is a voluntary division of a Christian Church in its external Communion without sufficient cause 1. 'T is a Division 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divisions or Act. Division in the Church particular Rents among you This division of the Church is made either in the Church or from it in it as it is a particular Church which the Apostle blames in the Church of Corinth c. 11. Though they came together and did not separate from the external Communion but divided in it and about it 2. Division is made also in the Church as Catholick Catholick or Universal and some charge the Church or Court of Rome as we shall observe hereafter herewith as the cause of many deplorable Rents and Convulsions in the bowels of it and indeed in a true sence all that are guilty of dividing either in or from a particular Church without just cause are guilty of Schism in the Catholick as the Aggregatum of all particular Churches There is division as well from as in the Church and this is either such as is improperly called Separation or properly or more perfectly so 1. Separation improperly so called we may term Negative which is rather a recusancy or a denyal of Communion where it is either due or only claimed and not due but was never actually given 2. 'T is properly so where an actual separation is made and Communion broken or denyed where it has wont to be paid 3. Or yet more perfectly when those that thus separate and withdraw their Communion from a Church joyn themselves in an opposite body and erect Altar against Altar SECT II. Subject of Schism THus of the Act of Schism Division Let us briefly consider the Subject of this division Subject which is not a civil or an Infidel Society but a Christian Church I do not express it a true Church for that is supposed For if it be a Christian Church it must be true otherwise it is not at all Some learned of our own side distinguish here of the truth of the Church Physically or metaphysically considered or morally and acknowledge the Roman Church to be a true Church or truly a Church as some would rather have it but deny it to be such morally and plead for separation from it only in a moral sence or as it is not a true Church i. e. as it is a false and corrupt Church not as it is a Church But finding this distinction to give offence and perhaps some advantage to our Adversaries at least for the amusing and disturbing the method of disputation and being willing to reduce the difference as much as I am able I shall not insist upon these distinctions I confess pace tantorum I see no danger in but rather a necessity of granting the Church of Rome to be a true Church even in a moral sence largely speaking as moral is distinguished from Physical or metaphysical and the necessity of this concession ariseth from the granting or allowing her to be a true Church in any sence or a Church of Christ For to say that a Christian Church is not a true Church morally yet is so really i. e. Physically or Metaphysically seems to imply that it is a Christian Church and it is not a Christian Church seeing all the being of a Christian Church depends upon its truth in a moral sence as I conceive is not questioned by either side And when we grant that the Church of Rome or any other is a true Christian Church in any sence we do mean that she retains so much of Christian truth in a moral sence as is requisite to the truth and being of a Christian Church Indeed the very Essence of a Christian Church seems to be of a Moral nature as is evident in all its causes its Efficient The preaching of the Gospel under divine Influence is a Moral cause the form living in true faith and Religion is moral its End and all its formal Actions in Profession and Communion are of a Moral nature and the Christians as they are Men are indeed natural Beings yet as they are Christians and the matter of the Christian Church and more as they are in a Society they fall properly under a Moral Consideration But how can a Church be true and not true and both in a Moral sence How can we own the Church of Rome as a true Church and yet leave her as a false Church and true and false be both taken Morally Very well And our Learned Men intend no other though they speak it not in these terms For to be true and false in the same Moral Sence doth not imply the being so in the same respects Thus the Church of Rome may be granted to be a true Christian Church with respect to those Fundamentals retained in her Faith and Profession wherein the being and truth of such a Church consisteth and yet be very false and justly to be deserted for her gross Errors in many other points believed also and professed by her as a Bill in Chancery may be a true Bill for the substance of it and so admitted and yet in many things falsely suggested it may be very false and as to them be rejected 2. The Church as the Subject of Schism may 1. Catholick be further considered as Catholick i. e. Absolute Formal Essential and as it lies spread over all the world but united in one common Faith From this Church the Donatists and other ancient Hereticks are said to have separated 2. As Particular in a greater or lesser number 2. Particular or part of the Catholick Thus the modern Separatists forsaking the Church of England are said to be Schismaticks 3. In a Complex and mixt Sence as the particular 3. Mix'd Roman Church pretending also to be the Catholick Church calls her self Roman Catholick and her Particular Bishop the universal Pastor In which sence the Church of England is charged with separation from the Catholick Church for denying Communion with the particular Church of Rome SECT III. Object of Schism 1. Faith THe third Point is the Object about and External Communion in which Separation is made Namely External Communion in those three great Means or Bonds of it Faith Worship and Government under that Notion as they are bonds of Communion The first is Faith or Doctrine and it must Faith be acknowledged that to renounce the Churches Faith is a very great Schism yet here we must admit two exceptions it must be the Churches Faith that is such Doctrine as the Church hath defined as necessary to be believed if we speak of a particular Church for in other Points both Authorities allow Liberty Again though the Faith be broken there is not Schism presently or necessarily except the external Communion be also or thereby disturbed Heretical Principles not declared are Schism in Principle but not in Act Hast thou Faith have it to thy Self 'T is farther agreed that we may and some times must
not rebel against the Government that God hath placed immediatly over us This fair respect the Church of England holds to the Communion both of the Catholick and all particular Churches both in Doctrine Worship and Government and the main exception against her is that she denies obedience to a pretended Power in the See of Rome a Power not known as now claimed to the Ancient Church a Power when once foreseen warned against as Antichristian by a Pope himself and when usurped condemned by a General Council And lastly such a Power as those that claim it are not agreed about among themselves But the charge of Schism falls after another sort upon our Roman Adversaries who have disturbed the Vniversal and all particular Churches by manifest violation of all the three bonds of external Communion The Doctrine and Faith by adding to the Canon of the Scripture Apocriphal Books by adding to the revealed will of God groundless Traditions by making new Creeds without the Consent of the present and against the Doctrine and practice of the Ancient Churches and as for Worship how have they not corrupted it by Substraction taking away one essential part of a Divine Ordinance the Cup from the Laity c. by additions infinite to the Material and Ceremonial Parts of Worship and by horrid Alterations of the pure and Primitive Worship to childish Superstitions and some say dangerous Idolatry Lastly As to Government they have plainly separated themselves both from the Ancient and present Catholick Church and all other particular Churches by usurping a Dominion condemned by the Ancient and that cannot be owned without betraying the Liberty of the present Church By exerting this Usurpation in unlawful and unreasonable Conditions of Communion and as it is said by Excommunicating for Non-obedience to these Impositions not only the Church of England but three Parts of the Christian World The proof on both sides we are to expect in due place SECT IV. The Conditions of Schism Causless Voluntary THe fourth and last thing considerable in the Definition is the Condition which Condition adds the guilt and formality of Schism to Separation which is twofold it must be Causeless and Voluntary 1. It must be voluntary Separation or denial of Communion but of this I shall say nothing Voluntary a greater man received a check from his Romish Adversaries for the proof of it saying who knows not that every sin is voluntary S. W Causless 2. It must be causless or as it is usually expressed without sufficient cause 't is a Rule generally allowed that the Cause makes the Schism i. e. if the Church give cause of Separation there is the Schism if not the cause of Schism is in the Separatist and consequently where the cause is found there the charge of Schism resteth I know 't is said that there cannot be sufficient cause of Separation from the true Church and therefore this Condition is needless but they ever mean by the true Church the Catholick Church 'T is granted the Catholick Church cannot be supposed to give such cause she being the ordinary Pillar of Truth wherein the means of Salvation can be only found therefore we rarely meet with any such condition in the Definitions of Schism given by the Fathers of the Ancient Church because they had to deal with Schisms of that kind that separated from the whole Church But hence to infer that we cannot have just canse to separate from the Church of Rome will be found bad Logick However if we could grant this Condition to be needless it cannot be denied to be true and the lawfulness of Separation for just cause is an eternal verity and if the cause be supposed Just cannot be said to be unjust seeing there cannot be supposed a sufficient cause of Sin the Act is justified while it is condemned Besides it is not questioned by our Adversaries but there may be sufficient cause of separation from a particular Church then if at last we find that the Church of Rome is no more there is more than reason to admit this Condition in the present Controversie But the Cause must not be pretended to effect beyond its influence or Sufficiency Therefore none may be allowed to deny Communion with a Church farther than he hath cause for beyond its Activity that which is said to be a cause is no cause Hence we admit the distinction of partial and total separation and that known Rule that we may not totally separate from a true Church and only so far as we cannot communicate without sin The Reason is evident because the truth and very being of a Christian Church implieth something wherein every Christian Church in the very Foundation and being of it hath an agreement both of Union and Communion Far be it from us therefore to deny all kind of Communion with any Christian Church yea we franckly and openly declare that we still retain Communion out of fraternal charity with the Church of Rome so far as she is a true Church Only protesting against her Vsurpations and reforming our selves from those corruptions of Faith and Worship of which Rome is too fond and consequently the more guilty SECT V. The Application of Schism Not to our Church IF this definition of Schism be not applicable to the Church of England she is unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism If the Church of England doth not voluntarily divide in or from the Catholick Church or any particular Church either by separation from or denying Communion with it much less by setting another Altar against it without sufficient cause then the definition of Schism is not applicable to the Church of England But she hath not thus divided whether we respect the Act or the Cause With respect to the Act viz. Division We 1. In the Act. argue if the Church of England be the same for Substance since the Reformation that it was before then by the Reformation we have made no such Division for we have divided from no other Church further than we have from our own as it was before the Reformation as our Adversaries grant And therefore if we are now the same Church as to Substance that we were before we hold the same Communion for substance or essentials with every other Church now that we did before But for Substance we have the same Faith the same Worship the same Government now that we had before the Reformation and indeed from our first Conversion to Christianity Indeed the Modern Romanists have made new Essentials in the Christian Religion and determine their Additions to be such But so Weeds are of the essence of a Garden and Botches of the essence of a Man We have the same Creed to a word and in the same sence by which all the Primitive Fathers were saved which they held to be so sufficient that in a general Council they did forbid Con. Ept. p. 2. Act. 6. c. 7. all persons under pain of
claim to any Supremacy of power over all Bishops by Divine Institution It yet appears not that Saint Gregory practised the thing but to avoid Arrogance disclaims the name of Vniversal Bishop A. C. against my Lord of Canterbury goes another way to work he grants the Title and also the thing signified by it to be both renounced by Saint Gregory but distinguishes of the Term Vniversal Bishop into Grammatical to the exclusion of all other Bishops from being properly Bishops and Metaphorical whereby the Bishops are secured as such in their respective Diocesses yet all of them under the Jurisdiction of the Vniversal Bishop viz. of Rome Sol. This distinction Doctor Stillingfleet destroys not more elaborately than fully and perfectly shewing that 1. 't is impossible Saint Gregory should understand the Term of Vniversal Bishop Lib. 4. Ep. 32. in that strict Grammatical Sense for the reason why this Title was refused was because it seemed to diminish the honour of other Bishops when it was offered the Bishops of Rome in a Council of six hundred and thirty Bishops who cannot be imagined to divest themselves by their kindness of their very Office though they hazarded somewhat of their honour Can we think the Council that gave the same Title to John intended thus to depose themselves how comes it to pass that none of John's or Ciriacus's Successors did ever challenge this Title in that literal sence if so it was understood But to wave many things impertinent 't is evident Saint Gregory understood the Title Metaphorically from the reasons he gives against it which also equally serve to prove against S. W. that it was not so much the Title as the Authority of an Vniversal Bishop which he so much opposed He argueth thus to John the Patriarch What wilt thou answer to Christ the Head of the Vniversal Lib. 4. Ep. 38. Church in the day of Judgment who doest endeavour to subject all his Members to thee under the name of Vniversal Bishop Again doth he not arise to the height of Singularity Ibid. that he is Subject to none but Rules over all and can you have a more perfect description of the present Pope than is here given or is it the Title or the Power that makes him Subject to none that Rules over all Again he imitates the pride of Lucifer endeavouring Ibid. to be Head not sure in Title but Power of the Church Triumphant as the Pope of the Church Militant Exalting his Throne Ibid. not his Name as Gregory adds above the Stars of God viz. the Bishops and the height of the Clouds Again Saint Peter was the first Member of the Church Paul Andrew and John what are they else but Heads of particular Churches and yet they are all Members of the Church under one Head i. e. Christ as before he had said we see he allows not Peter himself to be Head of the Church None that was truly Holy was ever called by that name of Vniversal Bishop which he makes to be the same with the head of the Church But Lastly suppose St. Gregory did mean that this Title in its strict grammatical sence was to be abhorred and not as Metaphorically taken What hath the Pope gained who at this day bears that Title in the highest and strictest sence imaginable as the Dr. proves and indeed needs no proof being evident of it self and to the observation of the whole world Thus all the hard words of St. Gregory uttered so long agon against such as admitted or desired that Title unavoidably fall upon the Modern Roman Bishops that take upon them to be the sole Pastors of the Church and say that they are Oecumenical Bishops and that all Jurisdiction is derived from them They are Lucifers and Princes of Pride using a vain new rash foolish proud profane erroneous wicked hypocritical singular presumptuous blasphemous Name as that holy Pope inveighed against it Moreover as he also adds they transgress Gods Laws violate the Canons dishonour the Church despise their Brethren and cause Schism Istud nomen facere L. 6. ep 30 31. in dissessionem Ecclesiae Obj. But it is said that Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches all at once Therefore saith A. C. the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bishops and by consequence over the whole Church And this appears in that Irenaus in the name of the Gallican Bishops writes to Victor not to proceed so rashly in this Action as appears in Eusebius Sol. 1. We answer that those Bishops among whom Irenoeus was one did severely rebuke that Pope for offering to excommunicate those Asian Vid. Eus l 5. c. 24. Churches Therefore they did not believe him to be the Supreme Infallible Pastor of the whole Church 2. His Letters declaring that Excommunication Ibid. not pleasing all his own Bishops they countermanded him Surely not thinking him to be what Popes would now be esteemed 3. Hence Card. Perron is angry with Eusebius and calls him an Arrian and an enemy to the Church of Rome for hinting that though the Pope did declare them excommunicate yet it took no effect because other Bishops continued still in Communion with them 4. But the force of the whole Argument leans upon a plain mistake of the Ancient Discipline both in the Nature and the Root or Ground of it For the nature of Ancient Excommunication Mistake of the nature Root of Discipline especially when practised by one Church against another did not imply a Positive Act of Authority but a Negative Act of Charity or a declaring against the Communion of such with themselves And therefore was done by Equals to Equals and sometimes by Inferiors to Superiors In Equals thus Johannes Antiochenus in the Ephesine Council excommunicated Cyril Patriarch Vict. Tu. nu cro p. 10. of Alexandria and in Inferiors in the sence of our Roman Adversaries for the African Bishops excommunicated Pope Vigilius Hence also Acacius the Patriarch of Const expunged the Name of Foelix Bishop of Rome out of the Dipticks of the Church And Hilary anethamatized Pope Liberius therefore Victors declaring the Asian Churches to be excommunicate is no argument of his power over them 2. The Root or Ground of the ancient Discipline is also as plainly mistaken which was not Authority always but Care and Charity Care I say not only of themselves who used it but also of the Church that was censured and indeed of the whole Church 'T is here proper to consider that though Bishops had their peculiar Seats and Limits for their Jurisdictions yet they had all a charitive inspection and care of that universal Church and sometimes denominations accordingly Hence we deny not that the ancient Bishops of Rome deservedly gained the Title of Oecumenical Bishops a thing of so great moment in the Controversie that if well considered might advance very far towards the ending of it For so the Title hath been given to others as well as
see all the exceptions against this by M. S. at large answered by Dr. Hammond and the Arch-Bishop Bramhall Obj. 2 But Bede concludes that the Brittains ought to have yielded in the points specified from the miracle wrought by Augustine upon the blind man and from that divine vengeance prophetically foretold by Augustine An. 1. We now know what tricks are used to counterfeit miracles in the sight of simple people 2. We know not but that miracle might be said but never done as many in the Legends are And Bede might report from very slight tradition a thing tending to the confirming his own Cause 3. By Bede's own Confession the miracle did prevail with the Brittains to acknowledge that the way of Righteousness Augustine preached was the true yet they added that they could not renounce their ancient Customs without the consent and license of their own Superiors i. e. they thought the miracle confirm'd his Doctrine but not the Popes Authority over them And therefore lastly at their second meeting they deemed his Pride a stronger Argument against him than his Miracle for him 2. And for that latter Argument from the Slaughter first threatned and then fulfilled Bed Sigisbert An. Sure 't was no strange thing that a proud man as Augustine appeared to be should threaten Revenge And a bloody minded man to endeavour to execute it as is evident he did Neither is it like a great miracle that a vast Army should first overcome unarmed Monks and then proceed victoriously against other opposers Yet the latter part of the Story quite spoils the miracle or the Argument from it For when Edilfred in the heat of his Rage and Victory proceeded to destroy the Remainder of those Monks the avenger of Blood met him the Brittish Forces routed his Army and killed Ten Thousand and Sixty of them But the Conclusion for my present turn stands firm however that notwithstanding these pretensions of Miracles the Brittish rejected the Papacy and adhered to their proper Governors i. e. the Pope then had not the Possession of them I shall conclude here with that smart reply of Arch-Bishop Bramhall to S. W. To demonstrate evidently how vain all his trifling is against the Testimony of Dionothus why doth he not answer to the corroboratory proof which I brought out of Bede and others of two Brittish Synods held at the same time wherein all the Brittish Clergy did renounce all obedience to the Bishop of Rome of which all our Historiographers do bear Witness Why doth he not answer this but pass it by in so great silence He might as well accuse this of forgery as the other since it is so well attested that Dionothus was a great Actor and disputer in that business SECT I. That no one Part of Papal Jurisdiction was exercised here for the first six hundred years not Ordination St. Telaus c. till 1100 years after Christ c. nor any other IF we consider the Pope's Jurisdiction in its Not plenarily particular Acts we find not so much as any one exercised or acknowledged here during the space of the first six hundred years but as far as History gives us any account thereof all Acts of Jurisdiction were performed by our own Governours First had the Pope had any Jurisdiction here at all it would doubtless have appeared in the Ordination or Consecration of our Bishops Ordinationis Jus caetera Jura sequuntur is a known Rule in Law but 't is evident that our own Primates were independent themselves and ordained Not Ordination new Bishops and created new Bishopricks without licence first obtained from or giving any account thereof to the Pope Saint Telaus Consecrated and ordained Bishops as he thought fit he made one Hismael Bishop of Saint Davids and in like manner advanced many others of the same Order to the same degree sending them throughout the Country and dividing the Parishes for the best accommodation of the Clergy and the People Vid. Regl apud Vsh prim Eccles Brit. p. 56. Quest But were not our Primates themselves nominated or elected by the Pope and Consecrated by him or had license from him Answ The contrary is manifest enough all our Brittish Arch-Bishops and Primates were nominated and elected by our Princes with Synods and ordained by their own Suffragans at home as Dubricius Saint David Sampson c. not only in the Reigns of Aurelius Ambrosius and King Arthur but even until the time of Henry the First after the eleven hundredth year of Christ as Giraldus Cambrensis saith and always until the first Conquest of Wales they were Consecrated by the Arch-Bishop of Saint Davids and he was likewise Consecrated by other Bishops as his Suffragans without professing any manner of Subjection to any other Church Itinera Cambr. l. 2. c. 2. Now is it not fair to expect from our Adversaries one Instance either of a Bishop or Arch-Bishop ordained or Consecrated during the first six hundred years by Papal Authority in Brittain from their own or our Brittish Records But this Challenge made by Arch-Bishop Bramhall receives no answer Object R. C. Here the Bishop of Calcedon only offers that few or no Records of Brittish Matters for the first six hundred years remain Answ This is no Answer saith the Primate while all the Roman Registers are extant yea so extant that Platina the Pope's Library Keeper is able out of them to set down every Ordination made by the Primitive Bishops of Rome and the Persons Ordained He adds Let them shew what Bishops they have Ordained for the first six hundred years I have shewed plainly though he please to omit it out of the List of the Bishops ordained three by Saint Peter eleven by Linus fifteen by Clement six by Anacletus five by Evarastus five by Alexander and four by Sixtus c. that there were few enough for the Roman Province none to spare for Brittain Vid. Bramh. Tom. 1. Disc 3. p. 207. It is said that Saint Peter ordained here but St. Peter that was before he had been at Rome therefore not as Pope of Rome Nor any other Eluth 2. Elutherius sent Fugatius c. but what to do to Baptize King Lucius upon the same Errand he sent Victor into Scotland 3. Palladius and Ninian are instances of men Pallad c. sent to preach to the Picts and Scotland as Saint Patrick into Ireland this was kindly done but we have not one Syllable of any Jurisdiction all this while besides it is remarkable though there be a dispute about Palladius his being sent yet 't is certain he was rejected and after Bed in vit S Pat. l. 1. died in whose place Saint Patrick succeeded without any Mandate from Rome that we read of Object Jeffry of Monmouth saith that Dubricius Primate of Brittain was Legate of the See Apost Legates S. W. and we say that Jeffry tells many Fables and that it is gross Credulity to believe him contrary
nor the Western Church among their Eight first general Councils Why did the English Church omit it in their Number in the Synod of Hedifeld in the year 680. and embrace only unto Apud Spel. An. 680. l. 169. this day the Council of Nice the first of Constantinople the first of Ephesus and the first and second of Calcedon The five first general Councils were therefore incorporated into our English Laws but this Council of Sardica never was Therefore contrary to this Canon of Appeal 't is the Fundamental Law of England in that Famous Memorial of Clarendon All Appeals in England must proceed Regularly from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and if the Arch-Bishop failed to do justice the last Complaint must be to the King to give Order for redress 'T is evident the great Council of Calcedon P. 2. ac 14. c. 9. contradicted this Canon for Appeals to Rome where Appeals from the Arch-Bishop are directed to be made to every Primate or the Holy Calcedon See of Constantinople as well as Rome from which Evidence we have nothing but silly Evasions as that Primate truly observs v. Sch. guarded p. 374. Besides if our Fore-fathers had heard of rhe Canons of the Councils truly general as no doubt they had how could they possibly believe the unlimited Jurisdiction of Rome the Council of Calcedon is not denied to give equal Priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome And the Council of Constantinople conclude thus for the Nicene Fathers did justly give Priviledges to the Seâ—â— of Constantinople old Rome because it was the Imperial City and the 150 godly Bishops moved with the same consideration did give equal Priviledges to the See of new Rome that that City which was the Seat of the Empire and Senate should enjoy equal Priviledges with the Ancient Imperial City of Rome and be extolled and magnified in Ecclesiastical Affaires as well as it being the Second in order from it and in the last Sentence of the Judges upon Review of the Cause the Arch-Bishop of the Imperial City of Const or new Rome must enjoy the same Priviledges of Honour and have the same Power out of his own Authority to ordain Metropolitans in the Asiatick Pontick and Thracian Diocess Are these the Words of a General Council could these Fathers imagine the Pope at that time Monarch of the whole Church or could this be acknowledged by England at first and they yet give up their Faith to the Pope's Universal Power Can these things consist Yea is there not something in all the Councils allowed by the Ancient Brittains and the Ancient English Church sufficient to induce a Faith quite contrary to the Roman Pretensions Object But as to this Canon of Constantinople S. W. quits his hands roundly telling us that it was no free Act but voted Tumultuously after most of the Fathers were departed Sol. S. W. had been safer if he had been wiser for that which he saith is altogether false and besides such a cluster of Forgeries as deserves the Whet-stone to purpose as my Lord Bramhall manifests against him Sch. guard p. h. 4. 1. False the Act was made before the Bishops had license to depart it had a Second Hearing and was debated by the Pope's own Legates on his behalfe before the most glorious Judges and maturely Sentenced by them in the Name of the Council This was one of those four Councils which Saint Gregory honoured next to the four Gospels This is one of those very Councils which every succeeding Pope doth swear to observe to the least tittle 2. For his Forgeries about it he is sufficiently shamed by the Primate in the place cited 't is pity such shifts should be used and 't is folly to use them when the Truth appears what remains but both the Person and the Cause reproach'd See more of the Councils at the latter end SECT V. Arabic Canons forged no Canons of the Council of Nice Object YEt 't is a Marvellous thing that the Romanist should dare to impose upon so great and learned a Primate as the late Arch-Bishop Laud that by the third Canon of the Council of Nice the Patriarch is in the same manner over all those that are under his Authority as he who holds the See of Rome is Head and Prince of the Patriachs resembling Saint Peter and his Equal in Authority Answ When 't is most evident to the meanest capacity that will search into it that that is no Canon of the true Council of Nice and that in stead of the third it is the thirty ninth of the suppositious and forged Canons as they are set forth in the Arabick Editions both by Pisanus and Turrianus In these Editions there are no less than eighty Canons pretended to be Nicene whereas the Nicene Council never passed above twenty as is evident from such as should know best the Greek Authors who all reckon but twenty Hist Ecl. l. 1. c. 7. Canons of that Council Such as Theodoret Nicephorus Calistus Gelasius Cricenus Alphonsus Ecl. Hist l. 8. c. 19. Act. Conc. Nic. lib. 2. Pisanus and Binnius himself confesseth that all the Greeks say there were no more but twenty Canons then determined Yea the Latins themselves allowed no more for although Ruffinus make twenty two 't is by splitting of two into four And in that Epitome of the Canons which Pope Hadrian sent to Charles the Great for the Government of the Western Churches Anno 773. the same Number appears and in Hincmarus's M. S. the same is proved from the Testimonies of the Tripartite History Ruffinus the Carthaginian Council the Epistles of Ciril of Alex. Atticus of Constant and the twelfth Action of the Council of Calcedon and if we may believe a Pope viz. Stephen in Gratian saith the Roman Church did allow of no more Gra. dis 16. c. 20. than twenty The truth is put beyond all question lastly both by the proceedings of the African Fathers in the case of Zosimus about the Nicene Canons when an early and diligent search made it evident and also by the Codex Canonum Eccl. Afric p. 58. where it is expresly said there was P. 363. but twenty Canons But this matter is more than clear by the P. 391 392 elaborate pains of Dr. Still defence of the late Arch-Bishop Laud to whom I must refer my Reader Obj. Yet Bellarmine and Binius would prove there were more than twenty Sol. But their proofs depend either upon things as suppositions as the Arabick Canons themselves such as the Epistles of Julius and Athanasius ad Marcum or else they only prove that some other things were determined by that Council viz. Concerning Rebaptization and the keeping of Easter c. which indeed might be Acts of the Council without putting them into the Ad an 325. P. 108. Canons as Baronius himself confesseth and leaves the patronage of them and Spondanus
but these obtained upon private persons and many times in methods not cognizable by Law neither were the people so apt to complain in such cases because they had something which they unaccountably valued for their money and the possession of a false opinion in the Vulgar as Juglers and Cheats may equally glory in can never be soberly interpreted to be a good and sufficient Title to the Supremacy of the Church of England Yet it is not amiss to remember that the Popes Messenger Jo. Opizanus for acting against the Kings Laws in getting mony for his Master was cast into Prison as we find it Vit. Hen. Chich. p. 86. Neither can we reasonably imagine but that much of that vast Sum was gathered by those ways which in the Reign of Hen. 3. the Lords and Commons complain of viz. that above four hundred thousand pounds yearly was carried hence into Italy It was some disturbance of such kind of Receipts that the Law forbids any such Bulls to be Stat. de 7. H. 1. c. 6. purchased for the time to come upon pain of praemunire And that 't was decreed that the Popes Collector though he have a Bull for the purpose Hen. 4. fol. 9. hath no Jurisdiction within this Realm And if the ancient Law of the Realm saith that the Pope cannot alter the Laws of England that Law condemns his raising money upon the people in any kind without special Law to that purpose a Prerogative the Kings of England themselves do not claim Therefore that standing Fundamental Law of England always lay in bar against and was a continual real and legal disturbance of the Popes possession of power to impose Taxes or by any devices to collect money from the English either Laity or Clergy CHAP. XIV The Conclusion of the Argument from Prescription 'T is on our side No force for the Pope VVE have seen what the Argument from Prescription is come to how far short of Nine Hundred years and how unsettled both in Law and Practice it ever was both as to Jurisdiction in the Popes Court at Rome and by his Legates here and as to Legislation by the force of his Canons and his dispensation by Faculties Licenses and any sort of Bulls c. and as to his Patronage of or Profits from the English Church If a just Computation were made I believe the Argument from Possession would really appear to be on our side Our Kings having enjoyed and flourished in the exercise of Supremacy over us ever since the Act of Hen. 8. extinguishing the Popes Usurpation here with far more quiet and less interruption than ever the Pope did for so long a time Besides other qualifications of our Kings possession do mightily strengthen the Plea above any thing that can be alledged on the Popes behalf 1. Our Kings had possession from the beginning according to the Canon and therefore could Nice Ephe. never be lawfully divested Ancient Histories are evident for us and Baronius determines well what is said by a Modern concerning ancient Tom. 1. an 1. n. 12. affairs without the Authority of any more ancient is contemned This ancient Possession of our Kings hath ever been continued and declared and confirmed by our Laws and the consent of the whole Kingdom signified thereby And these Laws have still been insisted on and repeated when there hath been any great occasion and fit opportunity to vindicate our ancient Liberties But the Pope could never obtain any legal settlement of his Power here before Queen Mary's Reign nor by Her neither in the main branches of it though indeed she courted him with the dignity of a great name and a verbal Title Indeed the subject of the Question being a spiritual Right our Adversaries themselves agree that Possession sufficient to prove it ought to begin near Christs time And he that hath begun it later as certainly the Pope did unless he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancienter Possession as the Pope can never do is not to be stiled a Possessor but an Vsurper an Intruder an Invader Disobedient Rebellious and Schismatical as no doubt by S. W's Logick the Pope is as before was noted I shall conclude with the grave and considerate Concession of Father Barnes noted by Dr. Stillingfleet who after his thorow study of the point upon clear Conviction determined it positively for us in these words The Britanick Church may plead the Cyprian Dr. Still p. 398. Priviledg that it was subject to no Patriarch and although this priviledge was taken away by Force and Tumult yet being restored in Henry the Eighth's time and quietly enjoyed since it ought to be retained for peace sake without prejudice of Catholicism and the brand of Schism by which he grants all that is pertinent to our Cause that the Pope had not possession here from the beginning nor ought to have had 2. That he took advantage bellorum tumultibus vi for his Usurpation 3. That our Ancient Cyprian priviledge was restored by Henry the Eighth totius Regni Consensu with the Consent of the whole Kingdom 4. That never since it hath been peaceably prescribed pacifice praescriptum or quietly enjoyed 5. And that therefore it still ought to be retained sine Schismatis ullius Notâ without the brand or charge of Schism which is the only thing contended for CHAP. XV. The Argument from Infallibility Considered in its Consequence retorted THe two last Arguments for proof of the Pope's Authority are general and not limited to the Church of England as the three former were and are his Infallibility and his Vniversal Pastorship which remain to be examined Arg. From his Infallibility it may be argued thus Whether the Pope were the means of our Conversion or have a Patriarchal Right over us or have had possession of the Government of the English Church heretofore or not if he be really and absolutely Infallible he hath thereby a right to govern us and we are bound to be ruled and directed by him but the Pope is really and absolutely Infallible Ergo. The Consequence would tempt a denial indeed Consequence Infallibility is an excellent qualification for an Vniversal Rector but are not qualification and Commission two things hath God given Authority to every man equal to his Parts to his Natural acquired or infused abilities if not what necessity is there that he hath to the Pope if all Power as well as all Wisdom is from God the prime fountain of them both and if we pretend to both need we evidence only one Indeed we ought to be guided by one that is Infallible if such a one there be but the Necessity ariseth from Prudence not immediatly from Conscience Unless by some other way of Authority God hath given him power to govern us as well as ability otherwise we ought to submit our selves to the guidance of the Pope as a good and wise man or as a Friend as our Ancestors did
Apostle too blame to say there must be Heresics or Divisions among you and not to tell them there must be an Infallible Judge among you and no Heresies but now men are wiser and of another mind To conclude whether we regard the Truth or Vnity of the Church both Reason and Sence assures us that this Infallibility signifies nothing for as to Truth 't is impossible men should give up their Faith and Conscience and inward apprehension of things to the Sentence of any one man or all the men in the World against their own Reason and for Vnity there is no colour or shadow of pretence against it but that the Authority of Ecclesiastical Government can preserve it as well without as with Infallibility But if there be any Sence in the Argument methinks 't is better thus the Head and Governour of the Christian Church must of necessity be Infallible but the Pope is not Infallible ' either by Scripture Tradition or Reason therefore the Pope is not the Head and Governour of the Christian Church CHAP. XVIII Of the Pope's Universal Pastorship its Right divine or humane this Civil or Ecclesiastical all examined Constantine King John Justinian Phocas WE have found some flaws in the pretended Title of the Pope as our Converter Patriarch Possessor and as the Subject of Infallibility his last and greatest Argument is his Vniversal Pastorship and indeed if it be proved that he is the Pastor of the whole Church of Christ on Earth he is ours also and we cannot withdraw our obedience from him without the guilt of that which is charged upon us viz. Schism if his Commands be justifiable but if the proof of this fail also we are acquitted This Right of the Pope's Universal Pastorship is divine or humane if at all both are pretended and are to be examined The Bishop of Calcedon is very indifferent and reasonable as to the Original if the Right be granted 't is not de fide to believe whether it come from God or no. If the Pope be Universal Pastor Jure humano only his Title is either from Civil or from Ecclesiastical Power and least we should err Fundamentally we shall consider the pretenses from both If it be said that the Civil Power hath conferred this honour upon the Pope may it not be questioned whether the Civil Powers of the World extend so far as either to dispose of the Government of the Church or to subject all the Churches under one Pastor However de facto when was this done when did the Kings of England in Conjunction with the Rulers of the whole World make such a Grant to the Pope I think the World hath been ashamed of the Const donat Donation of Constantine long agon yet that no shadow may remain unscattered we shall briefly take an account of it They say Constantine the third day after he was baptized left all the West part of the Empire to Pope Sylvester and went himself to dwell at Constantinople and gave the whole Imperial and Civil Dominion of Rome and all the Western Kingdoms to the Pope and his Successors for ever A large Boon indeed this looks as if it was intended that the Pope should be an Emperor but who makes him Vniversal Pastor and who ever since hath bequeathed the Eastern World to him either as Pastor or Emperor for it should seem that part Constantine then kept for himself But Mr. Harding throws off all these little Cavils and with sufficient Evidence out of Math. Hieromonachus a Greek Author shews the very Words of the Decree which carry it for the Pope as well in Ecclesiastical as Civil Advantages they are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We decree and give in charge to all Lords and to the Senate of our Empire that the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter chief of the Apostles have Authority and Power in all the World greater than that of the Empire that he have more honour than the Emperor and that he be Head of the four Patriarchal Seats and that matters of Faith be by him determined this is the Charter whereby some think the Pope hath Power saith De potest Pap. c. 19. Harveus as Lord of the whole World to set up and pull down Kings 'T is confessed this Grant is not pleaded lately with any Confidence Indeed Bishop Jewel did check it early when he shewed Harding the wisest and best among the Papists have openly disproved it such as Platina Cusanus Petavius Laurent Valla Antoninus Florentinus and a great many more Cardinal Cusanus hath these words Donationem Constantini dilligenter expendens c. Carefully weighing this Grant of Constantine even Conc. Cath. lib. 3. c. 2. in the very penning thereof I find manifest Arguments of Forgery and Falshood 'T is not found in the Register of Gratian that is in the allowed Original Text though it be indeed in the Palea of some Books yet that Palea is not read in the Schools and of it Pope Pius himself said dicta Palea Constantinus Pius 2. dial falsa est and inveighs against the Canonists that dispute an valuâ—rit id quod nunquam fuit and those that speak most favourably of it confess that it is as true that Vox Angelorum Audita est that at the same time the voice of Angels was heard in the Air saying hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam Much more to the discountenance of this vain Story you have in Bishop Jewel's Defence P. 537 538. 539. which to my observation was never since answered to him therefore I refer my Reader But alas if Constantine had made such a Grant Pope Pipus tells us it was a question among the very Canonists an valuerit and the whole World besides must judge the Grant void in it self especially after Constantine's time Had Satan's Grant been good to our Saviour if he had faln down and worshipped him no more had Constantine's pardon the comparison for in other things he shewed great and worthy zeal for the flourishing Grandeur of the Church of Christ though by this he had as was said given nothing but poyson to it for the Empire of the World and the Vniversal Pastorship of the Church was not Constantine's to give to the Pope and his Successors for ever Arg. 2 King John But it is urged nearer home that King John delivered up his Crown to the Pope and received it again as his Gift 'T is true but this Act of present fear could not be construed a Grant of Right to the Pope if King John gave away any thing it was neither the Power of making Laws for England nor the exercise of any Jurisdiction in England that he had not before for he only acknowledged unworthily the Pope's Power but pretended not to give him such Power to confer the Crown for ever much less to make him Supreme Disposer of our English Church But if our Constitution be considered how
or two or more passages out of single Fathers are sufficient to bear away the Cause in so great a Point seeing they themselves will not suffer the Testimony of many of the same Fathers to carry it for us in a Point of the least Concernment In the mean time I most confidently conclude that the Pope's Supremacy hath not the Consent of the Primitive Fathers as Bellarmine boasts and that what ever he would have them say they did not believe and therefore not intend to say that the Pope was absolute Monarch of the Catholick Church and consequently that there was no such Tradition in the Primitive Ages either before or during the time of the eight first General Councils is to me a Demonstration evident for these Reasons Reas 1 The eight first General Councils being all Called and Convened by the Authority of Emperors stand upon Record as a notable Monument of the former Ages of the Catholick Church in prejudice to the Papal Monarchy as Saint Peter's Successor in those times the first eight General Councils saith Cusanus were gathered Concord Cathol l. 2. c. 25. by Authority of Emperors and not of Popes insomuch that Pope Leo was glad to entreat the Emperor Theodosius the younger for the gathering of a Council in Italy and non obtinuit could not obtain it Reas 2 Every one of these Councils opposed this pretended Monarchy of the Pope the first by stating the limits of the Roman Diocess as well as other Patriarchates the second by concluding the Roman Primacy not to be grounded upon Divine Authority and setting up a Partriarch of Constantinople against the Pope's Will the third by inhibiting any Bishop whatsoeve to ordain Bishops within the Isle of Cyprus the fourth by advancing the Bishop of Constantinople to equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome notwithstanding the Pope's earnest opposition against it the fifth in condemning the Sentence of Pope Vigilius although very vehement in the cause the sixth and seventh in condemning Pope Honorius of Heresie and the eight and last by imposing a Canon upon the Church of Rome and challenging obedience thereunto Reas 3 This must pass for the unquestionable Sence of the Catholick Church in those Ages viz. for the space of above 540 years together from the first General Council of Nice for our Adversaries themselves stile every one of the General Councils the Catholick Church and what was their Belief was the Faith of the whole Church and what their belief was hath appeared viz. that the Pope had not absolute power over the Church Jure Divino an Opinion abhorred by their contrary Sentences and practises Reas 4 'T is observed by a Learned man that the Fathers which flourished in all those eight Councils were in Number 2280. how few Friends 2280 Fathers had the Pope left to equal and Countermand them or what Authority had they to do it yea name one eminent Father either Greek or Latine that you count a Friend to the Pope and in those Ages whose name we cannot shew you in one of those Councils if so hear the Church the Judgment of single Fathers is not to be received against their Joint Sentences and Acts in Councils 't is your own Law now where is the Argument for the Pope's Authority from the Fathers they are not to be believ'd against Councils they spake their Sence in this very Point as you have heard in the Councils and in all the Councils rejected and condemned it Reas 5 The belief of these eight General Councils is the professed Faith of the Roman Church Therefore the Roman Church hath been involved Rome's contradiction of Faith and entangled at least ever since the Council of Trent in the Confusion and Contradiction of Faith and that in Points necessary to Salvation For the Roman Church hold it necessary to Salvation to believe all the eight General Councils as the very Faith of the Catholick Church and we have found all these Councils have one way or other declared plainly against the Pope's Bull. Pii 4. Supremacy and yet the same Church holds it necessary to Salvation to believe the contrary by the Council of Trent viz. that the Pope is Supreme Bishop and absolute Monarch of the Catholick Church Some Adversaries would deal more severely Rome's Heresie with the Church of Rome upon this Point and charge her with Heresie in this as well as in many other Articles for there is a Repugnancy in the Roman Faith that seems to infer no less than Heresie one way or other he that believes the Article of the Pope's Supremacy denies in effect the eight first General Councils at least in that Point and that 's Heresie And he that believes the Council of Trent believes the Article of the Pope's Supremacy therefore he that believes the Council of Trent does not believe the eight first General Councils and is guilty of Heresie Again he that believes that the Pope is not Supreme denies the Council of Trent and the Faith of the present Church and that 's Heresie and he that believes the eight first general Councils believes that the Pope is not Supreme therefore he denies the Council of Trent and the Faith of the present Church and is an Heretick with a witness 'T is well if the Argument conclude here c. Infidelity and extend not its Consequence to the charge of Infidelity as well as Heresie upon the present Roman Church seeing this Repugnancy in the Roman Faith seems to destroy it altogether for He that believes the Pope's Supremacy in the Sence of the Modern Church of Rome denies the Faith of the Ancient Church in that point and he that believes it not denies the Faith of the present Church and the present Church of Rome that professeth both believes neither These contrary Faiths put together like two contrary Salts mutually destroy one another He that believes that doth not believe this he that believes this doth not believe that Therefore he that professeth to believe both doth plainly profess he believes neither Load not others with the crimes of Heresie and Infidelity but Pull the beams out of your own eye Reas 6 But the charge falls heavier upon the Head of Popes Schism and Perjury the present Roman Church For not only Heresie and Infidelity but Schism and the foulest that ever the Church groaned under and such as the greatest Wit can hardly distinguish from Apostacy and all aggravated with the horrid crime of direct and self-condemning Perjury fasten themselves to his Holiness's Chair from the very constitution of the Papacy it self For the Pope as such professeth to believe and sweareth to govern the Church according to the Canons of the 8 first general Councils yet openly Greg. â— Bin. To. 3. p. 1196. Innoc. 3. Boâ—if 8. Catechis Ro. Nu. 10 11 and 13. claims and professedly practiseth a Power condemned by them all Thus Quatenus Pope he stands guilty of separation from the Ancient Church
inconsiderable an Argument is this our Kings cannot give away the Power of the Crown during their own times without an Act of Parliament the King and Parliament together cannot dispose of any thing inherent to the Crown of England without a Power of Resumption or to the prejudice of Succeeding Kings besides no King of England ever did not King John himself either with or without his Parliament by any Solemn Publick Act transfer the Government of this Church to the Bishop of Rome or so much as Recognize it to be in Him before Henry the Eighth and what John did Harpf. ad 5. Re. 14. c. 5. was protested against by the Three States then in Parliament And although Queen Mary since made a higher acknowledgment of his Holiness than ever we read was done here before yet 't is evident she gave him rather the Complement of the Title of that uncertain Word Supreme Head than any real Power as we observed before and yet her New Act to that purpose was endured to remain in force but a very short time about four or five years But although neither Constantine for the Justinian whole World nor King John for England did or could devise the Supremacy to the Pope 't is confessed the Emperor Justinian endeavoured somewhat that look'd like it Justinian was a great friend of the Roman Bishop he saith Properamus honorem authoritatem Cod. inter Claras crescere sedis vestrae we labour to subject and unite all the Eastern Priests to the See of your Holiness But this is a plain demonstration that the See of Rome did not extend to the East near six hundred years after Christ otherwise that would have been no addition of honour or Authority to it neither would Justinian have endeavoured what was done before as it doth not appear that he afterwards effected it Therefore the Title that he then gave the Pope of the Chief and Head of all the Churches must carry a qualified sence and was only a Title of honour befitting the Bishop of the Chief and most eminent Church as the Roman Church then was and indeed Justinian was a Courtier and stiles the Bishop of Constantinople universal Patriarch too or at most can only signifie that his intentions were to raise the Pope to the chief Power over the whole Church which as was said before he had not yet obtained This is all that can be inferred if these Epistles betwixt the Emperor and the Pope be not forged as Learned Papists suspect because in Greg. Holiand Azo the eldest and allowed Books they are not to be found However if Justinian did design any thing in favour of the Pope it was only the subjecting of the Clergy to him as an Ecclesiastical Ruler and yet that no farther than might well enough consist with the Supremacy of the Empire in causes Ecclesiastical as well as Civil which memento spoils all the argument For we find the same Justinian under this imperial stile We command the most holy Arch-Bishops and Patriarchs of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem Authent Colla 1. We find him making Laws upon Monks Priests Bishops and all kind of Churchmen to inforce them to their duty We find him putting forth his Power and Authority for the sanction of the Canons of Councils and making them to have the force of Laws We find him punishing the Clergy and the Popes themselves yea 't is well known and confessed by Romanists that he deprived two Popes Sylverius and Vigilius Indeed Mr. Harding saith that was done by Theodora the Empress but it is otherwise recorded in their own Pontifical the Emperor demanded of Belsarius what he had done with the Romans and how he had deposed Sylverius and placed Vigilius in his stead Upon Conc. To. 2. in â— Vigil his answer both the Emperor and Empress gave him thanks Now it is a Rule in Law Rati habito retrotrabitur mandato comparatur Zaberel declares it to be Law that the Pope De Schis Conci in any notorious crime may be accused before the Emperor and the Emperor may require of the Pope an account of his Faith And the Emperor ought to proceed saith Harvy against De Potes Pap. c. 13. the Pope upon the request of the Cardinals And it was the judgment of the same Justinian himself that there is no kind of thing but Con. Const 5. Act. 1. it may be thorowly examined by the Emperor For he hath a principality from God over all men the Clergy as well as Laity But his erecting of Justiniana prima and giving the Bishop Locum Apostolicae sedis to which all the Provinces should make their last Appeal Goâ—â—op Nov. 13. c. 3. Nov. 11. whereby as Nicephorus affirms the Emperor made it a free City a Head to it self with full power independant from all others And as it is in the imperial constitutions the Primate thereof should have all power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the Supreme Priesthood Supreme Honour and Dignity This is such an instance both of Justinian's Judgment and Power contrary to the Popes pretensions of Supremacy as granted or acknowledged by the Emperor Justinian that all other Arguments of it are ex abundanti and there is no great need of subjoyning that other great and like instance of his restoring Carthage to its primacy after the Vandals were driven out and annexing two new Provinces that were not so before to its jurisdiction without the proviso of submitting it self to Rome though before Carthage had ever refused to do it Phocas the Emperor and Pope Boniface no doubt understood one another and were well enough agreed upon the point But we shall never yield that these two did legally represent the Church and the World or that the grant of the one and the greedy acceptance on the other part could bind all Christians and all mankind in subjection to his Holiness's Chair for ever Valentinian said all Antiquity hath given the principality of Priesthood to the Bishop of Rome But no Antiquity ever gave him a principality of Power no doubt he as well as the other Emperors kept the Political Supremacy in his own hands Charles the Great might complement Adrian and call him universal Pope and say be gave St. Wilehade a Bishoprick at his command But he kept the power of convocating Synods every year and sate in them as a Judge himself Auditor arbiter adfui he made Ecclesiastical Decrees in his own Name to whom this very Pope acquitted all claim in the Election of succeeding Popes for ever A great deal more in answer to both these you have in Arch-Bishop Bramhall p. 235 236. and King James's defence p. 50. c. CHAP. XIX The Popes pretended Ecclesiastical Right Not by General Councils 8 First To which Sworn Justi Sanction Can. Apost allowed by C. Nice and Ephesus THough it seem below his Holiness's present grandeur to ground his Right upon the Civil Power