I. consists in the visible communion of the faithful, in the CHAP. visible offices of God's service: being founded by God upon the sovereign rights, first, of propagating successors to the apostles in the government of the Church, and in the ministries which it requires; secondly, of giving law to this government; thirdly, of excommunicating them that refuse such law; lastly, of disposing goods consecrated to God, under the trust of His Church, to the end for which they were consecrated. general § 3. Having met with no contradiction, I must take all [Canonithis for proved: and much more; to wit, that, these powers cised up to cally exerhaving been canonically exercised by a hierarchy of bishops, the sixth according to the extent of their sees (the greatest and first council.] being that of Rome), during the time of six general councils, the same measure of canonical power in governing the whole Church is propagated and ought to be maintained in the bishops of the respective sees, the authority whereof is visibly propagated from the apostles. § 4. Here, I confess, I involve a point not yet proved, when [But no I own the regular government of the Church as far as the further.] sixth council, and no further than that. But I think I have just reason for it. First, because there never was any general council of east and west both, canonically held, after this. For those, which the see of Rome calls the seventh and the eighth, had neither any representatives of the Churches on this side. the Alps at them, nor any consent did they yield to receive them; and therefore must be thought to have gained that name by the power of the see of Rome usurped afterwards. For as for those, that were held afterwards under the papacy, it is manifest, that they gained that name by the faction that held them. Secondly, because we have in our hands a book called Codex Canonum Ecclesiæ Romanæ, containing all the I. CHAP. canons which that see held in the force of law at the concluding of it, not long after the sixth councilm, whereas, in the east, those canons which had been enacted at Constantinople to supply the fifth and sixth councils, that had made none, could never obtain of the see of Rome so much as to be tolerated in the west, or in force in the east, as they were nevertheless in spite of their teeth". Here is the fair beginning of a foul schism, still on foot, between the eastern and western Church; which the Reformation, having no interess in, ought to claim the inheritance of both, and to regulate itself by the one as much as by the other, transgressing that canonical trust which the pre-eminences thereof enforce, as the Reformation supposes the see of Rome to have done. And therefore the same is to be said of those few canons°, which the seventh and eighth general councils (so called by the see of Rome) have enacted. For these are all, that the Greek Church hathP. And thus it appears what I mean, when I claim, that all interpretation of Scripture as concerning the faith, all reformation of the Church as concerning the government of the Church, is to be confined within the consent of the whole Church, expressed in the decrees of those councils and the canons in force during that time. national CHAPTER II. [INTEREST OF THE CIVIL POWER IN ECCLESIASTICAL MATTERS.] [Due BUT I have further set forth the ground of the interest of ground for sovereign power in ecclesiastical matters, out of the apostles; Churches.] enacting for a ground of Christianity, that it alters nothing in the state of the world, but maintains all in those rights, which they stand possessed of when they become Christians1. m The latest canons in that Codex are of Pope Gregory II., A. D. 721: the date of the (sixth general) council of Constantinople was A. D. 680. "For the canons passed in the council (A.D. 692) in Trullo, or Quinisext, so called as supplying canons to the 5th and 6th councils where no canons were passed, see Beveridge, Synodicon, vol. i. pp. 150, sq.; and Epilogue, Bk. III. Of the Laws of the Ch., c. xx. § 36, 37. Scil. of Nice II. (A.D. 787), canons xxii.: and of Constantinople (A.D. 870), canons xxvii.; see Labb., Conc., tom. vii. pp. 594, sq., and tom. viii. pp. 1126, sq. P See True Princ. of Comprehension, sect. iii. note o. See references in Disc. of Forbearance or Penalties &c., c. ix. note j. II. For sovereign powers having the right of giving law to their CHAP. subjects, and Christianity obliging them to all that may advance it (which the making of the faith and law of the Church, law to their subjects, will certainly and evidently do); they not only may but are bound to enact laws, that may advance the Christianity of their subjects. The matter of ecclesiastical law is determined to their hands by the constitution of the Church. For as all ecclesiastical law is to be confined within the canons of the whole Church; whereof all sovereign powers are by their birthright protectors, for their own interest, and the interest of their subjects, as Christians: so are they bound to protect the Church in the office of giving law to the Church, which they had from God when no sovereign was yet Christian, by making the laws which they give to the Church, laws to their subjects; unless they either cross the laws of the whole Church, which all Christian sovereigns are bound to protect before new laws were made; or the interest of their crowns, which Christianity maintains by the doctrine of the apostles. I know Independents and other fanatics acknowledge no national Church': that is, no right in their sovereign to give law in religion to his subjects. But thereby they deny one article of the creed, "One catholic Church." I know Presbyterians acknowledge that, which they deny, by virtue of the Old Testament and the right of the synagogue under the same. Whereas indeed the Church had no being till the synagogue was dissolved. And therefore the Old Testament cannot be drawn into this consequence, otherwise than as the correspondence between the land of promise and the kingdom of heaven estates the rights of God's ancient people upon the Christian Church. There could be no such thing as a national Church, if there were not first a catholic Church. For who can imagine, that a sovereign can by his laws secure the consciences of his subjects in matter of Christianity common to both, were he not, and they both, first secured by the Church? Just Weights and Measures, Preface to Reader, note a; Disc. of Forbearance or Penalties &c., c. xii. See Prynne's Sword of Christian Magistracy Supported, pp. 2-14, 21, sq., 4to. Lond. 1647: and above, Rt. CHAP. [Heresy as to God, able by civil pe nalty.] CHAPTER III. [OF PENALTIES UPON HERESY.] I WILL instance in the punishment of heretics, to shew the not punish- force of this principle. The world knows, how much, and how justly, the Reformation is concerned in the burning of heretics: not known in the Church for a thousand years after Christ'. And yet Servetus and Gentilis were burnt at Geneva and Bern". What can this be imputed to, but that the ground and therefore the measure of civil punishment for heresy was not understood? Let the doctrine of the apostles be understood; that no man, when he becomes a Christian, gets any right upon the life and estate of another man by his Christianity; nor the sovereign any right to secure the consciences of his subjects, even in matter of Christianity:—and it will easily appear, that the crime of heresy as to God, is not punishable by civil penalty. It is punished sufficiently by the heretics and schismatics themselves, cutting themselves off from the Church". [But only so far as it is an offence against the civil power.] § 2. As to the commonwealth, it remains punishable by all penalty under death and banishment and confiscation of goods, as the disobeying of the law and the danger of that disobedience to the public may require. And therefore, if the heresy contain any thing prejudicial to civil government (which the doctrine of the apostles shews to be inconsistent with Christianity), it is punishable even to the The first heretics made liable to death by the state for heresy were, according to Gothofred (in Cod. Theodos., lib. xvi. tit. 5, quoted by Bingham, XVI. vi. 6), the Encratites, Manichees, and one or two other insignificant sects, by a law of Theodosius, A.D. 382; which however was rarely put into execution. Compare, however, Ayliffe's Parergon, tit. Heresy, who alleges Justinian to be the first who punished heresy with death. And see Jer. Taylor, Lib. of Proph., sect. xiv. § 6, sq. Works, vol. v. pp. 528, 529; and Thorndike's own Latin book, De Rat. Fin. Controv., c. xxxiv. pp. 679-684. Priscillian and his adherents are usually cited as the earliest instance of heretics put to death by the civil power, scil. A.D. 385 (Mo sheim, Bk. II. Cent. iv. Pt. ii. c. v. § 21). The first heretics burned for heresy seem to be certain Paulician Albigenses about A.D. 1022 (Maitland's Facts and Documents, Mosheim, Bk. III. Cent. xi. Pt. ii. c. v. § 3, Gieseler, 3rd Period, Div. ii. Pt. iii. § 46, note 3, Hardwick's Hist. of Medieval Ch., Period ii. c. vii. p. 203) and that by the instrumentality of the Church, whereas S. Ambrose, S. Martin, and others, protested loudly against putting to death Priscillian. One bishop protested in 1022 (Hardwick, ibid., 304, note 2). p. u See Disc. of Forbearance or Penalties &c., c. xxvii. init. See ibid., c. xxix. See ibid., cc. xxvii.-xxix. III. rate of high treason; as civil power finds it dangerous to the CHA P. state. This is the obligation, that all Christian powers have, to enact the religion which they profess (being first obliged only to that which the catholic Church professeth), by rewards and penalties, valuable to recal heretics and schismatics. Neither are the blasphemies of Jews, Turks, and heretics, otherwise punishable, than as they affront the protection they have from Christian powers. CHAPTER IV. [HOW FAR HERESY AND SCHISM ARE PREJUDICIAL TO SALVATION.] to salva ALL this serves not my turn, till we observe, that the con- [What dition of the gospel is presupposed to the state and being of schism are heresy and the Church. The laws of the Church, on the contrary, are prejudicial all of them effects and productions of the authority of it. tion.] Whence it follows, that there is nothing necessary to be believed for the salvation of all Christians, but the condition of the covenant of grace and that which belongs to it. The reason is evident; supposing, that whosoever takes the yoke of Christ upon him by being baptized into the catholic Church, is ipso facto in the state of grace. For who dare say, that the terms of salvation can be any other now, than those that first were preached by our Lord and His apostles? As for the laws of the Church, and the decrees thereof in matter of faith, being productions of the authority vested in the successors of the apostles, it is not possible, that any man should be damned for not believing them to be true or justly and duly enacted, further than they appear to be so by the Scriptures expounded within the consent of the whole Church; such as I conceive all to be, that are enacted for heresies and schisms during the time prefixed, of the six general councilsa. But they may be justly damned for breaking the unity of the Church, and refusing communion, for any thing enacted See ibid., c. xxvii.; True Princ. of Comprehension, sect. xi.; Plea of Weakness &c., sect. vi. See Epilogue, Bk. I. Of the Cov. of Gr., c. iv. § 4, 5; and Just Weights THORNDIKE. k k and Measures, e. vi. § 3. • See True Princ. of Comprehension, sect. iii.; and Disc. of Forbearance or Penalties, c. v. |