The disarmers dexterities examined. In a second defence of the treatise of schisme. / By H. Hammond, D.D.

SECT. VII.

Rights of Kings acknowledged and confirmed by Councils. The Testimony out of Balsamon on Conc. Carth. Can. 16. The grievous mistake, whose it is. The Kings Ca∣nonicall power, and liberties. Destruction of our Hie∣rarchy no way imputable to the asserting of them.

[ 1] WHat now follows for a leaf together, p. 147. by way of answer to my second observation, and to the same pur∣pose in another leaf, p. 149. in answer to my second testimony, doth somewhat surpasse in its kind, all that hitherto hath been afforded us. The breviate of it is this; when I undertake that Kings have power to erect or translate Metropoles, Primacies, and Patriarchates, and to prove it, produce (beside known and allowed practises) the decrees and Canons of the Church in Council, that so it shall be, presently he concludes, that the Doctor disputes against himself, he is, saith he, to prove that it is the Kings proper right, independent of the Church, or her Canons, and he brings for proof a Canon of a Council, and calls that a more expresse attributing this power to the Prince, which is indeed not attribuere, but tribuere, not an acknowledgement, but a be∣stowing and conferring it;] And on he runs a very fair loose in this chase, and clearly carries all before him.

[ 2] Of this I have already spoken to the Catholick Gentleman, Repl. p. 112. and I shall need adde but this, that the rights of Kings have been ever since the Apostles times preserved invio∣late by all good Christians, that what without and before Ʋni∣versall Councils, reasonably belonged to them, hath by Ʋniver∣sall Councils been yielded to them. And this I deemed a fit way of judging of any particular right, whether it belonged to them or no, by inquiring what the Christian Church hath still yiel∣ded to them, meaning thereby not the Decrees of the Pope, S. W. his pretended head of the Church, but the Canons of the Oecumenical Councils, truly so called, and the avowed Doctrine

of the Ʋniversall Church, by which it hath alwaies been yielded lawful for P••inces to dispose of, and administer matters of ex∣teriour order in the Church, and so to erect or remove Patr ar∣chates, and consequently beyond all dispute, Princes still have this power, and the Pope, that at his creation hath vowed to ob∣serve all those antient Canons in violate, cannot without viola∣ton of his oath attempt to deny any C••ristian Prince this power in his own dominions.

[ 3] To this all that S. W. hath to object, is, that the Church con∣fers this power on Kings, and so doth not attribuere, but tribuere, attribute it, but bestow it.] And I that meant not to dispute of such niceties in Grammar, or mysteries of State, desirous to unite the civil and ecclesiasticall power, and not to sow seeds of jea∣lousies or dissentions betwixt them, finding the same thing assu∣med by Kings, as their right, and yielded them by the Church to be injoyed by them (for that sure is all that Balsamon's words can import, which he thinks so much for his advantage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we say th••t by this present Canon (in Trullo) 'tis yielded to the Prince to erect Bishopricks anew, for 'tis certain that in Trullo being after the Canon of Chalcedon, it was not by this present Canon so given him, that it was not his before, and the other te∣stimony, that affirmes this privi••ege given to the Kingly power, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 indefinitely, by the divine Canons, will stand him in little stead) thought I might hence conclude this to be unquestionably their due, but whether it were from God immediately conferred on them, and independently from the Church, or whether the Church in any notion were the medium that God used now under the Gospel to conferre it on them, truly I neither then was, nor now am, inclined either to in∣quire, or to take upon me to determine, being sure that this is not the ••inge, on which the con••roversie betwixt us can de∣pend, when it shall once be granted, that as now things stand in the world, Kings have this power really vested in them; this being most certain, that they that give the King any thing, doe not, if he had it before, (nor indeed can be imagined to) take it away by giving it him. This Dilemma will secure both my pretensions, and my method of arguing for them; if this were

the Emperours right, before the Church yielded or gave it to him, then sure the liberality of the Church is not so much worse than an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as to betray and rob him of it; If it were not formerly his right, but the Churches, then sure it is become so, by that donation. And when both these powers concurre in the same instance, the King doing it of a presumed right, and the Canons of the Church expresly according with it, what doubt can there be of the conclusion? Thus the same Balsamon tells us in that very place, of Alexius Comnenus the Emperour, whose Edict S. W. here cites, that he made a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an imperial decree, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the presence of the Synod that then was, and with their consent also, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that it was lawful to the Pr nces to grant to churches the chair of presidency, and to advance Bishopricks & A••chbishopricks into Metropoles; where as the decree is the Kings, and the Synod onely is present, and consents, so 'tis not that decree that gives the right, but it was by the Synod granted to be the Princes right be∣fore, or else we are to believe that they would not have consen∣ted to it; and again in case it were granted to be first given to the Prince by the canons of the Church, i.e. by the Cano••s of some universal Council, and that resolved to be the sense of that Em∣perors words in that Edict, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the privilege given to the regal Power by the divine Canons; yet being so given, 1. it cannot now be taken away by the power of the Bishop of Rome, who is himself obliged to observe all such Canons: and 2. it cannot want any new act of the Church to enable the Pr••nce for the exercise of it; the power which he hath so long injoyed, is of it self sufficie••t to every par∣ticular act comprehended under that power, and wants no au∣thoritat ve new concurrence, or consent of the Church for the consuming of it. And truly when in the close of that Paragraph S. W. hath fairly confest, that for the Emperour to erect Metro∣politanes, is an indulgence or privilege granted and given him by the Church in her Canons.] I may well conclude the debate, having my whole conclusion granted me, as far as I pretended in that Section, and as far as I need ever pretend in order to our present controversie.

I now proceed to behold him in the second part of career in the same field, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, wherein he promises himself such victories, having at the very entring on this stage, the good fortune, as he thinks, to have left his adversary behinde him irremediably, over head and ears again, saith he, in a grievous mistake.] But the word [again] yields me some comfort still. For, if I have been once in this condition already, and yet escaped that danger, 'tis more than possible I may again meet with the like deliverance, of which I shall not despair, till I have examined what it is, wherein this grievous mistake consists. Why, saith he, the Doctour begins thus, And accordingly the same Balsamon (on Con: Carthag: Can. 16.) doth upon that Canon professedly found the authority of Princes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to advance an Episcopal See into a Metropolis— whereas, saith he, neither doth Balsamon found the authority of Princes to execute such acts on that Canon, there being not a word in it to that purpose, nor doth he professedly say any thing as of himself— and had he said it, I conceive it no such strong argument, that a pro∣fessed adversary should speak so professedly against one.]

[ 5] Among these three heads I am set to seek out my grievous mistake. And for the last of them, I hope it will not very heavily oppresse me, when S W. in his last paragraph made use of Balsa∣mon against me; and to say no more, I see not why a learned Pa∣triarch of Antioch that had served the Church of God so wor∣thily in his great and excellent pains on the Canons of the An∣tient Church, should not be worthy to be named in a controver∣sie concerning the Interests of the Church, or why it should not be as great a prejudice to S. W. his pretensions, that this Pa∣triarch should be a professed adversary of them, as it can be to ours, that the Pope of Rome is not favourable to them.

[ 6] The like I may resolve of the second, for 1. granting that the words made use of are by Balsamon cited from other men, yet the opinion of others recited by Balsamon, and not disproved by him, but made use of, for the removing a difficulty before him, was, as I thought, by interpretation, the profession of Bal∣samon: And 2. those others would by their plurality be rather of greater, than of lesser authority than Balsamon, to prove that this Canon was esteemed in the Church a ground, whereon to

found the authority of Princes, which was the onely thing I vouch from it. 3. If the first objection have indeed truth in it that there is not a word in the Canon to that purpose, then it matters little who 'tis that founds this authority of the Prince on that Canon, be it Balsamon, or any other, whom he cites, the mistake is equal. The weight then, or grievousnesse of the mis∣take must, I suppose, be laid on the first of these, that the Doctor cites any, that professedly found the authority of Princes on that Canon, which, saith he, hath not a word in it to that purpose.]

[ 7] But now, what if the mistake should be on S. W his side after all this? Thus he must certainly be obliged to acknowledge, when I have minded the Reader of one trope, I know not whe∣ther involuntarily, or industriously put upon him by S. W. When in accord with what had been said in the former part of that 14^th §. from the Canon of Chalcedon, I cite out of Balsamon the profest founding the authority of Princes on that Canon (in a parenthesis expressing the place in Balsamon, where it is to be found, on Concil: Carthag: Can: 16.) he hath made a shift to interpret my words to this sense, that I affirm that the authority of Princes is professedly founded on the 16^th Canon of Car∣thage, which indeed saith not a word of it. Now what a pro∣ject for victories is this? and who would ever submit to such meannesses, that could hope for any other way of tolerable sub∣sistence? The short is, the 12^th Canon of Chalcedon, as that is re∣conciled with, and interpreted by the 17^th Canon of that Coun∣cil, and the 38^th in Trullo, was the subject matter of that secti∣on, and upon that Canon (that sure is the Canon of Chalcedon) Balsamon, or those in Balsamon, found the authority of Princes to advance Episcopal Sees into Metropoles; and though the 16^th Canon of Carthage have not a word to this subject, yet Balsamon's Scholia on that Canon doe thus, though but occa∣sionally, mention it: If there be any question of this, doe but turn to the place in Balsamon, in Synod: Carthag: p. 627. where having recited the very words by me set down that the King hath power to doe many things, among these 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to ad∣vance an Episcopal See to a Metropolis, and to constitute Bishops and Metropolitanes anew, he adds, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they use the 12 and 17 Canon of Chalcedon, and the 38 Canon of the Council in Trullo, which command the same things. What now can be more evident than this, that 'twas not I, but S. W. that was in this grievous mistake?

[ 8] Or if yet he shall insist, that there being mention in the line before, of Concil Carthag Can 16. [that Canon] in the subse∣quent must refer to that Carth: Canon: I answer, that those words (on Concil. Carth: 16.) are in a parenthesis, the known na∣ture of which is, that it may be left out without disturbing the sense, or connexion of the insuing with the precedent words: And then the sense must be complete thus, leaving out the paren∣thesis. The same Balsamon doth upon that Canon professedly found the authority of Princes— and then 'tis not possible to feign any antecedent for [that Canon] to relate to, but the Chalcedon Ca∣non in the former part of that Sect.

[ 9] What here he hath gathered up out of that place of Balsamon, that the King is neither under lawes nor canons, and therefore he may securely do this; from whence he collects, that this power of the King to remove Patriarchates, is deduced from no other ground than this, that his will is his law, that he may lawfully do what he lists, adding, that these grounds supposed, he blames not the infe∣rence that he should erect, transplant, nay pull down, not onely Bishops and Patriarchs, but the whole Hierarchy it self, (your pre∣sent lot, saith he, consequent to these your grounds) this is still of the same unsincere piece, and is visibly so as soon as ever 'tis re∣membred, that they that say this of the King, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉— cite three Canons of Councils for their affirmation: For sure if the King have this power, in their opinion, by the decrees of Councils, then he hath it upon some other ground than this, that his will is his law.—

[ 10] The short is, the ancient Canons have made prohibitions, and interdicted Bishops some things, which yet the same Canons al∣low them to do, when it is by the Kings appointment, they forbid any Bishop to meddle with secular affaires, to incroach on another mans dioecese; so again they forbid any ordinary Bishop to take upon him to be a Metropolitane, nay to seek or solicite for such increase of power to his See; and yet they allow a

Bishop to meddle with such secular Ministeries, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when the Prince shall thus appoint, and in that case 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, he shall not be hindered or hurt by the forementioned Canons: so again they allow liberty to the Prince to advance a Bishoprick into a Me∣tropolis, and the like, adding that the King 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is not subject to Lawes and Canons, i. e. these Lawes and Canons that were made for the retrenching other mens enormous irregular actions, were never meant to extend to the restreining of the Prince, as appears by the very words of these Canons, which yield this power to the King, though they take it away from all others. Thus in Demetrius Chomatenus his first answer to Cabasila, Jur: Graeco Rom. l. 5. p. 317. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, this of a Bishop removing from See to See, is not Canonical, neither by any wri ten nor unwritten tradition, yet 'tis ordinarily done upon the command of the King for some administration usefull to the pub∣lique, adding by the way of generall Aphorisme, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such things as these the regall Edict alone hath power (that sure is not a violent tyrannicall presumption) to change and innovate; and by and by after a great deal to this purpose he concludes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 'Tis easie to learn all this from the volumes of sacred and divine Canons, which it seems allow this. And many the like may be met with in Ecclesiastick Writers. And for this there is evident reason, because what would tend to injustice and disorder, being done by Bishops on their own heads, or from their own ambitions, being yet ordered and commanded by Go∣vernours, whose office it is to judge of publick commodity, and accordingly to give rule in it, tends to the most contrary ends, preservation of peace, and order, and justice, and all that is desi∣rable among men. 'Twas not possible S W should be unable to discern this, whether in the practice (so frequent) or in the palpable reasonablenesse of it, and therefore the fault is the grea∣ter, that he should 1 thus shuffle together things that are most distant, the irregular wills of Tyrannes, and the Canoni••all li∣berties

of Princes, and then vouch as our grounds, that the Prince may pull down the whole Hierarchy it selfe, and having ascended to this high degree of that which no Christian should once be guilty of, speaking confidently what he knows hath not the least semblance of truth in it, 'tis admirable that he should yet be able to transcend himself, and advance to this most su∣perlative pitch of affirming our present lot (the pulling down our Hierarchy) to be consequent to these forementioned grounds, as if he which died in the defence of the lawes and hierarchy of our Church, had been guilty of the demolishing of it. 'Tis hard I con∣fesse to reply to such reasonings as this.