« 上一頁繼續 »
bravest resolution, and highly recommended both for life and ELIZAlearning. The ancients, some people may say, compared to the moderns, are like Homer's heroes; they are, even single, an over-match for numerous bodies, and able to drive whole armies before them.
Dr. Bancroft. having cited the Fathers against Cartwright, and the rest of the Disciplinarians, makes the comparison in these words : “ For Mr. Calvin and Mr. Beza, I do think of them and their writings as they deserve: but I think better of the ancient Fathers, I must confess it.” Now how far Ban- Survey, croft's preference of the Fathers to Calvin and Beza will affect the testimony of the moderns, shall be left to the reader's consideration.
That an absolute submission in ecclesiastical matters is not An absolute due from the Church to the crown ; that princes have not any not due from authority to dissolve the episcopal college, to strike the hierar- the Church
to the regale. chy dead, or arrest their functions at pleasure ; that the civil sovereignty does not reach thus far, is granted by a late learned advocate for the regale. His words are these : “ Whenever the civil magistrate shall so far abuse his authority as to render it necessary for the clergy, by some extraordinary methods, to provide for the Church's welfare, that necessity will warrant their taking of them. When the danger The Autho
rity of Chrisis apparent, and the necessities of the Church will not bear the tian Princes farther delaying of synods, and the prince does refuse to let over their them meet, they must rather venture his displeasure, and do it cal Synods
asserted, &c. of themselves, than be wanting in such circumstances to the Church's safety and preservation.”
all the True These reasonable concessions put me in mind of a passage in Members of Eusebius. This historian reports, that the emperor Licinius of England, forbad the bishops to meet in synods; but this, says Eusebius, &c. Preface, was an ensnaring impracticable command : this law could not Euseb.de
Vit. Conbe obeyed without subverting the constitution of the Church.
The learned gentleman above-mentioned, in his “State of cap. 5). the Church,” &c. repeats the concessions in two other tracts more at large in these words : “ Should we be ever so unhappy under a Christian magistrate as to be denied all liberty of these assemblies, though the governors and fathers of the Church should with all their care and interest endeavour to obtain it: should he so far abuse his prerogative, as to turn it not only to the detriment, but to the ruin of all true religion
stant. lib. 1.
WHIT- and morality among us, and thereby make it absolutely necesAbp . Cant. sary for something extraordinary to be done to preserve both:
in such a case of extremity, I have before said, and I still adhere to it, that the bishops and pastors of the Church must resolve to hazard all in the discharge of their duty: they must meet, consult, and resolve on such measures as by God's assistance they shall think their unhappy circumstances do require, and be content to suffer any loss, or to run any danger, for their so doing. For then the prince would only have the name of a Christian, but would act like an Infidel ; and so having thrown off the care and protection of the Church, it would naturally return to the bishops and pastors,
to whom Christ committed it, to take upon themselves the care State of the and protection of it." Church and Clergy of From hence it may be observed, first, that the bishops and England,
pastors must be judges of the case when this necessity comes up; otherwise the remedy is impracticable, and this expedient for preserving the Church signifies nothing. For we may be assured a prince, who acts like an Infidel, will never confess his rigour, publish his mal-administration, and tell the bishops when the calamitous juncture happens, when it is necessary for them to re-assume their authority, and act independently of the regale. Now if the bishops are judges of the necessity, the consequence is, that it will be lawful for them to act upon their own judgment, and exert their character, whenever they believe the emergency calls for it. From whence it will follow, the people will be obliged to acquiesce in the regulations of their pastors in spiritual matters, though contrary to the pleasure of the State. For if the bishops have a right to govern, it must be the people's duty to submit to their government.
I observe, secondly, that this learned author asserts, that Christ committed the care and protection of the Church to the bishops and pastors. But he is not pleased to give any evidence for the revoking this commission : that the pastors should be thus reduced only by baptizing a prince, and receiving him a lay-member into their society, is none of the clearest propositions. That the Church should lose her authority by making a prince“ a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven :” that the Church, by conveying so great a benefit, and administering so glorious a sacrament, should lose her power, and forfeit her charter for
government; that the case stands thus, I say, will require ELIZAmore proof than is obvious at first sight, or commonly produced upon this occasion.
To proceed: Bancroft, in his “Survey,' takes notice, that both The doctrine Puritans and Papists go some lengths in their submission to learned the regale. For the Papists he cites the testimony of Hard-Prints
touching the ing, Fecknam, and Sanders. The words are these: “Good regale.
Hariling kings may put bishops and priests in mind of their duties, and against the bridle both their riot and arrogancy. The prince, by the word
Apo. 306, of God, may make laws for the observation of both tables, and Hard. ibid. punish the transgressors. I do here presently offer myself, to Fecknam io receive a corporal oath upon the evangelists, that I do utterly Ilorne. think, and am persuaded in my conscience, that the queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her highness's dominions and countries, &c. And fur- Saunders de ther, I shall presently swear, that her highness hath, under narch. lib.2. God, the sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons, born cap. 3. within these her highness's realms, of what estate, ecclesiastical or temporal, soever they be. Fatemur, personas episcoporum qui in toto orbe fuerunt, Romano imperatori subjectos fuisse :' we confess, that the persons of all the bishops in the world were subject to the Roman emperor. · Rex præest hominibus Christianis, verum non quia sunt Christiani, sed quia sunt homines, et quoniam ipsi episcopi sunt homines, episcopis etiam ea ex parte rex præesset :' the king ruleth Christians, not as they are Christians, but as they are men; and because bishops are men, the king in that respect hath authority over them.”
The famous De Marca, archbishop of Paris, discourses at 616. large upon this subject : I shall give the reader his opinion in a few words. He asserts that the calling councils, and confirming their decrees, is a branch of the regal authority, and that the first general councils were confirmed by the emperors ; De Concord. and that these princes were addressed by the bishops to ratify Sacerd. et.
. lib.6, their synods. And here, to prevent misconstruction, he throws cap. 17. 22. in an explanatory sentence; that decisions of faith, and cere- cap. 10. monies relating to the sacraments, bind the conscience, without the intervention of the civil magistrate. However, it is part of the prince's office to maintain the canons, and reinforce the censures of the Church with penalties upon property or person. He grants that princes have a right to be present in councils, either in person, or by their representatives. That it is their
Id. lib. 2.
August. contra Crescon. lib. 3.
WHIT- privilege to see that nothing is acted in these assemblies to the
inspect the canons, and examine their tendency, before they
That princes not only confirmed the councils in general, but sometimes selected particular canons for the civil sanction. And here Justinian has gone farther than all the rest of the emperors : and yet De Marca is of opinion he has not exceeded in the exercise of the regale. “For,” as the bishop continues, “he has not made any provisions altogether new, in matters purely ecclesiastical: he has only taken some of the old canons into the laws of the empire, and enlarged some branches of them : that this is no more than what belongs to a Christian prince : and that he is bound by his religion to make laws in defence of Christianity.”
That the emperor Justinian managed with this reserve, apId id? Epist. 50. pears by his rescript.“ It has always been our princely care,”
says he, “ to preserve ancient custom and discipline, wh'ch we never set aside unless by way of farther improvement; and that this has been more especially our maxim in ecclesiastical affairs. For these things are the regulations of the Fathers,
or rather the suggestion of the Holy Spirit. For whatever is Jussio Jus- decreed by apostolical authority, is certainly the appointment
of heaven.” And a little after he adds, 66 We look upon ourvileg. Conc. Byzac. selves as guardians and protectors of antiquity.”
Thus, for instance: this emperor's constitutions concerning θεσπίζομεν
the offices, behaviour, and privileges of the clergy and reliToivuv Tois gious, are all drawn, either from the old canons, or customary θείοις διά πάντων practice. Thus much is confessed by Justinian himself: that επόμενοι the emperor's explaining himself to this inoffensive sense, made κανόσιν.
his Novels received by the eastern and western Church without
remonstrance or opposition. Κελεύομεν κατά τους De Marca goes on in his acknowledgment of the regale : he μοναχικούς
maintains that princes are so far guardians of the canons, that κανόνας et passim they may lawfully displace bishops uncanonically possessed.
That in virtue of their Christianity, they are bound to promote De Concord. the interest of the spiritual society, of which they are memImper. lib.4. bers : and therefore, that it is part of their office to prevent Ibid. p. 233. the growth of scandal in the Church, and give check to schism Id. lib. 2.
similia verba occurrunt.
and heresies. Neither is this assisting the Church with the secular authority, any office ministerial to the hierarchy, any
stooping to the mitre, or disadvantage to the royal character. ELIZAOn the contrary, it is an independent branch of the civil sovereignty ; it is a function resulting from the authority of a Christian prince : of a Christian prince, to whose government it belongs to promote the service of God, the honour of our Saviour's kingdom, and the interests of the other world. And, lastly, that De Marca may not seem to overshoot in his concessions, he reports a passage, with approbation, from Facundus Hermianensis. This author was an African bishop, and lived in the reign of Justinian. Now this emperor happened to interpose in the controversy of the Three Chapters. This Facundus thought altogether foreign to the cognizance of the secular magistrate. He endeavours therefore to persuade princes to draw in this compass of the regale, and manage by the precedent of the emperor Marcian: his words are to this sense : “ That reserved prince of famous memory, was very sensible that king Uzziah's attempt to sacrifice was not unpunished; and yet this ministration was lawful to every priest, though of the second order : by greater force of consequence this religious emperor was convinced, that it was not within his authority to discuss those articles of Christian faith which had been regularly settled ; that an inquiry of this kind, or the making new canons, belongs to none but a synod of bishops. For this reason he was contented with the civil prerogative; he only fortified the Church constitutions with penal laws, but declined advancing so far with the regale, as to make any new canons." Facund.
And this may serve for a taste of the opinions of some of the lib. 12. learned Papists, not wholly bigotted to the court of Rome. To cap. 3. go on, and give the reader an account, in a word or two, what the old Dissenters delivered upon this subject.
“ Our meaning is not (saith Cartwright) utterly to seclude The Disthe magistrate out of our Church meetings, for oftentime a timents upon simple man, and (as the proverb saith) the gardener hath this question. spoken to good purpose, &c. He may be assistant, and have his voice in such assemblies. The prince may call a council of T. C. 2. 2. the ministry, and appoint both the time and the hours for the ?. C. 2. 2.
The civil magistrate is not utterly to be excluded from P: 157, such assemblies as do meet for the deciding of Church causes 161. and orders: he may be there assistant, and have his voice, but he may not be either moderator there, nor determiner, nor judge. Neither may the orders or decrees there made, be said
T. C. 2. 2.