his archbishopric upon pretence of this canon. As to matters of discipline, which relate to ceremonies and Socrat. lib.6. сар. 18. regulating the administration of divine service, these things seem to lie within the compass of the regale, and belong to the civil legislature; for did not the Jewish kings settle the course of the priests, and appoint the Levites their function? But to this it is answered, there is no arguing from the Jewish to the Пparσér Πρασσέτω Christian constitution; for the learned De Marca observes, de undev d βασιλεὺς the Jewish kings' regulations in religious affairs were not with- Sixa Tou δίχα τοῦ out the consent of the Sanhedrim; and for this he cites their apxupéws καὶ τῆς τῶν historian, Josephus. Now this great council consisted of a yepov considerable number of priests and Levites, besides secular yvúμns. persons of condition. To this it may be added, that the high De Marca priest ordinarily presided in the Sanhedrim. It is replied, Sacerd. et farther, that David, Solomon, and Hezekiah, had instructions Imper. lib.2. from God Almighty to institute the new temple service, and The Jewish kings acted govern the economy in the Church. As for the two first, it by Divine is plain they were prophets no less than princes; they were in religious guided by inspiration, and wrote part of the canon. And as affairs. to the matter in question, the appointing the furniture of the temple, and settling the ministration of the priests and Levites, all this was done by particular direction from heaven. Thus David declared, "the Lord made me understand in writing 1 Chron. by his hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern;" or, 20. as it stands in the Vulgate, "all these things came to me written 2 Chron. with the hand of the Lord, that I might understand all the works of this pattern." Thus David, by the instruction of the Holy Spirit, gave Solomon a model of the temple, and prescribed him the method for regulating the courses of the priests 1 Chron. xxviii. 11, and Levites, and all the service of the house of the Lord. 12, 13. de Concord. cap. 5. appointment xxviii. 2 to xxix. 25. WHIT- But this is not all: this train of religious ceremonies was likeGIFT, Abp. Cant. Wise prescribed by Gad and Nathan, which is supposed to answer the instance from Hezekiah; for it is said expressly, that this prince "set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psaltries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad, the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet; for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets." From hence it is inferred that Christian princes can draw no precedents for the regale from these instances in the Old Testament; for the Jewish kings governed in these matters by supernatural impulse, and prophetic direction; they did not act upon civil prerogative, upon any power resulting from the royal character; they declared plainly, their warrant came immediately from above; and that they had prophets sent to them on purpose to manage in this manner. 2 Chron. xxix. 25. See Dr. Members of Thus far, therefore, the Puritans seem not ill fortified against Bancroft's attack. However, the doctor has not a few English bishops, and other eminent divines of the Reformation, in his sentiment. The doctor's opinion, in his own words, is briefly this: "That the king hath ordinary authority in causes all the True ecclesiastical; that he is the chiefest in the decision and dethe Church termination of the Church causes; that he hath ordinary of England. authority for making all laws, ceremonies, and constitutions of the Church; that without his authority no such laws, ceremonies, or constitutions are, or ought to be, of force. And, lastly, that all appellations, which before were made to Rome, should ever be made hereafter to his majesty's Chancery, to be ended and determined as the matter now is by Sermon at delegates." Now the question will be, whether these English divines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, who fall in cross, p. 59. with Bancroft's doctrine, are consistent with the Fathers or not; that is, whether, in their discourses upon this subject, 615. they do not either overlook some of the most considerable tesThe ancients timonies of the ancients, or fail in their reconciling answers, supposed preferable to or advance contradictory assertions? If anything of this should happen, the cause would be somewhat perplexed: for it is a common saying, the stream runs clearest near the fountain-head. The primitive Doctors, being but a few removes from the Apostles, seem the best judges of the privileges and practice of the Church. These Fathers were some of them confessors for the fundamentals of Christianity, men of the St. Paul's the modern. |