Historical collections concerning church affairs: In which it is shew'd, from the ancient church historians, fathers, and other ecclesiastical writers, that the right to dispose of bishops, purely in relation to their charges, in their respective districts, was believed to be subjected in the clergy alone, as a separate independent body from the lay power, during the reigns of Constantine and Constantius, the two first Christian emperors: and that it was the judgment of the Catholick Christians, in those days, if the secular magistrate, or any irresistible party did assume the same right, upon any consideration whatever, that they were not to be recev'd nor obey'd in the execution of it. : To which are added, some occasional observations upon Dr. Hody's book, called, The case of the sees vacant, by an unjust and uncanonical deprivation, stated. / by a Presbyter of the Church of England.

CHAP. II.

SECT. I.

I Come now, in this second Chapter, according to my de∣signed Method, to shew, that during the Reigns of Constan∣tine and Constantius, the Empire was not reputed, upon Catho∣lick Principles, and by the Catholicks of that time, (or even by most of the Hereticks) to be vested with a Right to ab∣dicate a Bishop, when a Possessor; and by virtue of such his Abdication, or Deposition, to acquit his people of their de∣pendance upon him: No, though he was in his person, rendred uncapable to exercise his Pastoral Function among them. Nor

was the said Secular Power thought to be competent to en∣throne a Bishop, and righfully possess him of an Episcopal Chair, though it was vacant upon terms which the Church allows, nor could it by virtue of that Possession enable him to demand obedience of the Officers, and other Believers, within that District; nor to lay an obligation on the said Officers and Believers, to receive and obey him; it being only the Church hands, that were then believed to be capable of doing this: And further, that if any Emperor, or other incompetent Power, has attempted, and effected such a thing, and so de∣priv'd, or, dipossess'd a Bishop; a competent number of the Colledge, or Episcopal Fraternity, and of others Christians, that were truly conscientious, did always remonstrate upon Gospel principles, and adhere notwithstanding to the righful Bi∣shop, and reject the Interloper.

Now, in pursuance of this, I shall begin with Constantine whose principle was asserted and manifested by him, in the case of Caecilianus and Majorinus, when both of them were vested by their several Parties, and contended for their respectives rights in the Archbishoprick of Carthage; and the latter call'd the Em∣peror in as their Judge; being well assur'd, that the whole action will be found an undeniable and irrefragable evidence on our side. For, in this great affair Constantine did not stand a neuter, but disclaim'd all right to be a Judge in it; as what belong'd only to Church-men, and would be an Ʋsurpation upon the Law of God in him, if he should undertake it. And for the making this appear, I need only state the case, and declare the proceedings upon it, on the Churches, and on the Emperor's side: Which is this, according to the account that our Church-Historians, if St. Austin may be reckon'd among them, have given us of it.

When Mensurius Bishop of Carthage dyed, Caecilianus, the Arch-deacon of that Church, was elected Bishop in his room, and consecrated by Felix Aptungentens••s, who was a Neighbour Bishop, (according to the practice of the Church in St Cyprian's days) Botrus and Celeusius, two Presbyters that contended for it, being rejected. Caecilianus, entring upon his Charge, de∣manded the Church Vessels and Ornaments, which Mensurius left in the hands of the Elders of the Church, when Maxentius the Tyrant sent for him to Rome, by reason that he had con∣ceal'd Felix, a certain Deacon, who had wrote a notable Epistle

against him; but these Elders refus'd to deliver the Church-goods, or to Communicate with Caecilianus; and joyning them∣selves with Botrus and Celeusius, (who were discontented because they miss'd the Bishoprick) and Lucilla, a rich and potent Widow, whom Caecilianus had justly censur'd when he was Archdeacon: By the concurrence of these three causes, viz. The wrath of a Woman, the ambition of two Presbyters, and the covetousness of the Elders, a great and flagrant Schism was soon made; which they varnish'd over with a pretence, that Felix, who had ordain'd Caecilianus was a Traditor; they aspers'd Caecilianus also, that their cause might appear better to the World: And having done this, they called Secundus Tigisitanus, the Primate of Numidia, and Prince of the Traditors, and other Bishops to Carthage, who there intruded Majorinus into that full See, and condemn'd Caecilianus, in a Synod of seventy Bishops, who all were infa∣mous Traditors: And it was hence that turbulent Sect, after∣wards call'd Donatists, arose, and disturb'd the Church of God for some hundreds of years. But they did not rest satisfied in this settlement, being jealous of Caecilianus's growing power, that he might overtop them, since he had the Bishop of Rome on his side, and the assistance of other potent neighbouring Bi∣shops; and, above all, the favour of Constantine. Hereupon they apply themselves to Anulinus, the Proconsul in Africa, and re∣quest him, that he would make their cause known to the Emperor; which he undertook: And Constantine having receiv'd their Li∣bels at his hands; and some farther appeals in the progress of this affair, he thence took occasion to reprove and admonish them all in these words,

†Ye ask judgement of me in this world, when I my self may expect the Judgement of Christ. Meaning, that he himself was but a Subject of the Churches, and lyable to receive judgment from Christ, by her hands; as it appears by his Epistle, which he wrote to the Catholick Bishops‖ upon the same occasion; where the words will be found in the same sense, tho' Optatus hath given us no account of it.

If these Donatists had so pleas'd, they might have known, that God had pro∣vided in his Law, that the Church only should judge in these cases. And this is so plain, that he hop'd the most hard'ned temper might have been made

sensible of it. But God's favour did not possess their senses, and that is the reason why a true determination did them no advantage; and God's mercy deservedly departed from them; since it is as mani∣fest as the Sun at noon day, that they hated the provision which God, by his Church, hath made in these cases: What madness is it that possesseth 'em, in that, with an incredible arrogance, they think they may do that which may be lawfully neither spoke nor heard, and departing from the righful judgment which God has appointed, they require my judgment, together with the Church's? What force of malignity is it which dwells in their breasts? How often have they been just∣ly reprov'd by my self, for these wicked additions to God's Word in these cases? To which, if they had given any, they had not requir'd my judgment, who my self expect the Judgment of Christ: For I speak (as the truth is) that the judgment of the Priests ought to be accounted, as when the Lord himself, residing, Judgeth.

The most Holy Emperor goes on in the same Epistle.

What then do these ma∣lignant men favour, but the works of the Devil? They diligently search after Secu∣lar things, and relinquish the Heavenly. O outragious and daring ••ury! they make appeals, as in the causes of the Gentiles! What do these undervaluers of the Law, who refuse the Heavenly Judgment, and have deem'd that mine should be asked? Have they had these thoughts of Christ their Saviour? See now the Proditors! Behold how themselves have discover'd their evil deeds, without any further strict search after them! What civility can be expected from them, who thus rudely have insulted upon God? But do you (my Brethen) have patience, who follow the ways of our Lord and Saviour,

and whatsoever the Bishops shall fix upon, be sure that you readily comply with them in it, whom God hath thought fit to be honour'd by him. And return to your proper Sees, and re∣member me, that our Saviour may always have mercy upon me.

That which I find prefix'd to the Epistle ought not to be here omitted; because it represents these Donatists, who appeal from the legal Sentence of the Bishops for the fixing a Bishop in his District, to be singular therein; and, which is worse, to have made the secular Courts their Presidents. The words are these. Epistola Imperatoris Constantini; ubi dixit, qui pars Donati, quomodo forenses, sic litigant, ut denuntient & appellent, & Imperatorem de∣siderent audire post Episcopum judicata. The Epistle of the Emperor Constantine, where he hath said: those that are of the Party of Do∣natus, like secular pleaders, do so contend, that they remonstrate and appeal, and desire the Emperor to hear those things, which the Bishop•• have judg'd before.

And now, since this wise, and most religious Emperor hath thus amply and pathetically declar'd, that the rights of fixing a Bishop in his See are instated on the Bishops by Christ himself; and he brands those hat appeal from their judicatures, to the thrones of Princes, i. e. from the heavenly, to the Secular powers, (as he phrases it), asserting a right in the latter to revoke the Church's investiture and possession, and place a Successor upon it: Since these men (I say) are characterized by him, as men that have seared Consciences, and despise the Law of God, and Christ; and that are destitute of his Grace and Clemency, with a great deal more to the same effect, we may neither wonder at, nor censure St. Austin, in that he thus speaks of him, But because Constantine durst not judge of the cause of a Bishop, (viz. of Caecilianus) he assign'd that Office to be discuss'd, and ended by the Bishops; and it was determin'd in the City of Rome by Mel∣chiades its Bishop, and his Collegues. An Emperor is no more warranted to inrode and usurp the rights, which Christ hath deriv'd, and solely and immutably fix'd on the Bishops, than the meanest of his Subjects is; but he is subjected to the Church as well as they. And how can it be conceiv'd that so wise, religious, and knowing an Emperor as Constantine hath all along shew'd himself to be, should dare to do such a thing? Or why may not a Bishop say, that he durst not.

But yet, since the Donatists were so stubbornly resolv'd in the

carrying on their Schism; and neglectful of their duty to God and his Church, as to stand by their appeal to the Emperor, after all this; his Princely care of the Church, and that duty incumbent on all Governours to make and continue peace, ac∣cordingly as their secular arm enables them for it, directed him to receive their petition, and to comply so far with it, as to or∣der an hearing of their cause at Rome before Meltiades (so his name is wrote in Eusebius) its Bishop, and Rhetericius, Maternus, and Marinus his Collegues, who were Bishops in France, and fifteen Italian Bishops; commanding Caecilianus to appear there, and bring with him ten Bishops of his own, and ten of the adverse party: of which affair we have an account in Constantine's Epistle to Meltiades; in the beginning of his Epistle to† Chrestus Bishop of Syracuse; and in‖ Optatus, and St. Austin. In which two Epistles in Eusebius, his Imperial concern for the Church's divisions, and the noxious consequences of 'em, and his care and zeal for the present composing, and future preventing of them, is express'd at large, with abundance of piety and dis∣cretion: But the Bishops were sole Judges in the Case, by vir∣tue of their antecedent Commission, which they had from Christ their Master: And the Emperor only call'd the Synod, and legi∣timated the Assembly, by vertue of which Legitimation it be∣came civilly legal; and protected their persons in their per∣formances; but they made the Decision according to the Law of God.† And suitably (upon a thorow vindication of Caecilianus's innocence) Melchiades concluded to this effect.‖

That since it appear'd that the Donatists had not accus'd Caecilianus as they engag'd to do, and he is not convicted of any one crime, which they arraign'd him of; I think he is deser∣vedly to be retain'd in the Ecclesiastical Communion in his whole state: (That is as a Christian, and as a Bishop.) And he censur'd Donatus as the Chief promo∣ter of the Schism— as for othe••s, he gave them liberty to come into the Church, if they pleas'd; being ready to send Commu¦nicatory Letters, even to those whom Majori∣nus had ordain'd; and where two Bishops had been ordain'd in one place, by reason of the Schism, he decreed that the Bishop

should be continued and confirm'd in the See, who had been first ordain'd; and that another people, who wanted a Gover∣nor, should be assign'd for the other.

And a Decision was made to the same effect, by the same au∣thority, i. e. by the Bishops only, in the Council held at Arela∣tum, which Constantine call'd sometime after for that purpose, upon the continu'd complaints, and restless importunities of the Donatists, pretending that they had not had a fair hearing in the former Synod; as it is in the foremention'd Epistle to Chrestus. The Empire's favor call'd them thither, and order'd Ablavius, the then Proconsul of Africa, to give every Bishop his Tractatoria,† i. e. sufficient provision for his Journey: But tho' Constantine was there in his own Person (if we'll take Eusebius's words for it‖) and sat amidst the Bishops, as a common Bishop constituted of God, and did joyn with them in their Episcopal Acts†, assist∣ing them in order to peace; yet he did not act judicially amongst them (but in that respect subjected himself as became him) nor did he perform the part of a real Bishop in that Convention: So that the Donatists did afterwards make their appeal from the Council to the Empire‖, since Constantine did not act as a Judge in it; tho' Natalis Alexander thinks their Appeal to be a sufficient proof, that he was not personally in the Council. I cannot omit taking notice here of one of the Canons† in this Synod, which provides, That the Bishops should exclude from the Church communion those Magistrates which were Christian. Si contra Christianam Disciplinam aliquid agerent, if they acted any thing against the Christian Discipline. It being a strong evidence, that the Secular power did not then over rule in the Government of the Church.

But these turbulent men did not desist; tho' the Catholick Bishops had, in two Councils, determin'd and declar'd against them; they being in the number of those, who may be con∣futed, but cannot be overcome, because their work is always to resist the truth. And as they had before appeal'd from the Council at Rome to the Emperor's Person; they again make another ap∣peal from this Council of Arelatum: and tho' Constantine did not think that they were less impious and unreasonable in this appeal, than they were in the former; or that himself was better qualify'd to judge in a Church case than he was before; yet, upon a full experience that their prejudices to the Church Judges was so great that their Decisions would have

no effect for peace upon them; and considering withal that the greatest part of Africa joyn'd with them, and became very tu∣multuous, insomuch that his Empire might be embroil'd by them, and its quiet, in those parts of it, hazarded, if they contemn'd; especially since they so clamourously pretended, that they would acquiesce in his determination. Hereupon, the most Religious Emperor (tho' unwillingly) condescended to their request; but not without regret for his seeming to intermeddle with the Bishops Province, and asking them pardon for it. And he first appointed Rome for the place of hearing, and gave each party orders to appear there; but Caecilianus did not come; and Con∣stantine would not proceed against him when absent, as the Dona∣tists had done before: So that Assembly prov'd ineffectual, for which St. Austin seems much concern'd, wishing that he had then declar'd his judgment, and thereby put an end to their mad animosities, since they had engag'd themselves to submit unto it, and could not go back without a great blemish upon them. But the Emperor appointed another at Milan, in which all parties appear'd; and, upon a full hearing, he declar'd, Caecilianum innocentissimum, illos improbissimos, as St. Austin speaks, Caecilian to be innocent, and the Donatists most impious. But as his judgment here concurr'd with the two Synods precedeing, so it had no better effect; for they censur'd him upon it as corrupt, partial, and unjust. And tho' he did not here either take upon him the part of a spiritual Judge, or add to, or diminish from the decisions and sanctions of the two precedeing Councils; but concern'd himself so far only, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, with the things which the Bishops had done there as to satisfy himself in the impar∣tiality and probity of them: Yet he acted as a Secular Judge, and punisht their purses†, took from them the liberty to make a will, seized their meeting Houses, and determin'd to punish them‖ capitally for their non compliance; but Hosius with the other Bishops prevail'd upon him to forgo that severity. And the argument seems to be good, that since these worldly mulcts are thus particularly mention'd, and no other; they are the only judicial Acts which Constantine perform'd in this Con∣troversie.

SECT. II.

AND thus, I think, I have abundantly made it to appear, to any, who shall peruse this account, and desire satisfaction; that the right to constitute and remove a Bishop was solely in the Church, during Constantine's reign; unless they can produce their 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or secret History, in opposition to that, which our best Authors have openly deliver'd of those affairs. And I do heartily wish, that two sorts of men would seriously consider it, and lay aside their frequent discourses, in which they declare themselves of another opinion, and contradict that which is wrote as with a Sun beam, in the eyes of all men that can, and will, see it.

One sort of these men say, That the Church exercis'd a right, or rather a power, whilst the Empire was Heathen: But it became an Escheat to Constantine, when he became a Christian, and hath since remain'd in his Succession; and now is actually subjected in every Prince that is Christian, of what Line, Age, or Country soever.

But how came Constantine to be ignorant of this accumulated right upon his becoming a Christian? or, if he knew it, why did he forego it, nay abdicate it, since his conversion deriv'd and warranted it unto him? To say nothing of the Emperors that were his Successors, whose case was the same. Or were the Bishops in Constantine's, and the succeeding reigns, ignorant of this? Or, which will be a great deal worse, did they know, but conceal it, and usurp upon the Empire, by the exercise of that power, which they knew to belong unto it, and themselves had no right in? This Character will not become these holy Men: But their enemies would have been glad to have met with such men as Mr. Selden, Mr. Hobbs, and some other no∣vellists, and receiv'd the information from them; for none then among them were able to have given them these new lights. It would have effectually prov'd that charge against them some so much desir'd to make out, and so frequently attempted, but could find no bottom to build it upon, viz. That they acted by principles very prejudicial to the Government.

The other sort of men (which, I hope, may in time be better advis'd) are those that say no less, to the Church's disreputation; viz. That the Bishops did relinquish their original right to the Empire,

and wholly quit it, when the Emperors became Christian; even by a kind of Simoniacal compact, being brib'd unto it, by the temporal Possessions and Immunities, with which they vested them.

Now tho' I will not undertake to answer for the integrity of every Bishop, as to this matter, especially in the two Reigns of Constantius, and Valens; under which, too many will be found to have waver'd, during their persecutions, (tho' a competent number did not) their worldly Interests having over much in∣fluence upon them: Yet they had no temptation to do it under Constantine, whose principles directed him (and his practice was accordingly, save once, in Athanasius's case, in the Coun∣cil of Tyre) to support, and preserve them entire, in those liber∣ties, with which Christ had endow'd them; and they would have incurr'd his utmost displeasure, if they had deliver'd up one of them. So that this Plea also is altogether precarious. And surely the case of Caecilianus and Majorinus is so full an evidence of the Church's immutable Right, exclusive to the State, and the inviolated preservation of it, that nothing can be more so. For 1. Caecilianus was enthron'd at Carthage by the neighbouring Bishops, and by their hands only, upon the voy∣dance of that Chair, by the death of Mensurius: And this Con∣stantine himself has own'd to have been done according to Christ's Institution. And farther when Donatus, and his Party, op¦posed Caecilianus in bringing Majorinus upon him, he tells them That they did thereby so far wickedly and perversely desert the Holy Religion, the Heavenly Power, and the Catholick Determination.† As in his Epistle to Chrestus Bishop of Syracuse, above mention'd; with a great deal more to the same effect; which I have al∣ready recited.

2. That the Bishops, and they alone, were the Judges, and had a right to determine, judicially, upon any doubt that seemingly, or really, might arise concerning Caecilianus's Title, to confirm it, or voyd it, and place a Successor upon him: And Constantine admonisheth, censureth, and condemns the Donatists for asserting the same right in himself, and supplicating him to execute it; for which he represents them as men that are hardned, destitute of the Sunshine-light of the Gospel, and of the Di∣vine Clemency, and haters of the Provision which Christ hath made for that purpose by his Church. Of which, and more, I have also given an account above.

3. Constantine removes this right and power quite from him∣self,

and disowns it, as that which no ways belongs to him. It seems then that the Coordinate Power of the Church and State in the exercise of it, which Doctor Hody speaks of, was unknown to this great Emperor, when he says That the Civil and Eccle∣siastical Persons are Governors alike; and the latter exceeds the for∣mer only in that those have a superadded right to administer the Sacraments and ordain the Clergy: And if the Emperor had thought fit to have exercised his right in the Ecclesiastical Government, and depos'd Cornelius; St. Cyprian would have own'd, and sub∣mitted to his deprivation† as reasonable and just. And tho' I can't answer his demand‖ and make it appear. That the Church hath ever refus'd to submit to the present Possessor, because his Pre: decessor was unjustly depos'd by the secular Power; we have prov'd the secular Power incompetent to deprive him: and if he does prove that St Cyprian, or any one, or more Bishops, have sub∣mitted, (tho' I'll engage he cannot prove it upon St. Cyprian) their examples will not be argumentative: and he had as good let it alone.

4. All that Constantine did, or was capable to do, in this mat∣ter of Caecilianus, and Majorinus, in the way of Judicature, was to confirm the anteceeding judicial Acts of the Bishops, and cor∣roborate them, by his secular Laws and Penalties.

5. And lastly. It is here also to be consider'd, that this Power, of which we have been discoursing, thus exercis'd by the Bishops, and disclaim'd by Constantine himself, related purely and solely to the fixing a Bishop in his See. i. e. To that one par∣ticular branch of the rights and power of the Priesthood, by which one Bishop is enabled to give possession to another; and the Bi∣shop so possess'd receives a right to govern the Officers subjected to him, and the Believers within his own District, and they become oblig'd to pay their duty of subjection to him. The Empire could then no more do it (at least in its own apprehen∣sions) then it could administer the Sacraments, or give holy Orders. 'Tis true the right of Investiture is so far in the Prince, as it extends to the Bishop's Temporals, and no other hand but his can legally possess a Bishop of them, and give him a civil forinsick right unto them: But as it extends to his Spirituals, the Prince can no more invest him with them, than he can give him the Holy Ghost, or a Power to dispense any other of Christ's Institutions. And we are most sure, that the Catholicks did not refuse to communicate with Majorinus because he was an

Heretick, (tho' Doctor Hody often contends they did refuse Communion with several Schismatical Bishops brought in upon a full See, as Majorinus was, not because of their Schism, or want of a Title, but because of their heresie) since no one pretends that the Donatists were any ways Heretical; at least when this Controversie of Church Right was started by them: Tho' St Austin afterwards calls them Hereticks, by reason of their continu'd, obstinate, and invincible Schism; as also in that they maintain'd several Errors, concerning the nature of the Ca∣tholick Church, as rebaptizations, &c. which they did not broach till that cause was ended.

SECT III.

I Cannot omit one instance more in Constantine's days: It is that of his proceedings against Athanasius; which great Pre∣late, we know, fell so far under his displeasure, thro' the ma∣lice and craft of his restless Adversaries, (especially the Eusebians, who had gain'd too much upon the good Emperor, and thereby lay'd their design to restore Arianism, but did not effect it till the latter end of Constantius's Reign,) that Constantine gave way to that great Prelate's deposition, for several crimes exhibited, but never prov'd against him. Now, did Constantine effect it, or but pretend to do it, by his own Right or Power? Or did the Treacherous Eusebian Bishops and Clergy advise him so to do by his own Authority? Or did they divest themselves of their own Rights therein, tho' they afterwards shamelesly p••ostituted the Priviledges of the Church to Constantius in the like cases of Liberius, and other Bishops? Was not a Council call'd at Tyre by Constantine† on purpose to remove him? Or did any hands there except those of the Bishops, make and execute the deposing Sentence? Or what more did the Empire do in that whole affair, but second the Synod's Decree, by exiling him into Trevers in France? And this was in the 30th. year of Constan∣tine's Reign, and but two years before his death: From whence it is very evident, that he continued in the opinion he had entertain'd in the case of Majorinus, which was 22. years be∣fore. And during these 30 years of his Reign he was not sensible of any such Church Rights, which some, so very con∣fidently maintain to have accrew'd to his Crown upon his be∣coming Christian. We may with the same security vouch for

his two following years; and that the Bishops did not them∣selves relinquish any such rights, or derive them unto him, being brib'd to it by his temporal Favours. And this will be rendred much more probable, it will be demonstrated, if we consider the nature of this Synod, and some circumstances of it, as we find them in Athanasius By what right then (says he) could they convene a Synod against us? Or, with what impudence call that a Coun∣cil, where the secular Governor, or Prefect, is President, his Guards keep the door, and instead of the Deacons of the Church, his Notary, or Register, introduceth the members: He speaks, the other keeping silence, or rather, paying their obedience to him: Insomuch that the Bishops had not freedom of speech by reason of him: he gave the command; we were conducted by the Soldiery; or rather the Prefect himself did only attend the Sentences of the Eusebians? In short (my belov'd Bre∣then) what face is there of a Synod, where banishment, or slaughter were determin'd, if the Emperor's pleasure had no effect. Athanasius† adds in another place, They pretend the name of Synod, when the work of it is manag'd by the King: And for this end, the secular Governor and the Soldiers do overawe the Bishops with their Guards; and the King's Letters call the Meeting, compelling those whom they require to come in.

From whence these following observables are easy and manifest.

1. That Constantine cannot be conceiv'd to have chang'd his Opinion in his latter days, and maintain a direct and imme∣diate right in himself to abdicate a Bishop, and absolve his Sub∣jects of their duty to him, since he not only call'd this Council of Tyre on pu••pose for Athanasius's abdication, (which makes a strong presumption that he did not think his own Power to be competent for it) but in that he acted mediately only, and in∣directly▪ by the B••shops hands: And either provided that the Synod should be made up of his own Creatures; or else he im∣ploy'd his Prefect, and inferior secular Officers to overawe, and over rule their votes, menacing terrors and penalties against them, when they did not answer his design. For what needed he to have proceded in this manner, if his single Edict had been a Law to the Church, as it was to the State? Can any account be given of these his Artifices, mean complyances, and his servile dependence on the Eusebian Bishops? Or of the meaning of his threats to the Or∣thodox, if he could of himself, have effectually depos'd Athanasius,

or the Bishops had not had a right, and power to obstruct his Deposition, separate, and independent upon the Emperour.

2. If it be said here, (as it usually is upon other occasions) that Constantine did not understand his own Rights in the Church; or else that he gave them up to her discretion, being guided by an over ruling zeal, or, as some may say, by a particular interest. The first cannot be pleaded; since it is not likely that his whole Court knew no better, or that it did not inform him; or that it would at the same time preclude the Empire's right and truckle under those that usurpt it; especially under the Bishops, whose Lordship it could least endure. And for the latter, he was so far from giving all up to the Church's discretion, that he gain'd a Majority in the Council by menaces and violence. The Euse∣bian Bishops only were they that acted freely, and their votes were implicitely receiv'd and submited to, thro' the present distress of those who complied with them. And by these means the cause was gain'd against Athanasius.

3. It is hence very plain, that Constantine's Doctrine and Pra∣ctice, in the case of Caecilianus, and Majorinus (of which an ac∣count is given above) was purely upon Church principles; since Athanasius does contend here, and declare for the same; and we are to think that the other Catholick Bishops, which were in the Synod, and adhered to him, nay protested against the Eusebians proceedings, amongst whom the famous Paphnutius was one, did not come behind him in it. What less doth our most Holy Alexandrian Patriarch say, than that the secular Power is not to intermeddle with the deposing of a Bishop, either by the Em∣peror in Person, or by his Substitutes, but that it is the work of the Bishops alone.

Besides, since Athanasius appeal'd from this Pseudo-Synod to Constantine; we may not think that his protestation against his right to depose, was, even in Constantine's opinion, in injury to him; if it had been thought so by him, we cannot believe that he would have shew'd so much kindness to him as he did afterwards. Constantine the Son tells us, that his Father design'd to recal Athanasius, but he was prevented by his death; and that he did not banish him to Trevers as a guilty man, but to preserve him from the Rabble in Aegypt; and farther, that it was upon his own experience in France (where Constantine the Son's Government lay) of Athanasius's eminent virtues, that he accomplisht his Father's design, and sent him back in

peace to Alexandria; an account of which we have in his Epistle to the People of that City; whe••e, he says that his Father pur∣pos'd to call him home, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as to his proper place, and as an unduly dispossess'd Prelate. But do Emperors use to be∣stow su••h Eulogies and Graces on those, who take the chief Jewels out of their Crowns, and teach others that they ought to do the same? For such we are told, by some, their de∣posing Power is.

I thought to have concluded this Chapter here; but I cannot forbear, upon further considerations, to desire the Reader to compare the follwing Account of St. Cyprian and Constantine; in which he will find them to have had the same sentiments con∣cerning the Rights of the Church, as to our present Case, tho' they liv'd, at least, sixty years asunder; St. Cyprian, when No∣vatianus and Fortunatus were brought into his and Cornelius's Sees, whilst they were alive, and possess'd them upon Church terms: Constantine, when Majorinus was brought into Caecilia∣nus's See, Caecilianus being the rightful Possessor of it, and the Donatists supplicated him to undertake their cause: And both of them are positive, that none but a Church Right can fix a Bishop in a District, or deprive him: Even a Church Right cannot bring a Bishop into a See that is then legally fill'd: But if the Prince, or any other Power that is worldly, does fix or deprive a Bishop, and a People does receive and obey him, or reject and disobey him, upon that Authority, they herein act in opposition to God and Christ, and the Church; whose Laws have provided otherwise.

St. Cyprian declares, upon the foremention'd occasion, to this effect, viz.

That he who brings in a Bi∣shop upon another, than duly placed in a See, acts against the Divine Law, and makes himself a Judge, not of the Bi∣shop, but of God.

That the Secound which is brought in, is not a Bishop ac∣cording to the will of God▪ but contrary to the disposition and tradition of the Gospel: such a Bishop is made without God and his Holy Spirit.

That when desperate men, made for destruction, do im∣pugn a rightful Bishop, it is not from Christ, who constitutes and protects Bishops; but from him who is the Adversary of Christ, and enemy of the Church, the Devil.

Cornelius succeeded Fabianus in a lawful Ordination, and Novatianus assumes his Chair; he does it in contempt of the Evangelical and Apostolical Tradition: —he is a For∣reigner, and profane.

As there is one God, one Christ, one Church; so there is one Bishop: a new Priesthood cannot be made, besides that one which is constituted: If so, it is adulterous, it is impious and sacrilegious; it is institut∣ed by the fury of man, that the Divine Institution should be violated.

To bring in one Bishop upon another is contrary to the Ec∣clesiastical Disposition, the E∣vangelical Law, the Unity of the Catholick Institution.

One Bishop is placed in a District instead of Christ.

By the Sentence of God.

By the Sentence of God and Christ.

By Divine Inspiration.

By the Omnipotent God, and Christ the Lord.

By the Will of God.

This Unity was deliver'd from the Lord by the Apo∣stles,

to the Bishops their Suc∣cessors.

This one Bishop is placed and confirmed in his See by the Testimony of his Collegues, and the Suffrage of the Cler∣gy.

He cannot be accounted a Pastor, nor hold a District, who is Ordain'd by his own private Rule, upon a lawful Succession. Neither the se∣cular Magistrate, nor any ir∣resistible Party can constitute such a Bishop. Such a thing is neither permitted by the Law of God, nor lawful to be done.

Whosoever he is that is placed in a Bishoprick, and accepts it with the breach of the Laws of the Church, is to be reputed as no Bishop.

He is made a Bishop, but not according to the Will of God: He cannot be account∣ed a Bishop. He is a Stranger and without.

(Cornelius of Rome says of Novatianus also, that he did not receive his Bishoprick from God.)

He is an Adulterous and contrary head. He hath an adulterous Chair.

Tho' he boast much of him∣self, and challenges a great deal, he is no Bishop.

Quod Sacerdoti Dei non obtem∣peratur, nec unus in Ecclesia ad tem∣pus judex, nec ad tempus Sacerdos. —si secundum Magisteria Divina, —post divinum Judicium—judi∣cem se non tam Episcopi quam Dei.

Plane Episcopi non de voluntate Dei fiunt, sed contra dispositionem & traditionem Evangilii,—si bimet ipsi Regem constituerunt, & non per me: habuisti consilium & non per me; & fecisti conventionem & non per Spiritum meum.

Cum talis frater a quibusdam desperatis & perditis impugnari videtur, non Christus, qui Sacerdo∣tes aut constituit, aut protegit; sed ille qui Christi Adversarius, & Ecclesiae inimicus. Ibid.—Dia∣bolo crederent Episcopum proscri∣benti.

Qui Fabiano legitima Ordina∣tione successit — Evangelica & Apostolica Traditione contem∣pta — alienus est, profanus est.

Deus unus est, Christus unus est, & Ecclesia una est. —novum fieri praeter unum Socerdotium non potest: —Adulterum est, impium & sacrilegum est:— Humano furore instituitur, ut di∣positio Divina violetur.

Contra Ecclesiasticam dispositio∣nem, contra Evangelicam Legem, contra Institutionis Catholicae Uni∣tatem.

Unus in Ecclesia Sacerdos vice-Christi.

Judicio Dei.

Dei & Christi ejus Senten∣tia.

Ad hunc locum Divinitus electi.

A Deo Omnipotente, Christoque Domino.

De Dei voluntate

A Domino per Apostolos nobis Successoribus.

Episcopo facto Collegarum Te∣stimonio; Cleri suffragio Ordinato. —Factus Episcopus a plurimis Col∣legis nostris.—De Sacerdotum Col∣legio.—Omnium nostrorum con∣sentione firmato.

Pastor haberi quomodo potest, qui manente vero Pastore nemini succedens, a seipso Ordinatus est? — Nullo modo tenere Ec∣clesiam potest.—Constituti nullo modo posse:—Nec fas est, nec fieri licet.

Quisquis ille fuerit: &c.

Planè Episeopi non de volun∣tate Dei fiunt.—Nec Epis∣copus computari potest. Est alie∣nus, foris.

(〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.)

Adulterum & contrarium caput: —adulteram Cathedram.

Multum licet de se jactans, & plurimum vendicans, nullus est.

Constantine the Emperor declares also to the same effect in his Epistle to the Catholick Bishops, upon the forementioned occasions. as,

That the Donatists do not

receive the Scriptures with a right Faith.

A propitious Divine Influ∣ence hath not reacht them.

The Clemency of Christ is gone far from them.

They hate the provision which is made for their better information.

Great madness abides them.

A forcible malignity is lodg'd in their breasts.

Otherwise they would have understood that God had pro∣vided in his Law, that the Church alone should be Judg in the case of fixing Bishops in their Sees: It being as clear as the Sun at Noon day: The contrary is not to be spoken nor heard: Neither would they have requir'd my Judg∣ment; since a Heavenly pro∣vision is made for them other∣waies by the Church.

If a prevailing malignity had not aboad in their breast; and they had not willfully forgotten the Law, oft have they been inform'd and warned by my self against these their wicked practices, they would not have interpos'd and sup∣plicated me in this matter.

They ask judgment of me, in this affair, who am to be judg'd by the Church: I speak as the truth is, the judgment of the Priests ought to be ac∣counted the same as God's

judgment, given in his Per∣son from the Bench.

These men in refusing the Heavenly Judgment (meaning the Churches, by which Caeci∣lianus was plac'd in the Car∣thaginian See) and thinking it fit that my Judgment should be ask'd, and my Power be imply'd in the continuing him there, or removing him from it, they therein—

Do the Offices of the Devil.

Act the part of the Gentils,

Make their savage insults upon God himself.

He exhorts the Catholick Bi∣shops to go home to their Di∣strict, and receive those Bishops, whom the Lord, by his Church, has placed in their seve∣ral Sees: and to pray for him.

Si vera fide voluerint obse∣quia

Sanctissimae Legi deferre.

Neque in eorum sensus ingressa est propitia Divinitas.

Ab his procul abcesserat Christi clementia.

Eos a Caelesti provisione exosos.

Quae in ipsos tanta vesania per∣severat.

Quae vis malignitatis in eorum pectoribus perseverat.

Intelligere poterunt quantum sibi nutu Dei provisum sit. — in quibus manifesta luce claret;— in iis quibus maxima durities in∣genita est possit reprehendi.—Cae∣lesti provisione meum judicium eos comperi postulare.

Quae vis malignitatis in eorum pectoribus perseverat? — Quo∣ties improbissimis additionibus suis sunt condigna responsione oppressi? —si hoc ante oculos suos ha∣bere voluissent, minime hoc ipsum interposuissent.

Meum judicium postulant, qu•• ipse judicium Christi expecto.— dico enim, ut se veritas ha∣bet Sacerdotum judicium ita deh••t haberi, ac si ipse Deus residens judicat.

Renuentes Caeleste judicium, meum putaverunt postulandum.

Officia Diaboli.

Sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet.

Qui in ipso Deo immaniores pro∣silierunt.

Cum his quos Dominus dignos cultu suo judicavit proficiscimini, & redite ad proprias sedes, meique mementote, ut mei Salvator mi∣sereatur.

Now, upon a just consideration of this state, and these rights of the Church and the Empire, with respect to the filling and vacating Sees, or accepting and rejecting Bishops, in the time of our Eminent Archbishop St. Cyprian, and Constantine the Great, and first Christian Emperor, as themselves have given us an account of them; and a due comparing their Judgments and Determinations concerning them, as they are above set down, from their own pens; it will appear very plain and evident, to a demonstration, That those Rights, and that Power, which the Christian Bishops, in the Cyprianick Age exercis'd to the foremen∣tion'd purpose under Rome Heathen, remain'd in the Bishops, and only in them; and were exercis'd by them, under Rome Christian, in the days of Constantine: They then became neither an escheat to the Empire, nor were delivered into its hands, by the Bishops, upon its becoming Christian: but, as the practice of the Church and of the Empire, so the Laws of both continu'd their execution, as subjected before in the Church: Even the immediate and and eternal Law of Christ Jesus provided for it. And that in their J••dgements, none but senseless and stupid men, as to the

things of God, being under the Devil's instigation, could think and believe otherwise. As the Church is concluded by St. Cy∣prian to have a Divine indefeisable right, not only to lay hands upon and Consecrate them; but to Ordain, (as he useth the word) i. e. to invest the Bishops in their Sees; So she is suppo••'d and allow'd by Constantine to retain the same, and she alone: He does not pretend to it. Doth he not quite remove it from him?

Notes

• Vid. Aug. l. de Heres. c. 69. & Brevicul. collationis di. 3. & Ep. 62. & l. 3. contra Crescen: gramat. c. 28, 29. Et lib. de Ʋnit. Eccles. c. ulti.
• Mulieris ira∣cundia peperit, ambitus nutri∣vit, avaritia roborarit. As Optatus speaks l. 1. contra Par∣men.
• †

  Petitis a••me in hoc seculo ju∣dicium, cùm ego ipse Christi ju∣dicium expe∣ctem. Optat l. 1. adv. Parmen.
• ‖

  Inter gesta purgationis Cae∣ciliani & Felicis, in fine Op. Optati Ed. Paris.
• Quia si nunc vera fide voluerint obsequia sanctissimae Legi deferre, intelligere poterunt, quantum sibi nutu Dei provisum sit. Et hoc quidem Sanctissimi Patres, sperabam etiam in eis, quibus ingenita est maxima durities animi, posse reprehendi. Sed non profuit apud eos recta dijudicatio, neque in eorum sensus in∣gressa est divinitas propitia. Revera enim non immeritò ab his procul abcesserit Chri∣sti clementia, in quibus manifestâ luce claret hujusmodi esse, ut eos a caelesti provisione exosos cernamus; quae in ipsos tanta ve∣sania perseverat, cum, incredibili arrogan∣tia persuadeant sibi, quae nec dici, nec au∣diri fas est, deciscentes a recto judicio dato, quo caelesti provisione meum judicium eos comperi postulare? Quaevis malignatatis in eorum pectoribus perseverat? Qu••ties a me jam ipso improbissimus additionibus suis sunt condigna responsione oppressi, qui utique si hoc ante oculos suos habere voluissent, mi∣nime hec ipsum interposuissent. Meum ju∣dicium postulant, qui ipse judicium Christi expecto. Dico enim (ut se veri∣tas habet) Sacerdotum judicium, ita de∣bet haberi ac si ipse Dominus residens ju∣dicet. Nihil enim his licet sentire, nec aliud judicare, nisi quod Christi Magiste∣rio sunt edocti.
• Ibid. Quod igitur sentiunt malign•• homines, officia Diaboli? Perquirunt Se∣cularia, relinquentes caelestia. O rabida furoris audacia! Sicut in causis Gentilium fieri solet, appellationem interposuerunt. Quid hi detractatores Legis, qui renuentes caeleste judicium, meum putaverunt postu∣landum? Sic senserunt de Christo Sal∣vatore? Ecce tam Proditores l Ecce sine ulla acriore disquisitione ipsi per semet pro∣diderunt facinora sua! Quid ab ipsis sen∣titur humanitas, qui in ipso Deo immanes prosilierunt? Nihilominus vos (Fratres charissimi) qui Domini Salvatoris se∣quamini viam, patientiam adhibete, data his adhuc optione, quid putant deligendum, ac si eos in iisdem videritis perseverare, protinus cum his, quos Dominus dignos cultu suo judicavit, proficiscimini, & redite ad proprias sedes, meique mementote, ut mei Salvator noster semper misereatur.
• Sed quia non ausus est Con∣stantinus de cau∣sâ Episcopi judi∣care, eam discu∣tiendam atque finiendam Epis∣copis delegavit; quod & factum est in urbe Ro∣ma, praesente Melchiade Epis∣copo, &c. Ep. 162.
• Euseb. Hist. Ecc. l. 10. c. 5.
• †

  Ibit,
• ‖

  Contra Parm. l. 1.
• Brevic. Collar. Dist. 3. Ep. 162. Ps. contra par∣tem Donati.
• †

  Ep. ad Mel∣chidem supra. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• ‖

  Cum const••terit Caecilianum ab iis qui cum Donato venerunt, secundum professio∣nem suam, non accusari, nec à Donato con∣victum esse in aliqua parte constiterit sua, Communioni Ecclesiasticae, in i••egro statu, retinendum merito esse cens••o.
• Quem totius mali principem invenerat.— Sanitatis recuperandae optionem liberam caeteris fecit, paratus communicatorias li∣teras mittere, etiam iis quos a Majorino ordinatos esse constaret. Ita ut quibuscun∣que in locis duo ordinati essent Episoopi, quos dissentio geminasset, eum confir∣mari vellet, qui fuisset ordinatus prior, ali••ri autem eorum plebs alia regenda provideretur. August. Epist. 162.
• Euseb. H. E. l. 10. c. 5.
• †

  Ep. ad Ablav. in fine Optat. supra Baron. Annal Anno. 314. Num. 45.
• ‖

  De int. Const. l. 1. c. 37.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• †

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid.
• ‖

  Ibid.
• Hist. Eccles. secul. 4 pars. prim p. 62.
• †

  Can. 6. Conc. 1. Arelat.
• August. Ep. 162.
• De vita Con∣stant. l. 1. c. 37.
• †

  Aug. Ep. 168. l. 2. cont. Petil. c. 92.
• ‖

  Id l. 1. cont. Parmen. c. 8.
• Vid. Constant. Ep: ad Caecilian. Episc. Carthag. in Euseb H. E. l. 18.
• Ep. ad Episc. Catholicos supr.
• †

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. H. E. l. 10. c. 5.
• p 9.
• †

  p. 10.
• ‖

  p. 41.
• Heresis autem Schismainvete∣ratum post cau∣sam dictam & finitam, — in Haeresin Schisma verterunt. l. 2. contra Cresc. Gram. c. 7. de Haeresibus c. 69.
• †

  Socrat. l. 1. c. 21, 22, 23. Theod. l. 1. c. 30, 31. Soz l. 2. c. 24.
• Apol. 2. p 728.
• †

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Ibid. p. 730.
• Theod. H. E. l. 1. c. 31. Soz. l. 2. c. 22.
• L. 1. Ep. 3. Ed. ve••.
• Ibid.
• L. 2. Ep. 11. l. 4. Ep. 2.
• Ep. 6. l. 1. Ep. 11. l. 2. Ep. 2. l. 3.
• Ep. 8. l. 4.
• Ep. 3. l. 1. Ep. 6. Ibid:
• Euseb. H. Eccl. l. 6. c. 35.
• L. 2. Ep. 10. l. 3. Ep. 14.
• L. 4. Ep. 2.
• Ep. 9. l. 4.
• Ep. 6. l. 4.
• Ep. 8. ibid.
• Ep. 2. l. 3.
• L. 1. Ep. 3.
• Lib. 3. Ep. 13
• Ibid.
• Ibid.
• Ep. 2. ibid.
• Lib. 4. Ep. 2.
• Lib. 2. Ep. 8.
• Apud Corne∣lium qui Epis∣copo Fabiano le∣gitima Ordina∣ti••ne successit. l. 1. Ep. 6.— Episcop•• Cor∣nelio Cleri & plebis Suffragio ordinato. l. 3. Ep. 13.— Nec habeat Ecclesiae o••dinationem. l. 4. Ep. 2.