Canons We conclude that this Bar against the Popes universal Pastorship will never be removed These are the four first general Councils honoured by Justinian as the four Gospels to which he gave the Title and force of Laws By which all Popes are bound by solemn Oath to Rule the Church Yet we find not one word in any of them for the Popes pretended universal Pastorship Yea in every one of them we have found so much and so directly against it that as they give him no power to govern the whole Church so by swearing to observe them in such government as the Canons deny him he swears to a contradiction as well as to the ruine of his own pretensions We conclude from the premises that now Argument seeing all future Councils seem to build upon the Nicene Canons as that upon the Apostles if the Canons of Nice do indeed limit the power of the Bishop of Rome or suppose it to have limits if his cause be tried by the Councils it must needs he desperate Now if those Canons suppose bounds to belong Minor to every Patriarchate they suppose the like to Rome But 't is plain that the bounds are given by those Canons to the Bishop of Alexandria and the reason is because this is also customary to the Bishop of Rome Now 't is not reasonable to say Alexandria must have limits because Rome hath if Rome have no limits Pope Nicolas himself so understood it whatever I. E. Pis 8. S. W. did Nicena c. the Nicene Synod saith he conferred no increase on Rome but rather took from Rome an example particularly what to give to the Church of Alexandria Whence Dr. Hammond strongly concludes that if at the making of the Nicene Canons Rome had bounds it must needs follow by the Ephesine Canon that those bounds must be at all times observed in contradiction to the universal Pastorship of that See The matter is ended if we compare the other Latin Version of the Nicene Canon with the Canon as before noted Antiqui moris est ut Vrbis Romae Episcopus habeat principatum ut suburbicana loca omnem provinciam suâ sollicitudine gubernet qâ—e vero apud Aegyptum sunt Alexandrinae Episcopus omnem habeat sollicitudinem Similiter autem circa Antiochiam in caeteris Provinciis privilegia propria serventur Metropolitanis Ecclesiis Whence it is evident that the Bishop of Rome then had a distinct Patriarchate as the rest had and that whatever Primacy might be allowed him beyond his Province it could not have any real power over the other Provinces of Alexandria c. And 't is against the plain sence of the Rule that the Antiquus mos should signifie the custom of the Bishop of Rome's permission of Government to the other Patriarchs as Bellarmine feigneth This Edition we have in Christopher Justellus's Library rhe Canon is in Voel Biblioth Jur. Cano. Tom. 1. p. 284. SECT VI. Concil Constant 2. The Fifth General Conc. of 165 Bishops An. 553. BAronius and Binius both affirm that this was Bar. an 553. nu 224. Bin. To. 2. Not. in con Const 5. a general Council and so approved by all Popes Predecessors and Successors of St. Gregory and St. Gregory himself The cause was Pope Agapetus had condemned Anthinius the matter was afterwards ventilated in the Council Now where was the Popes Supremacy we shall see immediately After Agapetus succeeded Vigilius When the Council condemned the Tria Capitula Pope Vigilius would defend them but how did he carry it in Faith or Fact Did the Council submit to his Judgment or Authority No such thing But quite contrary the Council condemned the tria capitula and ended The Pope for not consenting but opposing the Council is banished by the Emperor Justinian Then Vigilius submits and confirms the Sentence of the Council and so is released from Banishment This is enough out of both * Ibid. N 223. Baronius and Binius The Sum is we condemn say they as is expressed in the very Text all that have defended the Tria Capitula but Vigilius say the Historians defended the Tria Capitula therefore was Vigilius the Pope condemned by this Council such Authority they gave him SECT VII Concil Constant of 289 Bishops 6 General An. 681 vel 685. Concil Nic. 7 General of 350 Bishops An. 781. BEllarmine acknowledgeth these to be sixth and seventh general Councils and both these he acknowledgeth did condemn Pope Honorius for an Heretick lib. 4. de Pont. C. 11. For Bellarmine to urge that these Councils were deceived in their Judgment touching his opinion is not to the point we are not disputing now whether a Pope may be a Heretick in a private or publick Capacity in which the Councils now condemned him though he seems to be a bold man to prefer his own bare conjecture a thousand years after about a matter of Fact before the judgment of two general Councils consisting of 659 Bishops when the cause was fresh Witnesses living and all circumstances visibly before their eyes But our question is whether these Councils did either give to the Pope as such or acknowledged in him an uncontroulable Authority over the whole Church The Answer is short they took that power to themselves and condemned the Pope for Heresie as they also did Sergins of Constantinople SECT VIII Concil Gen. 8. Constant 383 Bishops An. 870. Conclusions from them all HOw did this eighth general Council recognize Tom. 3. p. 149. the Popes Supremacy Binius himself tells us this Council condemned a custom of the Sabbath-Fast in Lent and the practice of it in the Church of Rome and the word is We will that the Canon be observed in the Church of Rome inconfuse vires habet 'T is boldly determined against the Mother Church Rome concerned reproved commanded Where is the Authority of the Bishop of Rome Rome would be even with this Council and therefore saith Surius she receives not this 55 Canon Tom. 2. in conc Const 6. p. 1048. ad Can. 65 in Not. Bin. But why must this Canon only be rejected Oh! 't is not to be endured that 's all the reason we can have But was not this a general Council Is it not one of the eight sworn to by every Pope Is not this Canon of the same Authority as of the Council with all the rest Or is it tolerable to say 't is not Authentick because the Pope doth not receive it and he doth not receive it because it is against himself Quia Matrem Ecclesiarum omnium Rom. Ecclesiam reprehendit non recipitur saith Surius ibid. These are the eight first general Councils allowed by the Roman Church at this day What little exceptions they would defend their Supremacy with against all that hath appeared are answered in the Post script at the latter end of the book whither I refer my Readers for fuller satisfaction In the mean time we cannot but conclude Conclus 7
the second then King of the Scots forbad him so to do Alledging That none of his Predecessors had ever admitted any such neither would he suffer it And therefore willed him at his own Peril to forbear Hence 't is evident there was neither Tradition nor Belief either of the Popes ancient and necessary Government and therefore not of his Infallibility much less that anciently and from the beginning the Pope had exercised his Jurisdiction more in Scotland than in England We have that Kings word for it None of his Predecessors had ever admitted any such SECT III. In Canons Apost Nice Milev c. This Belief could have no Ground Sardia VVHat could possibly sway the first Ages to such a belief of the Popes universal Vid. c. 20. Jurisdiction Certainly nothing from the Councils nor the practice of the Church in other places nor indeed the declared Judgment of the Pope himself nor the words of the Laws 1. Nothing to be found in the Canons of the Not Councils Apostles Ancient Councils could invite to such belief In the Apostles Canons we find the quite contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first or primate among the Bishops of every Nation shall be accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as their Head and that every one of those Primates shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do those things only which belong to his Province and the Regions under it and in pursuance of those Canons the first Nicene Council decreed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—icâ— c. that they that are cast out by some shall not be received by other Bishops and that this must be observed by the Bishops through every Province and in further Harmony the Milevetan Council prohibits all appeal from their Mileve own Bishops but to the African Councils and Primates of their own Provinces and that they which shall appeal to any Foreign whether Bishop or Council shall not be received into Communion with any in Africk And lastly the Practice of all this is visible in the very Synodical Epistle of the African Council to Pope Celestine where Vid. v. Dr. Ham. at larg dispar disp 397 398 399 c. they beseech him for the future that he will receive none such because he may easily find it defined in the Council of Nice These Canons are all in the Roman Codex and cannot be pretended to be invalid neither can they possibly oblige any man to believe that the Pope had universal Jurisdiction as is now pretended Moreover as Dr. Hammond Notes to some of these Canons the Pope himself makes Oath Disp disp p. 178. Pope swears to the Canons that he will inviolably observe them see Corp. Juris can decret part 1. dist 16. c. 8. and from that Oath of the Pope our Bishops made this very conclusion that the Popes that Exercised a primacy over any other Bishops but those of their own province in Italy transgress'd their own profession made in their Creation as further appears by the institution of a Christian man in the year 1538. But more largly of this in the last Chapters Therefore the Brittains could not believe that they then owed Subjection to the papacy but they must charge the writers of the Apostolick Cannons whether by Apostles or Apostolical men and the Councills for enacting Sacriligious decrees and the Pope also for swearing the Inviolable observation of them These things are plain and S. W. by pretending in general that Words admit of Various interpretations without applying his Rule to the Case gives but too just occasion to Dr. Hammond to expose him as he doth See disp disp p. 181 182 183 184. Eadmer speaks plain and home too it was p. 58. 43. inauditum in Britannia quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere nisi solum Archiepiscopum Cantuariae it was a thing unheard of no practice of it no Tradition for it therefore no such thing Could be believ'd that any other not the Pope himself did Apostolically Govern the affairs of Brittaine but only the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury SECT 4. Conc. Sard. Calced Constantinop IT may be said the Brittains might hear Vid. Cap. 20. Sict 9. of the Canon of the Council of Sardica where it was decreed that Bishops grieved might Sardica appeal to the Bishop of Rome The words of the Council are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sol. c. In Case any Bishop thought himself unjustly Condemned if it seem good to you let us honour the Memory of Peter the Apostle that it be written by those who have Judged the Cause to Julius the Bishop of Rome and if it seem good let the judgment be renew'd and let them appoint such as may take Cognizance of of it hereupon t is plain 1 These Fathers did not acknowledge the Popes Supremacy who thus laid it at the feet and pleasure of others if it seem good to you 2. Here is no peremptory Order neither and it might not Seem good to Civil Princes to suffer such Appeals 3. No absolute appeal it seems was intended but only the Bishop of Rome might review the Case and how much a review differs from Apeal More of Conc Sar. hereafter and that nothing but power to revew is here given to the Bishop of Rome are both fully manifested by the Arch-Bishop of Paris Petr. de Maro de Concord l. 7. c. 3. sect 6 7. c. 4. The Decree such as it is is not grounded upon any prior right from Scripture tradition or possession or any former Council hath no other Argument but the honour of Saint Peter and that not in his Authority but his Memory who first sat in that See where Julius was now Bishop but we may have leave to ask where was the Supremacy of the Church of Rome before or how should the Brittains dream of it before or why did not these Canons take notice of the undoubted Canon of Nice to the contrary made two and twenty years before either to null or explain it But that these Sardic Canons neither established the Pope's Supremacy nor were acknowledged to bind the Church afterwards nor could be accounted an Appendix to the Council of Nice and what weakness and falsness has been practised upon this Argument is so largly ingenuously and satisfactorily manifested by Doctor Sillingfleet that I shall for his fuller satisfaction refer the Reader to him in his Ration acc p. 419 420 421. c. It is strongly argued in the last reasonings of my Lord Bramhall that after the Eastern Bishops were departed this Council of Sardica was no general Council because the presence of five great Patriarchs were ever held necessary to the being of a general Council as Bellarmine confesseth de Conc. Li. c. 17. If this Council had been general Why do Saint Gregory Isiodore and Bede leave it out of the Number of general Councils Why did Saint Austine Alipius and the African Fathers slight it and which is more
so great a Matter in the Church required a Council both of the Eastern and Western Bishops Vid. P. de Marca l. 7. c. 4. s. 6. But saith Dr. Still when we consider with what heat and stomach this was received by the P. 401. Q. ac Eastern Bishops how they absolutely deny that the Western Bishops had any more to do with their proceedings than they had with theirs When they say that the Pope by this Vsurpation was the cause of all the mischief that followed You see what an excellent instance you have made choice of to prove the Popes power of Restoring Bishops to be acknowledged by the whole Church Sure so far the Churches practice abroad could not prevail to settle his right of Jurisdion in the English Faith especially considering the Practice of our own Church in opposing the Letters and Legates of Popes for six years together for the Restoring of Arch-Bishop Wilfred by two of our own successive Kings and the whole State of England Ecclesiastical and Civil as appeared above Moreover St. Cyprian professeth in the Council of Carthage neque enim quisquam c. for no one of us hath made himself Bishop of Bishops or driven his Fellow Bishops to a necessity of Obedience Particularly relating to Stephen then Bishop An. 258. n. 24. of Rome as Baronius himself resolves But upon a matter of Fact St. August gave his St. August own judgment both of the Popes Power and Action in that known case of the Donatists First they had leave to be heard by foreign Bishops 2. Forti non debuit yet perhaps Melciades the Bishop of the Roman Church ought not to ufurp to himself this Judgment which had been determined by seventy African Bishops Tigisitanus sitting Primate 3. St. Augustine proceeds and what will you say if he did not usurp this Power For the Emperor being desired sent Bishops Judges which should sit with him and determine what was just upon the whole cause So that upon the whole 't is easily observed that in St. Augustines judgment both the Right and the Power by which the Pope as the rest proceeded was to be resolved to the Emperor as a little before ad cujus curam to whose care it did chiefly belong de qua rationem Deo redditurus est of which he was to give account to God Could this consist with the belief of the Popes universal Pastorship by Divine Right if there can possibly after so clear evidence need Vid. Dr. Ham. disp p. 398. c. Still Rationale p. 405. more to be said of St. Augustines judgment in this it is only to refer you to the Controversies between the African Bishops and the Bishop of Rome in case of Appeals SECT VII Not the Sayings of Ancient Popes or Practice Agatho Pelagius Gregory Victor VVE can find nothing in the ancient Canons or ancient practice to ground Popes claimed a belief of the Popes Authority in England upon yet sure Popes themselves claimed it and used Expressions to let us know it Were it so indeed experience tells us how little Popes are to be believed in their own cause and all reason persuades us not to believe them against the Councils and Practice of the Church and the judgment of the Fathers But some of the ancient Popes have been found so honest as to confess against themselves and acknowledge plain truth against their own greatness The Popes universal headship is not to be believed from the words of Pope Agatho in his Agatho Letter to the Emperor where St. Paul stands as high as St. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. To. 2. p. 61. B. both are said by him to be heads or chief of the Apostles Besides he expresly claimed only the Western Patriarchate But Pope Pelagius the Second is more plain Pelagius and home to Rome it self Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus the Pope of Decret p. 1. dis 99. n. 10. Rome is not to be called universal Bishop This was the opinion of that Pope of Rome himself as it is cited out of his Epistle and put into the Body of the Law by Gratian now one would think that the same Law denied the Power that denied the Title properly expressing that Power How triflingly doth S. W. object these words are not found in the Council of Carthage while they are found in the Corpus Juris the Law now of as much force at Rome as that Council 'T is weaker to say they are Gratians own Addition seeing his Addition is now Law and also proved to be the Sense of the Pope Pelagius in his Epistle he saith let none of the Patriarchs ever use the name of Vniversal applying in the conclusion to himself being then Pope as one of that Number and so if he were either Pontifex Maximus or a Patriarch and neither himself nor any Patriarck might be Dr. Ham. disp disp p. 418 419. called Vniversalis then sure nothing was added by him that said in his Title to the fourth Chapter as Gratian did Nec etiam Pontifex not even the Bishop of Rome must be called Vniversal Bishop But what shall be said to Saint Gregory who Gregory in his Epistle to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria tells him that he had prohibited him to call him Vniversal Father that he was not to do Epis ex Reg. l. 8. indic 1. c. 30. c. 4. ind 13. c. 72 76. it that reason required the contrary that it 's derogatory to his Brethren that this honour had by a Council that of Calcedon been offered to his Predecessors but refused and never used by any Again higher he tells Mauritius fidenter dico who ever calls himself Vniversal Priest or L. 7. Ep. 30. desires to be so called is by his pride a Forerunner of Antichrist his pride is an Indication of Antichrist approaching as he saith to the Lib. 4. Ep. 38. Empress l. 4. Ep. 34. Yea an Imitation of none but the Devil endeavouring to break out to the top of Singularity as he saith to John himself yea elsewhere he calls this Title the name of Blasphemy and saith that those that Ibid. Ep 32 40. consent to it do fidem perdere destroy the Faith A strong Title that neither Saint Gregory nor as he saith any one of his Predecessors no Pope that went before him would ever accept of and herein saith he I plead not my own Ibid. Ep. 32. cause but the cause of God of the whole Church of the Laws the Venerable Councils the Commands of Christ which are all disturbed with the invention of this proud pompatick stile of Vniversal Bishop Now can any one imagine except one prejudiced as S. W. that the Power is harmless when the Title that doth barely express it is so develish a thing Can any one imagine that Saint Gregory knew himself to be that indeed which in Word he so much
other such kind of Instruments as the Statute 25 Hen. 8. 21. mentions and that this Power was denied or taken from him by the same Statute as also by another 28 Hen. 8. 16. and placed in or rather reduced to the Jurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury saving the Rights of the See of York in all Causes convenient and necessary for the Honour and Safety of the King the Wealth and Profit of the Realm and not repugnant to the Laws of Almighty God The Grounds of removing this Power from the Pope as they are expressed in that excellent Preamble to the said Statute 25 Hen. 8. are worthy our Reflexion they are 1. The Pope's Vsurpation in the Premises 2. His having obtained an Opinion in many of the people that he had full Power to dispence with all humane Laws Uses and Customs in all Causes Spiritual 3. He had practised this strange Usurpation for many years 4. This his practice was in great derogation of the Imperial Crown of this Realm 5. England recognizeth no Superior under God but the King only and is free from Subjection to any Laws but such as are ordained within this Realm or admitted Customs by our own Consent and Usage and not as Laws of any Forreign Power 6. And lastly that according to Natural Equity the whole State of our Realm in Parliament hath this Power in it and peculiar to it to dispence with alter Abrogate c. our own Laws and Customs for Publick good which Power appears by wholsom Acts of Parliament made before the Reign of Henry the Eighth in the time of his Progenitors For these Reasons it was Enacted in those Statutes of Henry the Eighth That no Subject of England should sue for Licences c. henceforth to the Pope but to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Now 't is confessed before and in the Preamble to the Statute that the Pope had used this Power for many years but this is noted as an Aggravation of the Grievance and one Reason for Redress but whether he enjoyed it from the time of Saint Austine or how long quietly is the proper question especially seeing the Laws of the Land made by King Henry's Predecessors are pleaded by him in contradiction to it Yea who will come forth and shew us one Instance No Instance 1110 years after Christ of a Papal Dispensation in England for the first eleven hundred years after Christ if not five hundred of the nine hundred years Prescription and the first five hundred too as well as the first eleven hundred of the fifteen are lost to the Popes and gained to the Prescription of the Church of England But Did not the Church of England without any reference to the Court of Rome use this Power during the first eleven hundred years what man is so hardy as to deny it against the multitude of plain Instances in History Did not our Bishops relax the Rigor of Ecclesiastical Canons did not all Bishops all over the Christian World do the like before the Monopoly was usurped In the Laws of Alured alone and in the conjoynt Gervis Dorober p. 1648. Laws of Alured and Gunthrun how many sorts of Ecclesiastical Crimes were dispensed with by the Sole Authority of the King and Church of England and the like we find in the Laws of Spel. Conc. p. 364. c. some other Saxon Kings Dunstan the Arch Bishop had Excommunicated a great Count he made his peace at Rome the Pope commands his Restitution Dunstan answered I will obey the Pope willingly when I Ibid. p. 481. see him penitent but it is not God's will that he should lie in his sin free from Ecclesiastical Discipline to insult over us God forbid that I should relinquish the Law of Christ for the Cause of any Mortal man this great Instance doth two things at once justifieth the arch-Arch-Bishops and destroyeth the Pope's Authority in the Point The Church of England dispensed with those irreligious Nuns in the days of Lanfrank with the Council of the King and with Queen Maud the Wife of Henry the First in the like Case in the days of Anselm without any Suit to Rome or Forreign Dispensation Lanfr Ep. 32. Eadm l. 3. p. 57. These are great and notorious and certain Instances and when the Pope had usurped this Power afterwards As the Selected Cardinals Stile the avaritious Dispensations of the Pope Sacrilegious Vulnera Legum so our Statutes of Provisors expresly 27 Ed. 3. say they are the undoing and Destruction of the Common Law of the Land accordingly The King Lords and Commons complained of this abuse as a Mighty Grievance of the frequent coming among them of this Infamous Math. Par. Au. 1245. Messenger the Pope's non-obstante that is his Dispensations by which Oaths Customs Writings Grants Statutes Rights Priviledges were not only weakned but made void Sometimes these dispensative Bulls came to legal Trials Boniface the Eighth dispensed with the law where the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was Visitor of the University of Oxford and by his Bull exempted the Vniversity from his Jurisdiction and that Bull was decreed void in Parliament by two Successive Kings as being obtained to the prejudice of the Crown the weakning of the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom and the probable Ruine of the said University Ex Arch. Tur. Londini Ex Antiq. Acad. Cantab. p. 91. In interruption of this Papal Vsurpation were those many Laws made in 25 Edw. 1. and 35 Et 12 Rich. 2. Edw. 1. 25 Edw. 3. and 27 and 28 Edw. 3. and afterwards more expresly in the sixteenth of Richard the Second where complaining of Processes and Censures upon Bishops of England because they executed the King's Comandments in his Courts they express the mischiefs to be the Disinherison of the Crown the Destruction of the King Laws and Realm that the Crown of England is subject to none under God and both the Clergy and Laity severally and severely protest to defend it against the Pope and the same King contested the Point himself with him and would not yield it An Excommunication by the Arch-Bishop albeit Lord Coke Cawdrie's Case it be disanulled by the Pope is to be allowed by the Judges against the Sentence of the Pope according to the 16 Edw. 3. Titl Excom 4. For the Pope's Bulls in special our Laws have abundantly provided against them as well in case of Excommunication as Exemption vid. 30 Edw. 3. lib. Ass pl. 19. and the abundant as is evidenced by my Lord Coke out of our English Laws in Cawd Case p. 15. he mentions a particular Case wherein the Bull was pleaded for Evidence that a Person stood Excommunicate by the Pope but it was not allowed because no Certificate appeared from any Bishop of England 31 Edw. 3. Title Excom 6. The same again 8 Hen. 6. fol. 3. 12 Edw. 4. fol. 16. R. 3. 1 Hen. 7. fol. 20. So late as Henry the Fourth if any Person
Ephesus the first and second of Calcedon to this day Therefore Arch-Bishop Bramhall had reason to say that this Council was never incorporated into the English Laws and consequently hath no force in England especially being urged in a matter contrary to the Famous Memorial of Clarendon a Fundamental Law of this Land all Appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and from him to the King to give order for Redress But to wipe away all colour of Argument what ever Authority these Canons may be thought to have in other matters 't is certain they have none in this matter of Appeals for as to this Point the undoubted General Councils afterward decreed quite otherwise reducing and limiting Appeals ultimately to the Primate of the Province or a Council as hath been made to appear When I heare any thing of moment urged from any other Council as a Grant of the pretended Supremacy to the Pope I shall consider what may be answered till then I think there is an end of his Claim Jure humano either by a Civil or Canonical Grant by Emperors or General Councils So much hath been said against and so little to purpose for the Council of Trent that I shall excuse my self and my Reader from any trouble about it But I must conclude that the Canons of the Council of Trent were never acknowledged or received Epist Synod Conc. Basil by the Kingdom of England as the Council of Basil was which confirmed the Acts of the Council of Constance which Council of Constance without the presence or concurrence of the Pope did decree themselves to be a lawful complete general Council Superior to the Pope and that he was subject to their censures and deposed three Popes at a time The words of the Council are remarkable The Pope is subject to a general Council as well in matters of Faith as of manners so as he may not only be corrected but if he be incorrigible be deposed To say this Decree was not conciliarly made and consequently not confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth signifies nothing if that Martin were Pope because his Title to the Papacy depended merely upon the Authority of that Decree But indeed the word Conciliariter was spoken by the Pope upon a particular occasion after the Council was ended and the Fathers were dismissed as appears in the History CHAP. XX. Of the Popes Title by Divine Right The Question Why not sooner 'T is last Refuge THe modern Champions of the Church of Rome sleight all that hath been said and judge it beneath their Master and his Cause to plead any thing but a Jus divinum for his pretended Supremacy and indeed will hardly endure and tolerate the question Whether the Pope be universal Monarch or Bishop of the whole Church as St Peter's Successor Jure divino But if this point be so very plain may I have leave to ask why was it not urged sooner why were lesser inconsistent Pleas so long insisted on why do not many of their own great men discern it to this day The truth is if the managery of the Combat all along be seriously reflected on this Plea of divine Right seems to be the last Refuge when they have been driven by Dint of Argument out of all other Holds as no longer to be defended And yet give me leave to observe that this last ground of theirs seems to me to be the weakest and the least able to secure them which looks like an Argument of a sinking cause However they mightily labour to support it by these two Pillars 1. That the government of the whole Church is Monarchical 2. That the Pope is the Monarch and both these are Jure divino But these Pillars also must be supported and how that is performed we shall examine SECT I. Whether the Government of the whole Church be Monarchical by Divine Right Bellar. Reason Scripture BEllarmine hath flourished with this argument through no less than eight whole Chapters and indeed hath industriously and learnedly beaten it as far as it would go and no wonder if he have left it thin What solidity is in it we are to weigh both from Reason and Scripture Not from Reason in 3 Arg. From Reason they argue thus God hath appointed Arg. 1 the best and most profitable Government for he is most wise and good but Monarchical Government is the best and most profitable 'T is plainly answered that to know which is Ans the best Government the state of that which is to be governed must be considered the end of Government being the profit and good of the State governed so that unless it appear that this kind of Government be the most convenient for the State of the Church nothing is concluded 2. We believe that God hath the care of the World and not only of the Church therefore in his wise and good Providence he ought to have settled the World under the best and most profitable Government viz. under one universal Monarch 3. Bellarmine himself grants that if particular Churches should not be gathered inter se so as to make one visible Political Body their own proper Rector would suffice for every one and there should be no need of one Monarch But all particular Churches are not one visible political Body but as particular Bodies are complete in themselves enjoying all parts of ordinary Worship and Government singly neither is there any part of Worship or Government proper to the Oecumenical Church qua talis 4. The Argument seems stronger the contrary way God is good and wise and hath appointed the best Government for his own Church but he hath not appointed that it should be Monarchical Therefore that kind of Government seems not to be the best for his Church Christ might foresee the great inconveniences of his Churches being governed by one Ecclesiastical Monarch when divided under the several secular Powers of the World though the Ambition of men overlook it and consider it not Yet that the Government of the Church appointed by God as best for it is Monarchical is not believed by all Catholicks The Sorbon Doctors doubt not to affirm that Aristocratical Government is the best of all and most agreeable to the nature of the Church De Eccl. Polit. potest an 1611. 6. But what if we yeild the whole Argument as the government of the Church is Imperial 't is in Christ the Vniversal Monarch over it but he being in a far Country he governs the several parts of his Church in distinct Countries by visible ministerial Monarchs or Primates proper to each The distinction of imperial and ministerial Power is given us in this very case by our Adversaries There is nothing unreasonable unpracticable or contrary to the practice of the world in the Assertion We grant that Monarchy is the best kind of Government in a due Sphere the World is wide enough for many Monarchs and the Church too The Argument concludes
praescrip c. 36. 'T is most evident that Optatus calls the Chair of Peter one not because of any Superiority over other Apostolical Chairs but because of the Vnity of the Catholick Church in opposition to the Donatists who set up another Chair in opposiion Altare contra Altare to the Catholick Church Bellarmine well observes that Optatus followed the doctrine of St. Cyprian who said there is but one Church one Chair c. And out of St. Cyprian himself his meaning therein is manifest Cyprian to be no other than a specifical not numerical Unity He tells us plainly in the same place that the other Apostles were the same with Peter equal in honour and power He teacheth that the one Bishoprick is dispersed consisting of the unanimous multitude of many Bishops that the Bishoprick is but one a portion whereof is wholly and fully Head of every Bishop So there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church i. e. all Bishops ought to be one in Faith and Fellowship Vid. Cypr. de Vnit Eccles lib. 3. Epis 11. But is it not prodigious that men should build the Pope's Dominion upon the Doctrine of Saint Cyprian and Optatus The latter tells us roundly that whosoever is without the Communion of seven Churches of Asia is an Alien in effect calling the Pope Infidel and Saint Cyprian is well known to have always stiled Pope Cornelius Brother to have severely censured his Successor Pope Stephen contradicting his Decrees opposing the Roman Councils disclaiming the Pope's Power of Appeals and contemning his Excommunications A Council at Africk under Saint Cyprian as another wherein Saint Augustine sate rejected and condemned the Jurisdiction of the Pope over them as is frequently observed and why do men endeavour to blind the World with a few words of these great Fathers contrary to the known Language of their Actions and course of Life The sence of the words may be disputed but when it came to a Tryal their deeds are known to have shewed their mind beyond all dispute For Instance Ambrose calls Pope Damascus Ambr. Rector of the whole Church yet 't is known that he would never yield his Sences to the Law of Rome about Easter lib. 3. de sacr c. 1. for which the Church of Milain was called the Church of Ambrose 670 years after his death when the Clergy of Milain withstood the Legate of Leo 9. saying the Church of Ambrose had been always free and never yet subject to the Laws of the Pope of Rome as Baron notes An. 1059. Nu. 46. Many other Aiery Titles and Courtly Addresses given to the Pope in the Writings of the Fathers we have observed before to carry some Colour for a Primacy of Order but no wise man can imagine that they are an Evidence or Ground much less a formal Grant of Vniversal Dominion seeing scarce one of them but is in some of the Fathers and usually by the same Fathers given as well to the other Apostles and to other Bishops as to Peter and the Pope and so unfortunate is Bellarmine in his Instances that usually the very same place carries its Confutation It is strange that so great a Wit should so egregiously bewray it self to bring in Acacius Bishop of Constantinople submitting as it were the Eastern Church to the See of Rome because in his Epistle to Pope Simplicius he tells him he hath the care of all the Churches for what one Bishop of those times could have been worse pitch'd upon for his purpose who ever opposed himself more fiercely against the Jurisdiction of the Pope than Acacius who more boldly rejected his Commands than this Patriarch or stands in greater opposition to Rome in all History yet Acacius must be the Instance of an Eastern Patriarch's Recognition of the An. 478. n. 3. An. 483. n. 78. An. 484. n. 17. As they say See of Rome Acacius phrenesi abreptus as Baronius hath it adversus Rom. Pontificem Violenter insurgit Acacius that Received those whom the Pope Damn'd Acacius Excommunicated by the Pope and the very Head of the Eastern Schism this is the man that must witness the Pope's Supremacy against himself and his own and his Churches famous Cause and this by saying in a Letter to the Pope himself that he had the care of all Churches a Title given to Saint Paul in the days of Peter to Athanasius in the time of Pope Julius to the Bishops of France in time of Pope Elutherius and to Zecharias an Arch-Bishop by Pope John the first but conferred no Monarchy upon any of them I do not remember that I have yet mentioned the Titles of Summus Pontifex and Pontifex Sum. max. Pontifex Maximus which are also said to carry the Pope's Supremacy in them but it is impossible any wise man can think so Azor. Jesuit acknowledgeth these terms may have a Negative Sence only and Baronius saith they do admit Equality In this Sence Pope Clemens called Saint James Bishop of Bishops and Pope Epis 8â— Leo stiled all Bishops Summos Pontifices and the Bishops of the East write to the Patriarch of Constantinople under the Title of Universal Patriarch and call themselves Chief Priests Epist ad Tharasiam c. SECT X. The Conclusion touching the Fathers Reasons why no more of them A Challenge touching them No Consent of Fathers in the Point Evident in General Councils Reasons of it Rome ' s contradiction of Faith Pope Schism Perjury c. I Was almost tempted to have gone through with a particular Examination of all the Titles and Phrases which Bellarmine hath with too much Vanity gathered out of the Fathers both Greek and Latine on behalf of the Pope's Supremacy But considering they are most of them very frivilous and impertinent and that I conceive I have not omitted any one that can be soberly thought material and that all of them have been frequently answered by Learned Protestants and very few of them so answered thought fit to be replied to by our Adversaries I thought it prudent to excuse that very needless exercise and I hope none will account me blame-worthy for it but if any do so I offer Compensation by this humble Challenge upon mature deliberation If any one or more places in any of the A Challenge Ancient Fathers Greek or Latin shall be chosen by any sober Adversary and argued from as Evidence of the Pope's Supremacy as Successor to Saint Peter God giving me life and health I shall appear and undertake the Combate with weapons extant in our English Writers though they may not think that one 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
Innovations and Tyranny are the Fruits of his Pride Ambition and Perjury but if possible the guilt is made more Scarlet by his Cruelty to Souls intended by his formal Courses of Excommunications against all that own not his usurped Authority viz. the Primitive Churches the 8 first general Councils all the Fathers of the Latine and Greek Churches for many hundred years the greater part of the present Catholick Church and even the Apostles of Christ and our Lord himself The Sum of the whole matter A touch of another Treatise The material Cause of Separation THe Sum of our defence is this If the Pope have no Right to Govern the Church of England as our Apostle or Patriarch or as Infallible if his Supremacy over us was never grounded in but ever renounced by our Laws and Customs and the very constitution of the Kingdom If his Supremacy be neither of Civil Ecclesiastical or Divine Right if it be disowned by the Scriptures and Fathers and condemned by the Ancient Councils the Essential Profession of the present Roman Church and the solemn Oaths of the Bishops of Rome themselves If I say all be certainly so as hath appeared what reason remains for the necessity of the Church of England's re-admission of or submission to the Papal Authority usurped contrary to all this Or what reason is left to charge us with Schism for rejecting it But it remains to be shewn that as the claim of the Popes Authority in England cannot be allowed so there is cause enough otherwise of our denial of obedience actually to it from Reasons inherent in the Vsurpation it self and the Nature of many things required by his Laws This is the second Branch of our defence proposed at first to be the Subject of another Treatise For who can think it necessary to communicate with Error Heresie Schism Infidelity and Apostacy to conspire in damning the Primitive Church the Ancient Fathers General Councils and the better and greater part of the Christian World at this day or willingly at least to return to the infinite Superstitions and Idolatries which we have escaped and from which our blessed Ancestors through the infinite mercy and providence of God wonderfully delivered us Yet these horrid things cannot be avoided if we shall again submit our selves and enslave our Nation to the pretended Powers and Laws of Rome from which Libera nos Domine THE POSTSCRIPT Objections touching the First General Councils and our Arguments from them answered more fully SECT I. The Argument from Councils drawn up and Conclusive of the Fathers and the Cath. Church IN this Treatise I have considered the Canons of the ancient Councils two ways as Evidence and Law As Evidence they give us the undoubted sence and Faith both of the Catholick Church and of single Fathers in those times and nothing can be said against that As Law we have plainly found that none of them confer the Supremacy pleaded for but every one of them in special Canons condemn it Now this latter is so great a proof of the former that it admits of no possible reply except Circumstances on the by shall be set in opposition and contradiction to the plain Text in the body of the Law And if neither the Church nor single Fathers had any such faith of the Popes Supremacy during the first General Councils then neither did they believe it from the Beginning For if it had been the Faith of the Church before the Councils would not have rejected it and indeed the very form and method of proceeding in those Ancient Councils is sufficient Evidence that it was not However why is it not shewn by some colour of Argument at least that the Church did believe the Popes Supremacy before the time of those Councils why do we not hear of some one single Father that declared so much before the Council of Nice or rather before the Canons of the Apostles Or why is there no notice taken of such a Right or so much as Pretence in the Pope either by those Canons or one single Father before that time Indeed our Authors find very shrewd Evidence of the contrary Why saith Casaubon was Dionysins so utterly Dionysins silent as to the Vniversal Head of the Church Reigning at Rome if at that time there had been any such Monarch there Especially seeing he professedly wrote of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Government Exerc. 16. in Bar. an 34. Nu. 2â—0 The like is observable in Ignatius the most Ignatius Epist ad Tral Ancient Martyr and Bishop of Antioch who in his Epistles frequently sets forth the Order Ecclesiastical and dignity of Bishops upon sundry occasions but never mentions the Monarchy of St. Peter or the Roman Pope Ibid. he writing to the Church of Trallis to obey Bishops as Apostles instanceth equally in Timothy St. Paul's Scholar as in Anacletus Successor to St. Peter The Prudence and Fidelity of these two prime Fathers are much stained if there were then an Vniversal Bishop over the whole Church that professedly writing of the Ecclesiastical Order they St. Paul should so neglect him as not to mention Obedience due to him and indeed of St. Paul himself who gives us an enumeration of the Primitive Ministry on set purpose both in the ordinary and extraordinary kinds of it viz. Some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers and takes no notice of the Vniversal Bishop but we hence conclude rather there was no such thing For who would give an account of the Government of a City Army or Kingdom and say nothing of the Mayor General or Prince This surpasseth the fancy of Prejudice it self Irenaeus is too ancient for the Infallible Chair Ireneus lib. 2. c. 3. p. 140 141. and therefore refers us in the point of Tradition as well to Polycarp in the East as to Linus Bishop of Rome in the West Tertullian adviseth to consult the Mother-Churches Tertullian praescr p. 76. immediately founded by the Apostles and names Ephesus and Corinth as well as Rome and Polycarpus ordained by St. John as well as Clemens by Peter Upon which their own Renanus notes that Tertullian doth not confine the Catholick and Apostolick Church to one place for which freedom of Truth the Judex expurgatorius corrected him but Tertullian is Tertullian still These things cannot consist either with their own knowledge of an Vniversal Bishop or the Churches at that time therefore the Church of Egypt held the Catholick Faith with the chief-Priests naming Anatolinus of Constant Basil of Antioch Juvenal of Jerusalem as well as Leo Bishop of Rome Bin. To. inter Epist illust person 147. And it is decreed saith the Church of Carthage we consult our Brethren Syricius Bishop of Rome and Simplicius Bishop of Milain Concil Carth. 3. c. 48. The like we have observed out of Origen Clemens Alex. Cyprian c. before Hence it follows that the Church and the Fathers before the Councils had no knowledge of the Popes Supremacy and we have
not defined by any Publick Decree tacito tamen Doctorum Consensu Now what can remain but that which we find him immediately driven to viz. to reject the pretence of humane Right by Positive Decrees of the Church and to adhere only as he himself affirmeth they generally now do to the Divine Right Nunc inquit autem nemini amplius Catholoco dubium est prorsus Divino Jure quidem illustribus Evangelii Testimoniis hunc Primatum niti Thus how have they intangled themselves if they pretend a humane Right he acknowledgeth they cannot find it where it ought to be found in the Publick Decrees of the Church if a Divine Right he confesseth the Fathers denied it before the Council of Constance and he knows that Council condemn'd it Stapleton at length affirms that now no Catholick doubts but the Pope's Primacy is of Divine Right whence the heart of the Roman Cause is stabb'd by these clear and sharp Conclusions 1. Concl. That all Catholicks of the present Roman Church do now hold a New Article touching the Pope's Primacy not known to the Fathers before the Council of Constance An. 1415. and condemned by that Council as an Error 2. Concl. That therein the Faith of the present Roman Church stands counter to the Faith Decrees and Practices of all the first General Councils consisting of Fathers that flourished therein long before the Council of Constance i. e. in their own sence the Ancient Catholick Church You will find that the Evidence hereof ariseth not only from the Words of Stapleton but from the Decrees of all the first eight General Councils every one of them one way or other expresly declaiming that Supremacy which the Pope and his present Church would arrogate and in those Councils all the Fathers and the Catholick Church are confessedly concluded and consequently Antiquity Infallibility and Tradition are not to be found at Rome The Sum is the Church of England that holds the true Ancient Catholick Faith and the four first General Councils and hath the Evidence of four more in the Point cannot be blamed for rejecting or not readmitting a Novel and groundless Usurpation contrary to them all and contrary also to the Profession of the present Roman Church that pretends to believe that the Faith of the eight first general Councils is the Catholick Faith Imprimatur GUIL JANE R. P. D. HEN. Episc LOND Ã Sacris Domest Jan. 24. 1678. THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS and SECTIONS THe Introduction The Design The Controversie contracted into one point viz. Schism Page 1 CHAP. I. The Definition of Schism Sect. 1. Of the Act of it p. 3 Sect. 2. The Subject of Schism p. 4 Sect. 3. The Object of Schism 1. Faith p. 7 2. Worship p. 9 3. Government p. 11 Sect. 4. The Conditions Causeless Voluntary p. 14 Sect. 5. The Application of Schism 't is not applicable to us p. 16 In the Act. p. 17 Or Cause p. 19 Sect. 6. The Application of it to the Romanists p. 20 Sect. 7. The charge retorted upon them p. 21 The Controversie broken into two Points The Authority The Cause p. 23 CHAP. II. An Examination of the Papal Authority in England Five Arguments proposed and briefly reflected on p. 24 1. Conversion 2. Prescription 3. Western Patriarchate 4. Infallibility 5. Succession p. 25 CHAP. III. Of the Pope's claim from our Conversion by Eleutherius Gregory p. 28 CHAP. IV. His claim as Patriarch Four Propositions laid down 1. The Pope was Patriarch of the West p. 32 2. He had then a limited Jursdiction p. 33 3. His Patriarchate did not include Brittain p. 35 4. A Patriarch and Vniversal Bishop inconsistent p. 37 CHAP. V. The Third Papal claim Prescription The Case stated p. 39 Their Plea Our Answer in three Positions viz. 1. The Pope never had possession absolutely 2. That which he had could never create a Title 3. However his Title extinguish'd with his possession p. 40 CHAP. VI. The Papacy of no power here for the first 600 years Augustine Dionoth in fact or faith p. 41. c. Sect. 1. No one part of Papal Jurisdiction was exercised here for six hundred years not Ordination till 1100 years after Christ c. nor any other p. 46 Sect. 2. No possession of Belief of his Jurisdiction then in England or Scotland p. 52 Sect. 3. This belief could have no ground in the Ancient Canons Apostolic Nicen. Milev c. p. 54 Sect. 4. Of Concil Sardi Calced Constantinop p. 56 Sect. 5. Arabick Canons forged not of Nice p. 60 Sect. 6. Ancient practice interpreted the Canons against the Pope Disposing of Patriarchs S. Cyprian S. Augustine's sence in practice p. 63 Sect. 7. The Sayings of Ancient Popes Agathâ— Pelagius Gregory Victor against the pretence of Supremacy p. 69 Sect. 8. The words of the Imperial Law against him p. 90 Sect. 9. The Conclusion touching possession in the first Ages vix six hundred years from Christ p. 97 CHAP. VII The Pope had not full possession here before Hen. 8. I. Not in St. Augustine's time nor after p. 100 Sect. 1. Not in St. Augustine's time ibid. A true State of the question betwixt the Pope and the King of England in seven particulars p 102 Sect. 2. No clear or full possession in the Ages after Austine till Hen. 8. p 104 In eight distinctions of Supremacy ibid. The question stated by them p. 105 CHAP. VIII What Supremacy Hen. 8. took from the Pope the particulars of it with Notes upon them p. 107. c. CHAP. IX Whether the Pope's possession here was a quiet possession till Hen. 8. as to the Point of Supremacy p. 109 Sect. 1. Of Appeals to Rome Three Notions of Appeal Appeals to Rome Locally or by Legates Wilfrid Anselm ibid. Sect. 2. Of the possession by Legates the occasion of them here their entertainment p. 117 CHAP. X. Of the Pope's Legislative power here before Hen. 8. Canons oblige us not without our Consent our Kings Saxon Danish Norman made Ecclesiastical Laws p. 126 CHAP. XI Of the Power of Papal Licenses c. in Edw. 1. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Hen. 7's time p. 133 CHAP. XII The Patronage of this Church ever in our own Kings by History by Law p. 140 CHAP. XIII Of Peter-pence and other payments to the Pope p. 149 First-Fruits p. 151 Payments extraordinary p. 154 Casual p. 156 CHAP. XIV The Conclusion of the Argument of Prescription 't is on our side p 158 On their side of no force p. 159 CHAP. XV. The Plea from Infallibility considered in its Consequence Retorted p. 161 Sect. 1 Scripture Examples for Infallibility p. 163 High Priest not infallible nothing to the Pope p. 164 Apostles p. 166 Sect. 2. Scripture-promises of Infallibility p. 167 CHAP. XVI 2. Argument for Infallibility viz. Tradition four Concessions three Propositions about Tradition Arguments Objections p. 171 c. CHAP. XVII The third way of Argument for Infallibility viz. by Reason three
Reasons answered the Point argued Retorted p 177 CHAP. XVIII The Vniversal Pastorship its Right Divine or Humane this Civil or Ecclesiastical all examined Constantine King John Justinian Phocas c. p. 182. as to Civil Right CHAP. XIX His Ecclesiastical Right by General Councils the eight first to which he is sworn Justinians Sanction of them Canons Apostol allowed by the Council of Nice and Ephesus p. 190 Sect. 1. Canons of the Apostles p. 194 Sect. 2. 1. General Council of Nice Bellarmine's Evasion p. 195 Sect. 3. Concil 2 gen Constantinop An. 381. p. 196 Sect. 4. Concil Ephesin 3 gen An. 431. p. 197 Sect. 5. Concil Calced 4 gen An. 451. p. 199 Sect. 6. Concil Constantin 2. the fifth gen Council An. 553. p. 202 Sect 7. Concil Constant 6 gen An. 681. v. 685. Concil Nic. 7 gen An. 781. p. 203 Sect. 8 Concil gen â— Constant An. 870. p. 204 Seuen Conclusions from Councils p. 205 Sect. 9. Of the Latine Church the Councils of Constance Basil c. An. 1415. 1431. p. 206 Sect. 10. The Greek Church African Canons Synod Carthag Concil Antiochen the faith of the Greek Church since in the Point p. 208 c. Sect. 11. The Sardican Canons No Grant from their matter manner or Authority No Appendix to the Council of Nice Zozimus his Forgery they were never Ratified nor received as Vniversal and were contradicted by after Councils p. 212 CHAP. XX. The Pope's Title by Divine Right The Question Why not sooner 'T is their last Refuge p. 217 Sect. 1. Whether the Government of the Church be Monarchical Jure Divino Bellarmine Reason Scripture p. 218 Promises Metaphors and Example of the High Priest in Scripture p 221 Sect. 2. Of St. Peter's Monarchy Tâ—â—eâ— Petrus p. 223 Fathers Expressions of it p 228 Fathers corrupted and Council of Calcedon by Thomas p. 230 c. CHAP. XXI Of the Pope's Succession p 237 Sect. 1. Whether the Primacy descended to the Bishop of Rome as such by Succession from Saint Peter Neg. Bellar 28 Prerogatives of Saint Peter personal or false p. 238 239 c. Application of this Section p. 241 By three great Inferences the Pope's Ancient Primacy not that of Saint Peter not Jure Divino not to descend to succeeding Popes Sect. 2. Whether the Pope have Supremacy as Successor to Saint Peter Neg. not Primate as such Peter himself not Supreme the Pope did not succeed him at all p. 244 Sect. 3. Arg. 1. Peter Assign'd it to the Pope answered p. 245 Sect. 4. Arg. 2. The Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter because Antioch did not answered p. 246 Sect. 5. Arg. 3. Saint Peter died at Rome answered question de facto not de fide p. 247 Sect. 6. Arg. 4. From Councils Popes Fathers p. 249 Sect. 7. Arg. 5. For prevention of Schism Saint Hierom. p. 250 Sect. 8. Arg. 6. The Church committed to his care Saint Chrysostom p. 251 Sect. 9. Arg. 7. One Chair Optatus Cyprian Ambrose Acatius ibid. Sect 10. The Conclusion touching the Fathers Reasons why we are not more particular about them A Challenge touching them there cannot be a Consent of the the Fathers for the Papacy as is evident from the General Councils Reasons for it Rome's contradiction of faith the Pope's Schism Perjury c. p. 255 c. The Sum of the whole matter a Touch of another Treatise the material Cause of Separation p. 261 THE POSCRIPT Objections touching the first General Councils and our Arguments from them answered more fully SECT 1. THE Argument from Councils drawn up 't is conclusive of the Fathers and the Catholick Church p. 263 SECT 2. Obj. Touching the Council of Nice answered p. 267 SECT 3. Obj. Touching the Council of Constant Second General p. 269 SECT 4. The third General Council viz. Ephesin p. 272 SECT 5. Of the Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth General Councils Binius his quotations of Ancient Popes considered p. 274 Conclusion p. 279 AN APPENDIX A Serious Alarm to all sorts of Englishmen against Popery from Sense and Conscience their Oaths and their Interests p. 281 The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy p. 289 ERRATA PAge 6. line 7. for and the read and though p. 136. l. 13. add ' t is observed that p. 137. l. 23. blot out and the abundant p. 138. l. 5. add of before the grievances p. 147. l. 17. before the word evacuate add not p. 164. l. 24. for is r. are p. 175. l. 10. for his messenger r. the Popes messenger p. 177. after Sentence add with the Fathers was ever taken p. 205. l. 22. after the word Faith add of the Church p. 213. l. 31. for they r. these Canons p. 227. l 34. for Kingdoms r. the Kingdom p. 235. l. 1. for are r. are not The Printer to the Reader THe absence of the Author and his inconvenient distance from London hath occasioned some lesser escapes in the Impression of this Book The Printer thinks it the best instance of pardon if his Escapes be not laid upon the Author and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary understanding may amend and a little charity may forgive THE INTRODUCTION The Design The Controversie Contracted into one Point viz. SCHISM THE Church of England hath been long possest both of her self and the true Religion and counts it no necessary part of that Religion to molest or censure any other Church Yet she cannot be quiet but is still vext and clamour'd with unwearied outcries of Heresie and Schism from the Church of Rome provoking her defence The Ball hath been tossed as well by cunning as learned Hands ever since the Reformation and 't is complained that by weak and impertinent Allegations tedious Altercations unnecessary Excursions and much Sophistry needlesly lengthening and obscuring the controversie it is in danger to be lost After so great and so long exercises of the best Champions on both sides 't is not to be expected that any great Advance should be made on either Yet how desirable is it that at length the true difference were clearly stated and the Arguments stript of their said Cumber and presented to us in their proper Evidence and the controversie so reduced that the World might perceive where we are and doubtful inquirers after Truth and the safest Religion might satisfie their Consciences and fix their Practice This is in some measure the Ambition of the present Essay In order to it we have observed that the Shop out of which all the Arms both Offensive and Defensive on both sides are fetched is Schism and the whole Controversie is truly contracted into that one Point which will appear by two things 1. By the State of the allowed Nature of Schism 2. By the Application of it so explain'd CHAP. I. The Definition of SCHISM SECT 1. Of the Act of Schism THat we may lie open to their full Charge we lay the Notion in as great a Latitude as I think our Adversaries themselves would have it
Schism 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
and will 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 Condition in the Definition is the Condition which 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 Voluntary of Communion but of this I shall say nothing 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 cause 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 Con. Ept. p. 2. Act. 6. c. 7. that in a general Council they did forbid all persons under
pain of deposition to Bishops and Clerks and Anathematization to Lay-men to compose or obtrude upon any persons converted from Paganism or Judaism We retain the same Sacraments and Discipline we derive our holy Orders by lineal succession from them It is not we who have forsaken the essence of the Modern Church by substraction or rather Reformation but they of the Church of Rome who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Roman Church by their corrupt Additions as a learned Man observes The plain truth is this the Church of Rome hath had long and much Reverence in the Church of England and thereby we were by little and little drawn along with her into many gross errors and superstitions both in Faith and Worship and at last had almost lost our liberty in point of Government But that Church refusing to reform and proceeding still further to usurp upon us we threw off the Vsurpation first and afterwards very deliberately Reform'd our selves from all the corruptions that had been growing upon us and had almost overgrown both our Faith and Worship If this be to divide the Church we are indeed guilty not else But we had no power to reform our selves Here indeed is the main hinge of the Controversie but we have some concessions from our worst and fiercest Adversaries that a National Church hath power of her self to reform abuses in lesser matters provided she alter nothing in the Faith and Sacraments without the Pope And we have declared before that we have made no alteration in the essentials of Religion But we brake our selves off from the Papal Authority and divided our selves from our lawful Governors 'T is confest the Papal Authority we do renounce but not as a lawful Power but a Tyrannical Usurpation and if that be proved where is our Schism But this reminds us of the second thing in the Definition of Schism the Cause For what 2. The Cause interpretation soever be put upon the Action whether Reformation or Division and Separation 't is not material if it be found we had sufficient Cause and no doubt we had if we had reason from the lapsed state and nature of our Corruptions to Reform and if we had sufficient Authority without the Pope to reform our selves But we had both as will be evident at last Both these we undertake for satisfaction to the Catholick Church but in defence of our own Church against the charge of Schism by and from the Church of Rome one of them yea either of them is sufficient For if the pretended Authority of the Church of Rome over the Church of England be ill grounded how can our Actions fall under their censure Especially seeing the great and almost only matter of their censure is plainly our disobedience to that ill grounded Authority Again however their Claim and Title stand or fall if we have or had cause to deny that Communion which the Church of Rome requires though they have power to accuse us our Cause being good will acquit us from the guilt and consequently the charge of Schism Here then we must joyn Issue we deny the pretended Power of the Church of Rome in England and plead the justness of our own Reformation in all the particulars of it SECT VI. The Charge as laid by the Romanists THis will the better appear by the indictment of Schism drawn up against us by our Adversaries I shall receive it as it is expressed by one of the sharpest Pens and in the fullest and closest manner I bave met with viz. Card. Perron against Arch-Bishop Laud thus Protestants have made this Rent or Schism by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneneous Doctrines contrary to the faith of Roman or Catholick Church by their rejecting the authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors both immediate and mediate By aggregating themselves into a separate Body or company of pretended Christians independent of any Pastors at all that were in lawful and quiet possession of Jurisdiction over them by making themselves Pastors and Teachers of others and administring Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully impowered to give it by instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of their own in matters of Religion contrary to those anciently received throughout all Christendom by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates of and from their respective Sees Cures and Benefices and intruding themselves into their places in every Nation where they could get footing A foul Charge indeed and the fouler because in many things false However at present we have reason only to observe the foundation of all lies in our disobedience and denying Communion with the Church of Rome all the rest either concerns the grounds or manner or consequences of that Therefore if it appear at last that the Church of England is independant on the Church of Rome and oweth her no such obedtence as she requires the Charge of Schism removes from us and recoyls upon the Church or Court of Rome from her unjust Vsurpations and Impositions and that with the aggrevation of Sedition too in all such whether Prelates or Priests as then refused to acknowledge and obey the just Power and Laws of this Land or that continue in the same disobedience at this day SECT VII The Charge of Schism retorted upon the Romanists The Controversie to two Points IT is well noted by a learned Man that while the Papal Authority is under Contest the question Dr. Hammond is not barely this whether the Church of England be schismatical or no For a Romanist may cheaply debate that and keep himself safe whatsoever becomes of the Vmpirage but indifferently and equally whether we or the Romanist be thus guilty or which is the Schismatick that lies under all those severe Censures of the Scriptures and Fathers the Church of England or her Revolters and the Court of Rome Till they have better answered to the Indictment than yet they have done we do and shall lay the most horrid Schism at the door of the Church or Court of Rome For that they have voluntarily divided the Catholick Church both in Faith Worship and Government by their innovations and excommunicated and damned not only the Church of England but as some account three parts of the Christian Church most uncharitably and without all Authority or just cause to the scandal of the whole world But we shall lay the charge more particularly as it is drawn up by Arch-Bishop Bramhal The Church saith he or rather the Court of Rome are causally guilty both of this Schism and almost all other Schisms in the Church 1. By usurping an higer place and power in the Body Ecclesiastical than of right is due unto them 2. By separating both by their Doctrines and Censures three parts of the Christian World from their Communion and as much as in them lies from the Communion of Christ 3. By rebelling against general Councils Lastly by breaking or taking away all the lines of Apostolical
Succession except their own and appropriating all Original Jurisdiction to themselves And that which draws Sedition and Rebellion as the great aggravation of their Schism they Challenge a temporal Power over Princes either directly or indirectly Thus their Charge against us is Disobedience Our Charge against them is Usurpation and abuse of Power If we owe no such Obedience or if we have cause not to obey we are acquitted If the Pope have both power and reason of his side we are guilty If he fail in either the whole weight of Schism with all its dreadful Consequences remains upon him or the Court of Rome The Conclusion TThus we see the Controversie is broken into two great points 1. Touching the Papal Authority in England 2. Touching the Cause of our denying Communion in some things with the Church of Rome required by that Authority Each of these I design to be the matter of a distinct Treatise This first Book therefore is to try the Title The Sum of this first Treatise betwixt the Pope and the Church of England Wherein we shall endeavour impartially to examine all the Pleas and Evidences produced and urged by Romanists on their Masters behalf and shew how they are answered and where there appears greatest weight and stress of Argument we shall be sure to give the greatest diligence Omitting nothing but vnconcluding impertinencies and handling nothing lightly but colours and shadows that will bear no other Now to our Work CHAP. II. An Examination of the Papal Authority in England Five Arguments Proposed and briefly reflected on THis is their Goliah and indeed their whole Army if we rout them here the day is our own and we shall find nothing more to oppose us but Skirmishes of Wit or when they are at their Wits end fraud and force as I am troubled to observe their Use hath been For if the See of Rome hath no just claim or Title to govern us we cannot be obliged to obey it and consequently these two things stand evident in the light of the whole world We are no Schismaticks though we deny obedience to the See of Rome seeing it cannot justly challenge it 2dly Though we were so yet the See of Rome hath no power to consure us that hath no power to govern us And hereafter we shall have occasion further to conclude that the Papal Authority that hath nothing to do with the English Church and yet rigorously exacts our obedience and censures us for our disobedience is highly guilty both of Ambition in its unjust claim and of Tyranny in unjust execution of an usurped power as well in her Commands as Censures which is certainly Schism and aliquid ampliùs They of the Church of Rome do therefore mightily bestir themselves to make good their claim without which they know they can never hope either to gain us or secure themselves I find five several Titles pretended though methinks the power of that Church should be built but upon one Rock 1. The Pope being the means of our first Conversion as they say did thereby acquire a Right 1. Conversion for himself and successors to govern this Church 2. England belongs to the Western Patriarohate 2. Patriarch and the Pope is the Patriarch of the West as they would have it 3. Others found his Right in Prescription and 3. Prescription long continued possession before the Reformation 4. Others flee much higher and derive this 4. Infallibility power of Government from the Infallibility of the Governor and indeed who would not be led by an unerring Guide 5. But their strong hold to which at last resort 5. Succession is still made is the Popes Vniversal Pastorship as Successor to St. Peter and supreme Governor not of Rome and England only but of the whole Christian World Before we enter upon trial of these severally we shall briefly note that where there are many Titles pretended Right is justly suspected especially if the Pretences be inconsistent 1. Now how can the Pope as the Western Patriarcb or as our first Converter pretend to be our Governor and yet at the same time pretend himself to be universal Bishop These some of our suttlest Adversaries know to imply a contradiction and to destroy one another 2. At first sight therefore there is a necessity on those that assert the universal Pastorship to wave the Arguments either from the Right of Conversion or the Western Patriarchate or if any of them will be so bold as to insist on these he may not think the Chair of St. Peter shall be his Sanctuary at a dead lift 3. Also for Possession what need that be pleaded if the Right be evident Possession of a part if the Right be universal unless by England the Pope took livery and Seisen for the whole world Besides if this be a good plea it is as good for us we have it and have had it time out of mind if ours have not been quiet so neither was theirs before the Reformation 4. For Infallibility that 's but a Qualification no Commission Fitness sure gives no Authority nor desert a Title and that by their own Law otherwise they must acknowledge the Bishops of our Church that are known to be as learned and holy as theirs are as good and lawful Bishops as any the Church of Rome hath Thus we see where the Burthen will rest at last and that the Romanists are forced into one only hold One great thing concerns them to make sure or all is lost the whole Controversir is tied to St. Peters Chair the Supremacy of the Pope must be maintained or the Roman and Catholick are severed as much as the Church of England and the Church of Rome and a great breach is made indeed but we are not found the Schismaticks But this is beside my task Lest we should seem to endeavour an escape at any breach all the said five Pleas of the Romanists shall be particularly examined and the main Arguments and Answers on both sides faithfully and exactly as I can produced And where the Controuersie sticks and how it stands at this day noted as before we promised CHAP. III. Of the Popes Claim to England from our Conversion by Eleutherius Gregory THis Argument is not pressed with much confidence in Print though with very much in Discourse to my own knowledge Perhaps 't is rather popular and plausible than invincible Besides it stands in barr against the Right of St. Peter which they say was good near six hundred years before and extends to very many Churches that received grace neither by the means of St. Peter or his pretender Successor except they plead a right to the whole Church first and to a part afterwards or one kind of right to the whole and another to a part The truth is if any learned Romanist shall insist on this Argument in earnest he is strongly suspected either to deny or question the Right of St. Peter's Successor
abominates or that he really exercised that Vniversal Authority and Universal Bishoprick though he so prodigiously lets flie against the Stile of Vniversal Bishop yet all this is said and must be maintained lest we should exclude the Vniversal Pastorship out of the Primitive Church There is a great deal of pitiful stuff used by the Romanist upon this Argument with which I shall not trouble the Reader yet nothing shall be omitted that hath any shew of Argument on their Side among which the words of Saint Gregory following in his Argument are most material Saint Gregory saith the care of the whole Object Church was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles Saint Peter and yet he is not called the Vniversal Bishop 'T is confessed that Saint Gregory doth say Sol. that the care of the whole is committed to Saint Peter again that he was the Prince of the Apostles and yet he was not called Vniversal Apostle 't is hence plain that his being Prince of the Apostles did not carry in it so much as Vniversal Bishop otherwise Saint Gregory would not have given the one and denied him the other and 't is as plain that he had the care of all Churches and so had Saint Paul but 't is not plain that he had Power over all Churches Doctor Hammond proceeds irrisistibly to prove the contrary from Saint Gregory himself in the Novels if any Complaint be made saith he against a Bishop the Cause shall be judged before the Metropolitane Secundum Regulas Ex Reg. lib. 11. Ep. 54. Sanctas Nostras Leges if the Party stand not to his Judgment the Cause is to be brought to the Arch-Bishop or Patriarch of that Diocess and he shall give it a Conclusion according to the Canons and Laws aforesaid no place left for Appeal to Rome Yet it must be acknowledged Saint Gregory Object adds si dictum fuerit c. where there is no Metropolitane nor Patriarch the Cause may be heard by the Apostolick See which Gregory calls the Head of all Churches Now if this be allowed what hath the Pope Sol. gained if perhaps such a Church should be found as hath neither Primate nor Patriarch how is he the nearer to the Vniversal Authority over those Churches that have Primates of their own or which way will he by this means extend his Jurisdiction to us in England who have ever had more than one Metropolitane the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was once acknowledged by a Pope to be Alterius Orbis Apostolicus Patriarch But admitting this extraordinary Case that where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch there they are to have recourse to the See Apostolick 't is a greater wonder that the Romanist should insist upon it then that his late Grace should mention it at which A. C. so much admires for this one observation with the assistance of that known Rule in Law exceptio confirmat Regulam in non exceptis puts a plain and speedy end to the whole Controversie for if recourse may be had to Rome from no other place but where there is neither Primate nor Patriarch then not from England either when Saint Gregory laid down the Rule or ever since and perhaps then from no other place in the World and indeed provision was thus made against any such extraordinary Case that might possibly happen for it is but reason that where there is no Primate to appeal to appeal should be received somewhere else and where better than at Rome which Saint Gregory calls Caput omnium Ecclesiarum and this is the utmost advantage the Romanist can hope to receive from the Words But we see Saint Gregory calls Rome the Head Object of all Churches 'T is true whether he intends a Primacy of Sol. Fame or visible Splendor and Dignity being the Seat of the Emperor or Order and Vnity is not certain but 't is certain he intends nothing less by it than that which just now he denied a Supremacy of Power and Vniversal ordinary Jurisdiction he having in the words immediately fore-going concluded all ordinary Jurisdiction within every proper Primacy or Patriarchate But saith S. W. Saint Gregory practised the Object thing though he denied the Word of Vniversal What Hypocrisie damn the Title as he Sol. doth and yet practise the thing you must have good proof His first Instance is of the Primate of Byzacene wherein the Emperor first put forth his Authority and would have him judged by Gregory Piissimus Imperator eum per nos voluit Vid. Ep. 65. l. 7. judicari saith Gregory Hence as Doctor Hammond smartly and soundly observes that Appeals from a Primate lie to none but the Supreme Magistrate To which purpose in the Case of Maximus Bishop of Solana decreed excommunicate Ep. l. 3. Ep. 20. by Gregory his Sentence was still with this reserve and submission nisi prius unless I should first understand by my most Serene Lords the Emperors that they commanded it to be done Thus if this perfect instance as S. W. calls it have any force in it his Cause is gone what ever advantage he pretends to gain by it Besides the Emperors Command was that Gregory should judge him juxta Statuta Canonica and Gregory himself pleads quicquid esset Canonicum Judicaremus Thus S. W's Cause is killed twice by his own perfect instance for if Saint Gregory took the Judgment upon him in obedience to the Emperor and did proceed and was to proceed in judging according to the Canons where was then the Vniversal Monarchy Yet it is confessed by Dr. Hammond which is a full answer to all the other not so perfect instances that in case of injury done to any by a Primate or Patriarch there being no lawful Superior who had power over him the injured person sometimes made his complaint to the Pope as being the most Eminent Person in the Church and in such case he questionless might and ought in all fraternal Charity admonish the Primate or Patriarch or disclaim Communion with him unless he reform But it ought to be shewn that Gregory did formally excommunicate any such Primate or Patriarch or juridically and authoritively act in any such Cause without the express license of the Emperor which not being done his instances are answered besides Saint Gregory always pleads the Ancient Canons which is far from any claim of Vniversal Pastorship by Divine Right or Donation of Christ to Saint Peter I appeal saith Doctor Hammond to S. W. whether that were the Interpretation of secundùm Canones and yet he knows that no other Tenure but that will stand him in stead Indeed the unhappiness is as the Doctor Vid. dispat disp p. 408. to p 423. observes that such Acts at first but necessary fraternal charity were by ambitious men drawn into example and means of assuming power of Vniversal Pastorship which yet cannot be more vehemently prejudiced by any thing than by those Ancient examples which being rightly
considered pretend no higher than Ecclesiastical Canons and the Universal Laws of Charity but never made 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 This distinction Doctor Stillingfleet destroys Sol. 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. Obj. in dissessionem Ecclesiae 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 confequence 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 1. We answer that those Bishops among Sol. whom Irenaeus 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
the Nicene Canons they were contented to yield that it should be so till the true Canons were produced Now what can the Reader desire to put an eternal end to this Controversie and consequently to the claim of the universal Pastor in this Age but an account of the Judgment of this Council when they had received the Copy of the Nicene Canons on which the point depended out of the East This you have in that excellent Epistle of theirs to Pope Celastine who succeeded Boniface and the elaborate Dr. Stillingfleet who searcheth R. ac p. 410 411. all things to the bottom hath transcribed it at large as a worthy Monument of Antiquity and of very great light in the present Controversie To him I shall refer the Reader for the whole and only note some few expressions to the purpose We say they humbly beseech you to admit no more into your Communion those whom we have cast out For your Reverence will easily perceive that this is forbid in the Council of Nice For if this be taken care for as to the inferior Clergy and Laity how much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops The Decrees of Nice have subjected both the inferior Clergy and Bishops to their Metropolitans for they have most wisely and justly provided that every business be determined in the place where it begun Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one if he be offended to appeal to the Council of the Province or even to an universal Council Or how can a Judgment made beyond the Sea be valid to which the Persons of necessary Witnesses cannot be brought by reason c. For this sending of men to us from your Holiness we do not find it commanded by any Synod of the Fathers And as for that Council of Nice we cannot find it in the truest Copies sent by holy Cyril Bishop of Alexandria and the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople which also we sent to your Predecessor Boniface Take heed also of sending any of your Clerks for Executors to those who desire it lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ and concerning our brother Faustinus Apiarius being cast out we are confident that our brotherly Love continuing Africa shall no more be troubled with him This is the sum of that famous Epistle the Pope and the African Fathers referred the point in difference to the true Canons of the Nicene Council The Canons determine against the Pope and from the whole story 't is inferred evidently 1. That Pope Boniface himself implieth his Jurisdiction was limited by the general Council of Nice and that all the Laity and Clergy too except Bishops that lived beyond the Seas and consequently in England were exempted from his Jurisdiction by that Council 2. Pope Boniface even then when he made his claim and stood upon his terms with the African Fathers pleads nothing for the appeals of transmarine Bishops to Rome but the allowance of the Council of Nice no tu es Petrus then heard of 3. Then it seems the practices of Popes themselves were to be ruled and judged by the ancient Canons and Laws of the Church 4. The African Fathers declared the Pope fallible and actually mistaken both to his own power and sense of the Council Proving substantially that neither Authority from Councils nor any foundation in Justice Equity or order of Government or publick Conveniency will allow or suffer such Appeals to Rome and that the Pope had no authority to send Legates to hear causes in such cases All these things lye so obviously in prejudice both of the Popes Possession and Title as universal Pastor at that time both in his own the Churches sence that to apply them further would be to insult which I shall forbear seeing Baronius is so ingenious as to confess there are some hard things in this Epistle And Perron hath hereupon exposed his Wit with so much sweat and so little purpose but his own Correction and Reproach as Dr. Still notes Yet we may modestly conclude from this one plain instance that the sence of the Nicene Council was defined by the African Council to be against the Popes Supremacy and consequently they did not submit to it nor believe it and a further consequence to our purpose is that then the Catholick Church did not universally own it i. e. the Popes Supremacy then had not Possession of the faith of the whole Church For as A. C. p. 191. maintains the Africans notwithstanding the contest in the sixth Council of Carthage were always in true Communion with the Roman Church even during the term of this pretended Separation And Caelestine himself saith that St. Augustine one of those Fathers lived and dyed in the Communion of the Roman Church SECT IX The Conclusion touching Possession Anciently VVE hope it is now apparent enough that the Popes Supremacy had no possesion in England from the beginning or for the first six hundred years either de facto or in fide Our Ancestors yielded not to it they unanimously resisted it and they had no reason to believe it either from the Councils or practice of the Church or from the Edicts and Rules of the imperial Law or the very sayings of the Popes themselves Thus Sampson's Hair the strength and Pomp of their best Plea is cut off The foundation of the Popes Supremacy is subverted and all other pleas broken with it If according to the Apostles Canons every Nation had its proper Head in the beginning to be ackonwledged by them under God And according to a general Council all such Heads should hold as from the beginning there can be no ground afterwards for a lawful possession to the contrary If tu es Petrus pasce Oves have any force to maintain the Popes Supremacy why did not the ancient Fathers the Authors of those Canons see it Why was not it shewn by the Popes concerned in bar against them when nothing else could be pleaded When both Possession and Tradition were to be begun and had not yet laid their Foundation Yea when actual opposition in England was made against it when general Councils abroad laid restraints upon it and the Eastern Church would not acknowledge it Indeed both Antiquity Universality and Tradition it self and all colour of Right for ever fails with possession For Possession of Supremacy afterwards cannot possibly have either a divine or just Tâ—â— but must lay its Foundation contrary to Gods Institution and Ecclesiastical Canon And the Possessor is a Thief and a Robber our Adversaries being Judges He invades others Provinces and is bound to Restore And long Possession is but a protracted Rebellion against God and his Church However it be with the secular Powers Christs Vicar must certainly derive from him must hold the power he gave must come in it at his door And S. W. himself P. 50 against Dr. Hammond fiercely affirmeth That Possession in this
kind ought to begin ne◠Christs Time and he that hath begun it later unless he can Evidence that he was driven out from an Ancient Possession is not to be stiled a Possessor but an Vsurper an Intruder an Invader Disobedient Rebellious and Schismatical Good Night S. W. Quod ab initio fuit invalidum tractu temporis non Convalescit is a Rule in the Civil Law Yea whatever Possession the Pope got afterwards was not only an illegal Vsurpation but a manifest Violation of the Canon of Ephesus and thereby Condemned as Schismatical CHAP. VII The Pope had not full Possession here before Hen. 8. 1. Not in Augustine's Time II. Nor After 'T Is boldly pleaded that the Pope had Possession of the Supremacy in England for nine hundred years together from Augustine till Hen. 8. 〈◊〉 no King on Earth hath so long and so clear prescription for his Crown To which we answer 1. That he had not such Possession 2. If he had 't is no Argument of a just Title SECT I. Not in Austin's Time State of Supremacy questioned VVE shall consider the Popes Supremacy here as it stood in and near St. Augustine's time and in the Ages after him to Hen. 8. 1. We have not found hitherto that in or about the time of Augustine Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Pope had any such power in England as is pretended Indeed he came from Rome but he brought no Mandate with him and when he was come he did nothing without the King's licence at his arrival he petitions 〈◊〉 King the King commands him to stay in the Isle Thanet till his further pleasure was known he obeyed afterward the King gave him licence to preach to Bed l. 1. c. 25. his Subjects and when he was himself converted majorem praedicandi licentiam he enlarged his licence so to do 'T is true Saint Gregory presumed largly to subject all the Priests of Brittain under Augustine and to give him power to erect two Arch-Bishopricks and twelve Bishopricks under each of them but 't is one thing to claim another thing to possess for Ethelbert was then the only Christian King who had not the twentieth part of Brittain and it appears that after both Saint Gregory and Austine were dead there were but one Arch bishop and two Bishops throughout the Brittish Islands of the Roman Communion Indeed the Brittish and Scotch Bishops were Bed l. 2. c. 2 c. 4. many but they renounced all Communion with Rome as appeared before We thankfully acknowledge the Pope's sending over Preachers his commending sometimes Arch-Bishops when desired to us his directions to fill up vacant Sees all which and such like were Acts of Charity becoming so eminent a Prelate in the Catholick Church but sure these were not Marks of Supremacy 'T is possible Saint Milet as is urged might bring the Decrees of the Roman Synod hither to be observed and that they were worthy of our acceptance and were accepted accordingly but 't is certain and will afterwards appear to be so that such Decrees were never of force here further that they were allowed by the King and Kingdom 'T is not denied but that sometimes we admitted the Pope's Legates and Bulls too yet the Legantine Courts were not Anciently heard of neither were the Legates themselves or those Bulls of any Authority without the King's Consent Some would argue from the great and flattering Titles that were antiently given to the Pope but sure such Titles can never signifie Possession or Power which at the same time and perhaps by the very same Persons that gave the Titles was really and indeed denied him But the great Service the Bishop of Calcedo◠hath done his Cause by these little Instances before mentioned will best appear by a true state Vid. Bramh. p. 189. c. of the question touching the Supremacy betwixt the Pope and the King of England in which such things are not all concerned The plain question is who was then the Political Head of the Church of England the King or the Pope or more immediately whether the Pope then had possession of the Supremacy here in such things as was denied him by Hen. 8. at the beginning of our Reformation and the Pope still challengeth and they are such as these 1. A Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Causes 2. A Dispensative Power above and against the Laws of the Church 3. A liberty to send Legates and to hold Legantine Courts in England without Licence 4. The Right of receiving the last Appeals of the King's Subjects 5. The Patronage of the English Church and Investitures of Bishops with power to impose Oaths upon them contrary to their Oath of Allegiance 6. The First Fruits and Tenths of Ecclesiastical Livings and a power to impose upon them what Pensions or other Burthens he pleaseth 7. The Goods of Clergy-men dying Intestate These are the Flowers of that Supremacy which the Pope claimeth in England and our Kings and Laws and Customs deny him as will appear afterwards in due place for this place 't is enough to observe that we find no foot-steps of such possession of the Pope's Power in England in or about Augustine's time As for that one instance of Saint Wilfred's Appeals it hath appeared before that it being rejected by two Kings successively by the other Arch-Bishop and by the whole Body of the English Clergy sure 't is no full instance of the Pope's Possession of the Supremacy here at that time and needs no further answer SECT II. No clear or full possession in the Ages after Austine till Hen. 8. Eight Distinctions the Question stated IT may be thought that though the things mentioned were not in the Pope's possession so early yet for many Ages together they were found in his Possession and so continued without interruption till Hen. 8. ejected the Pope and possest himself and his Successors of them Whether it were so or not we are now to examine and least we should be deceived with Colours and generalities we must distinguish carefully 1. Betwixt a Primacy of Order and Dignity and Unity and Supremacy of Power the only thing disputed 2. Betwixt a Judgment of direction resulting from the said Primacy and a Judgment of Jurisdiction depending upon Supremacy 3. Betwixt things claimed and things granted and possessed 4. Betwixt things possessed continually or for some time only 5. Betwixt Possession partial and of some lesser Branches and plenary or of the main body of Jurisdiction 6. Betwixt things permitted of curtesie and things granted out of duty 7. Betwixt incroachment through craft or power or interest or the temporary Ossitancy of the People and Power grounded in the Laws enjoyed with the consent of the States of the Kingdom in times of peace 8. Lastly betwixt quiet possession and interrupted These Distinctions may receive a flout from some capricious Adversary but I find there is need of them all if we deal with a subtle one For the Question is not touching
Prince professing Fidelity Hect. Bottle Hist and obedience to any one besides the King let him loose his head But let us admit that the Pope eleven hundred years after Christ got possession of the English Church and the Conscience of the Bishops by Investiture and Oaths who will shew us that he had it sooner who will maintain that he kept it quietly till Hen. 8 This last point will be clear by examining 2. Law our Laws the second Topick propounded at the beginning of this discourse For if his Possession were good it was setled in Law and if quiet the Laws were not made to oppose it by the great States of the Kingdom My Lord Bramhall hath produced three great Laws as sufficient to determine this Controversie 1. Clarendon whether the King or the Pope be Patron of the English Church the Assize of Clarendon Statute of Carlisle and of Provisors The first tells us plainly that the Election of an Arch-Bishop Bishop Abbot and Prior was to be made by the respective dignitaries upon the Kings calling them together to that purpose and with the Kings consent And then the Person elected was presently to do homage to the King as his Liege Lord. And that this method was exclusive of the In Ed. 1. Pope that of Carlisle is very distinct The King is the founder of all Bishopricks and ought to 2. Carlisle have the custody of them in the Vacances and the Right of Patronage to present to them and that the Bishop of Rome usurping the right of Patronage giveth them to Aliens That this tendeth to Annullation of the State of holy Church to the disinheriting of Kings and the destruction of the Realm This is an Oppression and shall not be Suffered The Statute of Provisors 15. Ed 3. affirms that Elections were first granted by Kings Progenitors Provisors upon Condition to demand Licence of the King to Chuse and after the Election to have the Royal Assent Which Conditions not being kept the thing ought by reason to return to its first Nature And therefore they conclude that in Case Reservation Collation or Provision be made by the Court of Rome of any Arch-Bishoprick c. The King and his Heirs shall have the Collations for the same time such as his Progenitors had before the free Elections were granted And they tell the King plainly that the Right of the Crown is such and the Law of the Land too that the King is bound to make Remidies and Laws against such Mischiefs And acknowledg that he is Advower Paramont immediate of all Churches Prebends and other Benefices which are of the Advowrie of holy Church i. e. Soveraign patron of it My Lord Coke more abundantly adds the Wil. 1. Resolutions and Decrees of the Law to confirm 7. Ed. 3. tit qu. i. e. p. 19. us in the Point In the time of William the first it is agreed that no man only can make any Appropriation of any Church having cure of Souls but he that hath Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but William the first did make such Appropriations of himself without any other Edward the first presented his Clerke who was refused by the Arch-Bishop for that the Ed. 1. Pope by way of Provision had conferred it on another The King brought his quare non admisit the Arch-Bishop pleaded the Supremacy of the Pope and that he durst not nor had power to put him out which was by the Popes Bull in Possession for which by judgment of the Common Law the Lands of his whole Bishoprick were seized into the Kings hands and lost during his life And my Lord Coke's Note upon it is that this Judgment was before any Statute was made in that Case In the Reign of Edw. 3. it is often resolved Ed. 3. that all the Bishopricks within England were founded by the Kings Progenitors and therefore the Advowsons of them all belong to the King and at the first they were Donative And that if any Incumbent dye the Lapse comes to the Bishop then to the Arch-Bishop and lastly by the common Law to the King as to the Supreme within his own Kingdom and not to the Bishop of Rome This King presented to a Benefice his Presentee 21 Ed. 3. 40. s 40. was disturbed by one that had obtained Bulls from Rome for which offence he was condemned to perpetual Imprisonment It is no small spice of the Kings Ecclesiastical Patronage that we find the King made Canons secular to be Regular and that he made the Prior and Covent of Westminster a distinct Corporation from the Abbot 38. li. Ass pl. 22. 49. Ed. 3. l. Ass pl. 8. But more full is the case of Abbot Moris who sent to Rome to be confirmed by the Pope who 46 Ed. 3. Tit. praem 6. by his Bull sleighted the Election of Moris but gave him the Abby of his spiritual Grace and at the request as he feigned of the King of England This Bull was read and considered of in Council that is before all the Judges of England and it was resolved by them all that this Bull was against the Laws of England and that the Abbot for obtaining the same was faln into the Kings mercy whereupon all his Possessions were seiz'd into the Kings hands In the Reign of Richard the Second one sued 12 Rich. 2. Tit. Juris 18. a provision in the Court of Rome against an Incumbent recovered the Church brought an action of account for Oblations c. but the whole Court was of opinion against the Plaintiff and thereupon he was non-suit Vid. Stat. 16. Rich. 2. c. 5. against all Papal Usurpations and this in particular the pain is a praemunire In Hen. 4s Reign the Judges say that the Statutes 11 H. 4. f. 69 76. which restrain the Popes Provisions to the Benefices of the Advowsons of spiritual men were made for that the spiritualty durst not in their just cause say against the Popes Provisions so as those Statutes were made but in affirmance of the common Laws Now what remains to be pleaded in behalf of the Popes Patronage of our Church at least as to his possession of it against so many plain and great Evidences both of Law and Deed All pretences touching the Popes giving the Pall are more than anticipated For it is not to be denied but that was not held necessary either to the consecration confirmation or investiture of the very Arch-Bishop before Anselm's time Yea 't is manifest that Lanfrank Anselm and Raulf did dedicate Churches consecrate Bishops and Abbots and were called Arch-Bishops while they had no Pall as Twisden proves out of Eadmer P. 47. We never read that either Laurentius or Milletus received the Pall from Rome who no doubt were as lawful Arch-Bishops as Austin Girald and Hoveden both give us an account that Sampson of St. Davids had a Pall but do not say from Rome and though in the time of infection he carried it
Primacy of Presidentship in Assemblies as the Mouth and Moderator or the Head of Vnity and Order as Jerom means but 't is not to be proved from any or all of these Encomiums that the Fathers believed that the other Apostles were under Saint Peter as their Governour or that he had any real Power given him by Christ more than they The Words of Saint Cyprian are plain and full albeit Christ saith he gave equal Power to 1. St. Cyp. de Unit. Eccl. all the Apostles after his Resurrection and said as my Father c. yet to declare Vnity he disposed by his Authority the Original of that Vnity beginning in one no doubt saith he the rest were the same that Peter was endued with the like fellowship pari Consortio of Honour and Power but the beginning doth come from Vnity that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be but one Thus this Topick of the Fathers expounding the Text being found to fail another device and such a one as the very detection both answers and shames the Authors is fled unto viz. to corrupt instead of purging the Fathers and to make them speak home indeed The place of Saint Cyprian just now set is a In Opusc Contr. Graec. very clear instance of this black Art allowed by the Popes themselves the place in the former Prints was as it is set down in the Roman-purged Cyprian is thus altered by addition of these words And the Primacy is given to Peter Again he appointed one Church and the Chair to be one and to make all sure the Antwerp Cyprian addeth conveniently Peter's Chair And then saith he who forsaketh Peter's Chair on which the Against Hart. Church was founded c. And by this time Peter's Primacy is the Popes Supremacy Vid. Dr. Rayn p. 210 211. But Tho. Aquinas hath dealt worse with St. Cyril Fathering a Treasure upon him which he never owned beyond all tolerable defence To the Grecians St. Cyril is brought in speaking thus Christ did commit a full and ample power both to Peter and his Successors The Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in every Doctrine Peter and his Church to be instead of God and to him even to Peter all do bow by the Law of God and the Princes of the World are obedient to him even as to the Lord Jesus and we as being Members must cleave unto our Head the Pope and Apostolick See c. Now either St. Cyril said thus or not If he did who will believe him that shall make such Stories and Father them upon every Doctrine in the New Testament contrary to common sence and the knowledge of all or trust his cause to the interpretation of such Fathers But if this Book called St. Cyril's Treasure be none of St. Cyril's as certainly it is not then though I am provoked I shall say no more but that we should weigh the Reasons but not the Authority of such a Schoolman especially in his Masters Cause 'T is certain the words are not to be found in those parts of Cyril's Treasure which are Extant as Hart acknowledgeth to Dr. Raynolds Yet the abuse of single Fathers is not so hainous Ibid. a thing as Thomas committed against 600 Bishops even the General Council of Calcedon when he saith they decreed thus If any Bishop be accused let him appeal freely to the Pope of Rome because we have Peter for a Rock of Refuge and he alone hath Right with freedom of Power in the stead of God to Judge and Try the crime of a Bishop according to the Keys which the Lord did give him calling the Pope the Holy Apostolick and universal Patriarch of the whole World Now in that Council there is not a word of all this and they answer Hereticks have rased it out if you will believe it but neither Surius nor Caranza find any thing wanting I shall only make this Note that seeing the Fathers have been so long in the hands of those men that stick at nothing that may advance the Power of their Master 'T is no wonder that their learned Adversaries are unwilling to trust their cause with such Judges but rather appeal to the true Canon and call for Scripture One would think this were enough but this Opinion of the equality of Power among the Apostles was not only the concurrent Judgment of the Ancients but even of learned later men in the Church of Rome even from these words Tues Petrus c. upon unanswerable Reason Lyra on Matth. 16. Durand a St. Porciano in 4 Cent. dist 18. q. 2. both in the 14 Cent. and Abulensis in the In Matth. 18. q. 7. In Matth. 20. q. 83 84. 15 Cent. the latter argues earnestly that none of the Apostles did understand those words of Christ to give any Supremacy to Peter for afterwards they contended for Superiority Matth. 18. and after that the two Sons of Zebedee desire it Matth. 20. and at the last Supper the question is put again Luke 22. Therefore he concludes they thought themselves equal till Christs death when they knew not which of them should be greatest Cusanus his contemporary de concord Cath. l. 2. c. 13. and 34. and Fran. Victoria This was the interpretation of all the Doctors of Paris Bin. Conc. an 1549. and of Adulphus Arch-Bishop of Cologne and of the Bishops of his Province the Decrees of whose Synod with this interpretation were ratified in every point by Charles the Fifth and enjoyned to be observed Thus the chief ground of St. Peter's Supremacy is sunk and there is little hopes that any other Text will hold up that weighty super-structure Another Scripture much insisted on for the 3. Joh. 21. 14 c. support of St. Peter's Supremacy is Joh. 21. 14 15 16. Peter lovest thou me feed my Sheep feed my Lambs Wherein is committed to Peter the power of the whole Church 'T is answered this Text gives not any Commission Ans or power to St. Peter it gives him charge and Commandment to execute his Commission received before Now it hath appeared sufficiently that the Commission was given equally to all the Apostles in those words as my Father sent me so send I you c. so that the power of feeding and the Duty of Pastors was alike to them all though this Charge was given to Peter by name here with so many Items perhaps intimating his repeated Prevarications yet were they all sent and all charged with a larger Province than these words to Peter import Teach all Nations Preach the Gospel to every Creature are our Saviours charge to them all In the Apostolick Power all were equal saith Obj. Hart not in the Pastoral Charge We answer with a distinction allowed by Ans Stapleton of the Name Pastor 't is special and distinct from Apostle Some Apostles some Eph. 4. Pastors or general and common to all commission'd to preach the Gospel So Christ is called Pastor and all
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 The eight first General Councils being all Reas 1 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 Every one of these Councils opposed this pretended Reas 2 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 Patriarch of Constantinople against the Pope's Will the third by inhibiting any Bishop whatsoever to ordain Bishops within the Isse 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 This must pass for the unquestionable Sence Reas 3 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 'T is observed by a Learned man that the Reas 4 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 Latin 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 The belief of these eight General Councils Reas 5 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 inter 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 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 Reas 6 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. 7. Bin. To. 3. p. 1196. Innoc. 3. Bonif. 8. Calechis 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 and as Head of a new and strange Church draws the Body of his Faction after him into the same Schism in flat contradiction to the essential Profession both of the ancient and present Church of Rome and to that solemn Oath by which also the Pope as Pope binds himself at his Inauguration to maintain and communicate with Hence not only Vsurpation
making that Canon of Priviledges and that the Bishops were compelled thereunto The Synod with a loud voice cryed Joyntly we were not compelled to subscribe After every one severally protest I did subscribe willingly and freely and the Acts are ratified and declared to be just and valid and wherein say they we will persist the Legates are instant to have the Act revoked because the Apostolical See is humbled or abased thereto the Fathers unanimously answered the whole Synod doth approve it This clear account we have in Bin. in Concil Calced Act. 16. p. 134 and 137. Bellarmine saith that the Pope approved all the Decrees of this Council which were de fide and doth not Bellarmine argue that the Popes Superiority is Jure divino and the present Church of Rome hold that his Supremacy is a point necessary to Salvation How comes it to pass that he would not approve this Decree or how can they esteem this Council general and lawful and swear to observe the decrees of it when 't is found guilty of Heresie in so great a point as the Popes Primacy But to end with this the very Title it self of Bishop of the Vniversal Church in the stile of those Ages signified certainly neither Supremacy nor Primacy Vniversal Bishop of the Church seem'd a dangerous Title importing universal Power over it and was therefore so much abhorred by Pope Gregory But the Title of Bishop of the Vniversal Church signified the care of the whole Church to which as Origen saith every Bishop is called Therefore Aurelius Fortunatianus Augustine are called Bishops of the Vniversal Church and many in the Greek Church had the same honourable Titles given them which signified either that they professed the Catholick Faith or as Bishops had a general regard to the good of the Catholick Church But your own Jesuite confesseth that Pelagius Azorius and Gregory both Popes have born witness that no Bishop of Rome before them did ever use the Stile of Vniversal Bishops However Vniversal Patriarch makes as great a sound as Universal Bishop yet that Title was given to John Bishop of Constantinople by the Bishops of Syria Cod. Authent Constitu 3. The custody of the Vine i. e. the whole Obj. Bell. de Pont. l. 2. c. 13. Church the Council saith is committed to the Pope by God True so that Primitive Pope Elutherius said to Ans Bin. Epist Eleuth the Bishops in France the whole Catholick Church is committed to you St. Paul also had the care of all the Churches but that is high which Greg. Nazian saith of Athanasius that he having the presidence of the Church of Alexandria may be said thereby to have the Government of the whole Christian World Sai Tom. 16. in 1 Pet. 5. Now saith a Learned man we are compelled to ask with what Conscience you could make such Objections Bishop Morton in good earnest to busie your Adversaries and seduce your Disciples withal whereunto you your selves could so easily make answer We find no further objection against the other Obj. Councils worthy Notice Bellarmine argues the Popes Supremacy because the Synod of Const being the Fifth General Council complemented the Pope as his Obedient Servants nos inquit Praeses Apostolicam Sedem sequimur obedimus c. Bell. lib. 2. de pont c. 13. Though this very Council both opposed accused and condemned the Pope for Heresie which could not possibly consist with their acknowledgment of his Supremacy or Infallibility The same is more evident in the sixth seventh and eighth General Councils condemning the Persons and Judgments of and giving Laws to the Bishops of Rome to which nothing material can be objected but what hath been more than answered Binius indeed in his Tract de Prim. Eccl. Rom. gives us the sayings of many ancient Popes for the Supremacy pretended especially in two points The Power of Appeals challenged by Pope Anacetus Zepherinus Fabianus Sixtus and Symachus and Exemption of the first See from censure or judgment by any other power claimed by Pope Sylvester and Gelasius But these are Testimonies of Popes themselves in their own cause and besides both these points have been found so directly and industriously determined otherwise by their own General Councils that further answer is needless CONCLUSION THus Objections being removed the Argument from the Councils settles firm in its full strength and seeing both the ancient Fathers and the Catholick Church have left us their sence in the said Councils and the sence of the Councils is also the received and professed faith of the present Church of Rome it self who can deny that the Catholick Church to this day hath not only not granted or acknowledged but even most plainly condemned the pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Yea who can doubt but our Argument against it is founded upon their own Rock the very constitution of the Papacy it self as before hath appeared Therefore the Popes claim upon this Plea as well as upon any or all the former is found groundless and England's Deliverance from his foreign Jurisdiction just and honest as well as happy Which our good God in his wise and merciful Providence ever Continue Preserve and Prosper Amen Amen A Serious ALARM to all sorts of ENGLISH-MEN against POPERY from Sence and Conscience their OATHS and their INTEREST 1. THe Kings of England seem bound not only by their Title but in Conscience of their Ministry under God to defend the Faith and the Church of Christ within their Dominions against Corruption and Invasion and therefore against Popery They are also bound in Honour Interest and Fidelity to preserve the Inheritance and Rights of the Crown and to derive them entire to their Heirs and Successors and therefore to keep out the Papal Authority And lastly 't is said they are bound by their Oaths at their Coronation and by the Laws of Nature and Government to maintain the Liberties and Customs of their people and to govern them according to the Laws of the Realm and consequently not to admit the foreign Jurisdiction of the Pope in prejudice of our ancient Constitution our common and Ecclesiastical Laws our natural and legal Liberties and Properties 2. The Nobility of England have anciently held themselves bound not only in honour but by their Oaths Terras honores Regis c. to preserve together with the King the Territories and honours of the King omni fidelitate ubique most faithfully and to defend them against Enemies and Foreigners meaning especially the Pope of Rome 'T is expressed more fully in their Letter to the Pope himself in Edw. 1. Reign to defend the Inheritance and Prerogative of the Crown the State of the Realm the Liberties Customs and Laws of their Progenitors against all foreign Usurpation toto posse totis viribus to the utmost of their power and with all their might adding We do not permit or in the least will permit sicut nec possum â—â— nec debemus though our Soveraign
perhaps may be contrived by wise men without prejudice to the said Jurisdiction 3. That there is reason to reascertain the Fees for Probates of Wills and granting Letters of Administration with some moderate respect had to the difference of the value of Mony when the former Act was made and at this time so as the Officers in the Kings Spiritual Courts may live upon their Employment 4. And why Excommunication decreed in Court may not be sent to the Parochial Minister to be not only declared but Executed by him as the Bishops Surrogate and convenient time allowed him to endeavour to reconcile the offender and to prevent the Sentence if it may be I see not if that may give any satisfaction Such kind of Alterations perhaps may be admitted without real prejudice to the Church or rather with advantage as well as those made by the Conqueror when he divided the Ecclesiastical from the Civil Courts The Law by which he made that Division is famous the clauses of it concerning this matter may be desired by the Reader therefore I shall take the pains to transcribe them they are these Willielmus Gratia Dei Rex Anglorum c. William by the Grace of God King of England to all that have Land in the Bishoprick of Lincoln know ye all and all others my faithful People in England that the Episcopal Laws that have Non benè not well been exercised nor according to the Precepts of holy Canons even to my time in this Kingdom Concilio Communi with Common Counsel and with the Counsel of the Bishops and Abbots and all the chief men of my Kingdom I judge fit to be amended Moreover I Command and by my Kingly Authority injoyn That no Bishop or Archdeacon de Legibus Episcopalibus hold Placita Pleas any longer in Hundret nor bring any Ecclesiastical Cause to the Iudgment of Secular men but whosoever shall be called or questioned for any Cause according to the Ecclesiastical Laws he shall come to the place which the Bishop shall chuse and there shall answer for his Cause and not secundum Hundret and he shall do right to God and the Bishop not according to the Hundred but according to the Canons and Episcopal Laws But if any through pride will not appear Venire ad Justiciam Episcopalem let him be called the first second and third time and if yet he will not come let him be Excommunicated and if need be let the Strength and Iustice of the King or Sheriff ad hoc Vindicandum adhibeatur This also I defend and by my Authority interdict that no Sheriff or other Minister of the King or any Lay-man do intermeddle with the Laws which belong to the Bishop Give me leave to subjoyn a few Notes upon this Law of the Conqueror and I have done 1. The substance and matters of Ecclesiastical Power and Connusance was the same long before this Law was made and not Altered by it 't was a Law of King Alured Si quis Dei rectitudines aliquas deforciat reddat lathlite cum Dacis witam cum Anglis And the same is afterwards confirmed and renewed by Canutus and other Kings whereby it appeareth that long before the Conquest the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Church was maintained by the setled Laws of the Kingdom and that Ecclesiastical Judges had power so anciently to Excommunicate and had the help of the King and the Sheriff to proceed against the obstinate 2. 'T is yet very remarkable that for the form and manner of their Spiritual Courts and proceedings before the Conquest it was not here in England as it was at Rome and therefore our most Ancient Church-Government was not derived or Received from Rome This Law observes that before the Conqueror the Precepts of holy Canons as to distinct Jurisdictions were not observed in England that is the Canons of the Imperial Church for six or seven Hundred years before the Jurisdiction of that Church was divided from the Civil even by the Emperor Constantine himself but for so many hundred years before the Conquest our Jurisdictions were exercised together in Hundret as the Law acknowledgeth and is confessed 3. We here see a plain Establishment of our Spiritual Courts with power of Excommunication for non-appearance in the letter of this Ancient Law under the Kings defence and enforced with the Secular Arm and 't is observable that the distinction of the Ecclesiastical front the Civil Courts was made in the Kings own Name and not the Pope's by the Kings power and none other with the Counsel of his own Subjects only and not of Rome that we read of and only with respect and not in any obedience to the ancient Canons or foreign methods And thus the Jurisdiction in our Courts Ecclesiastical as distinct from the Civil is as far from being Popish in their Original as it was when they were conjoyned and therein so unlike to the distinct proceedings of the Spiritual power beyond the Seas so many hundred years before And thus our Spiritual Courts both before they were divided and when they came to be divided from our Civil Courts stand firm in the Ancient Laws of this Land 4. There are certain great Epoche's of the Legal Establishment of the Churches power which I shall but touch 1. It was received with Christianity and grew and flourished by our Ancient Laws before the Conquest 2. In the beginning of our Norman Constitution it was thus distinguished and establish'd by the Conqueror So it was in Magna Charta the first Statute 3. Vpon the Reformation in Hen. 8. it was re-establish'd 4. So it was upon the Return of Reformation after Queen Mary by Queen Eliz. And 5. so likewise upon the Return of our present gracious Soveraign King Charles II. 5. Further I hence observe that some Alterations in Ecclesiastical proceedings may be made by Law without any prejudice to the Churches power 'T is observed out of Spelman before that by this Law the Conqueror did not lessen the Churches power indeed some Inconveniences are usually consequent to publick changes and 't is thought by our Civilians that the many prohibitions which interrupt our Ecclesiastical Courts are occasioned by their being divided from the Temporal but may not that inconvenience be accidental to that Division Or if at any time there be just cause for the Church to complain in that respect is it not rather of the Judges than the Laws or the Constitution But to the matter before us admit for Instance that after Summary hearing and Sentence of the Judge in Cases of small Tithes Church rates and such trivial matters a Justice of the Peace or some other person being legally certified were impowered and obliged to grant Warrants of Distress It seems to me a greater inconvenience in exposing Excommunication in such light Causes would be hereby removed than any contracted by such an Alteration and methinks no one should disdain the new Office seeing the Superior Judge hath been ever
sift them CHAP. II. Our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England was not derived from the Pope but from the Crown before the Reformation by Henry the Eighth DARE any Protestant stand to the contrary had the Pope really Authority here before Henry the Eighth did our Bishops indeed receive all their power exercised so many hundred years together originally from the Pope was not their Political Jurisdiction derived from and depending on the Crown Imperial and founded in our own Laws the Customs and Statutes of the Realm are these the Popes Laws and not the Kings was there not Ecclesiastical power in England both for Legislation and Execution ab origine before the Papal Vsurpation was not Popery at first and all along till Hen. 8. an illegal usurpation upon our more Ancient Government never own'd much less establish'd in the true Ancient Laws of England and under that very Notion rejected and expelled by him How then did our Bishops c. derive all their power from the Pope before Hen. 8. to say so is not more like an Hobbist than a Papist I thought I had caught an Hobby but War-Hawk Proof against this Popish principle SECT I. From the root and branches of Ecclesiastical Power Donation Investiture Laws I. It was a known Law long before Hen. 8. that the Church of England was founded â—5 Edw. 3. 25 Edw. 1. in Episcopacy by our Kings c. and not in the Papacy II. The Collaetion and Donation of Bishopricks and Nomination of Bishops did always belong to the King yea all the Bishopricks in this Realm are of the Kings Foundation and the full Right of Investiture was ever in the Crown Coke 1. Inst 2. S. 648. to deny it may be a praemunire III. When once the Bishops are legally invested their proper Jurisdiction came into â—5 Hen. 8. 20. their hands by the Laws without any power derived from the Pope Who saith otherwise knows nothing or means ill IV. It was acknowledg'd That Convocations are always have been and ought to be Assembled by the Kings Writ only 't is Law 35 Hen. 8. 19. V. As the power to make Laws for the Church was ever in the King so the Laws themselves must be his and none other bind us This Realm Recognizing no Superiour 35 Hen. 8. 21. As 16 Rich. 2. 5. under God but the King hath been and is free from any Laws but such as have been devised within this Realm or at our Liberty have been consented to and made custom by use and not by any foreign power SECT II. Jurisdiction THUS our Ancient Ecclesiastical Governours and Laws depended upon the Crown and not upon the Pope by the Laws of England and in the Judgment of all the States of the Kingdom before Hen. 8. and so did also the execution of those Laws by those Governours in the same publick Judgment a little better than Mr. Hickeringill's Popish opinion 2. In sundry old Authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifest that this Realm is an Empire having an Imperial Crown to which belongs a body Politick compacted of Spiritualty and Temporalty furnished thus with Jurisdiction to yield Justice in all causes without restraint from any foreign Prince The body Spiritual having power when any Cause of Divine Law hapned to come in question the English Church called the Spiritualty which always hath been reputed and also found of that sort for knowledge c. without any exteriour person to declare and determine all such doubts and to administer all such offices as appertain to them for the due administration whereof the Kings of this Realm have endowed the said Church both with honour and possessions both these Authorities and Jurisdictions do conjoyn in the due Administration of Justice the one to help the other And whereas the King his most noble Progenitors and the Nobility and Commons of this Realm at divers and sundry Parliaments as well in the time of King Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. all which were certainly before Hen. 8. and other noble Kings made sundry Ordinances Laws Statutes and provisions for the entire and sure preservation of the Prerogatives and Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal of the said Imperial Crown from the annoyance and Authority of the See of Rome from time to time as often as any such attempt might be known or espied Vid. 25 Hen. 8. 12. These things plainly shew that the whole State in Hen. 8's time was not of Mr. Hickeringill's mind but that before that time the whole power of the Church was independent on the Pope and not derived from him but originally inherent in the Crown and Laws of England whatever he blatters to the contrary Vid. 25 Edw. 3. Stat. 4. cap. 22. pag. 123. Sect. 3. 27 Edw. 3. cap. 1. 38 Edw. 3. c. 4. Stat. 2. c. 1. 2 Rich. 2. cap. 6. 3 Rich. 2. c. 3. S. 2. 12 Rich. 2. c. 15. 13 Rich. 2. Stat. 2. c. 2. 16 Rich. 2. c. 5. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3 4. 7 Hen. 4. c. 6. 9 Hen. 4. c. 8. 1 Hen. 5. 7. 3 Hen. 5. Stat. 2. c. 4. Adde to these Mr. Cawdries Case in my Lord Coke and he must be unreasonably ill affected to the Church of England that is not more than satisfied that the chief and Supream Governours thereof were the Kings of England and not the Pope before the Reign of Hen. 8. 3. Also it was the sence of the whole Kingdom that the Pope's power and Jurisdiction here was usurped and illegal contrary to Gods Laws the Laws and Statutes of this Realm and in derogation of the Imperial Crown thereof and that it was timorously and ignorantly submitted unto before Hen. 8. as the words of that Statute are 28 Hen. 8. cap. 16. SECT III. BUT if our Gentleman be wiser than to believe their words the matter is evident in our ancient Laws and constant practice accordingly before Hen. 8. his time Indeed all the Statutes of provision against foreign powers are to own and defend the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction at home under this Crown Yea all the Statutes made on purpose to restrain and limit the Spiritual Jurisdiction in certain cases and respects do allow and establish it in others exceptio confirmat Regulam in non exceptis 2. Much plainer all the Statutes that prohibit the Kings Civil Courts to interrupt the Ecclesiastical proceedings but in such cases and the Statutes granting consultations in such cases and the Statutes directing appeals in the Spiritual Courts and appeals to the Chancery it self and the Laws ratifying and effectually binding their Sentence by the Writ de exc cap. much more plainly do these establish the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the laws of the Land before Hen. 8. 3. By this time 't is vain to mention the Statutes which of old did specifie and allow particular matters to be tried only in the Ecclesiastical Courts such as Tithes 18 Edw. 3. 7. the offences of Ecclesiastical persons 1 Hen. 7. c. 4.
Land and not from the Pope Again they all take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance before their Instalment which are the fence of the Crown against Popery And then in all their publick Prayers before their Sermons the Bishops and Archdeacons c. do Recognize the Kings Supremacy in all Ecclesiastical things and causes as well as Civil Again they Take the late Test and the same Oaths at the publick Sessions And lastly Mr. Cary himself confesseth that they acknowledge the said Supremacy in their publick Canons or Constitutions of the whole Church of England as he notes p. 2. in Can. 1 2 1603. And are all these less significant to testifie their dependance on and acknowledgement of their derivation from the Crown than the Kings Name and Stile and Arms which may be far enough from the Conscience in a Processe 2. For the second that there is not the same reason to use the Kings name in Ecclesiastical as in Civil Courts is apparent from the true cause of using it in the Civil Courts which being not known or well heeded may be the cause of the exception for Bishop Sanderson hath well observed the true reason of using the Kings name in any Court is not thereby to acknowledge the Emanation of the power or Jurisdiction of that Court from or the subordination of that power unto the Kings power or Authority as the objector seems to suppose but rather to shew the same Court to be one of the Kings own immediate Courts wherein the King himself is supposed in the construction of the Law either by his personal or virtual power to be present and the not using the Kings name in other Courts doth not signifie that they do not Act by the Kings Authority but only that the Judges in them are no immediate representatives of the Kings person nor have consequently any allowance from him to use his Name in the execution of them 1. This difference is evident among the Common Law Courts of this Kingdom for though all the immediate Courts of the King do act expresly in his Name yet many other more distant Courts do not as all Courts-Baron Customary-Courts of Copyholders c. and such Courts as are held by the Kings grant by Charter to Corporations and the Universities in all which Summons are issued out and Judgments given and all Acts and proceedings made and done in the name of such persons as have chief Authority in the said Courts and not in the Name of the King thus their stiles run A. B. Major Civitatis Exon N. M. Cancellarius Vniversitatis Oxon. and the like and not Carolus Dei gratia 2. Once more a little nearer to our case there are other Courts that are guided by the Civil as distinguish'd from the Common Law as the Court-Marshal and the Court of Admiralty the Kings Name in these is no more used than it is in the Courts Spiritual but all Processes Sentences and Acts in these Courts are in the Name of the Constable Head Marshal or Admiral and not in the Kings Name 3. I shall conclude this with those grave and weighty words of the same most admirable Bishop Sanderson in his excellent Treatise shewing that Episcopacy as Established by Law in England is not prejudicial to Regal Power worthy of every Englishman's reading his words to our purpose are these Which manner of proceeding like that of the Spiritual Courts constantly used in those several Courts before mentioned sith no man hath hitherto been found to interpret as any diminution at all or disacknowledgment of the Kings Soveraignty over the said Courts it were not possible the same manner of proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts should be so confidently charged with so hainous a crime did not the intervention of some wicked lust or other prevail with men of corrupt minds to become partial judges of evil thoughts p. 68 69. Mr. Hickeringill is one of those whom the Bishop describes i. e. that so confidently chargeth the Ecclesiastical Courts with that hainous crime and foundeth that confidence in the Statute of the 1 Eliz. 1. In charity to him I shall give him such words out of that Statute as do not only secure the Act of Queen Mary that repealed the Act of 1 Edw. 6. 2. requiring the use of the Kings Name in our proceedings from repeal in that particular but directly and expresly ratifies and confirms the same and our contrary proceedings accordingly So that our proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts without using the Kings Name or Stile or Arms according to 1 Edw. 6. 2. are allow'd and established by this very Act of Queen Eliz. thus Further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid that all other Laws and branches of any Act repealed by the said Act of repeal of Mar. and not in this Act specially mention'd and revived shall stand and be repealed in such manner and form as they were before the making of this Act any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding 1 Eliz. 1. 13. but the Act of 2 Phil. and Mar. was not specially mentioned in this Act of Repeal nor any other And the Learned Judges in 4 Jac. observe that this Act of 1 Eliz. revives an Act of Hen. 8. repealed by Queen Mary and in both these Statutes 1 Edw. 6. 2. is made void and the present proceeding of Spiritual Courts without the Kings Name c. plainly confirm'd but vid. Coke Rep. 12. p. 7. CHAP. V. The Act of 1 Eliz. 1. Establishing the High-Commission Court was not the foundation of ordinary Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England against Mr. Hickeringill THE worthy Gentleman though he useth much Modesty and will not peremptorily assert and hath only fitted the matter for the consideration of wiser men if he can think there be any such reasons wonderfully after this new and unheard of manner or to this purpose if at all The Statute of Eliz. for the High-Commission Court was the only Basis of all Ecclesiastical power this continued indeed during her time and King James's but being repealed by 17 Car. 1. 11. and 13 Car. 2. 12. down came the Fabrick their great foundation thus torn up now they have neither power from God nor man nor ever shall for his Majesty hath by Statute Enacted never to empower them with any more Commissions to the worlds end Now their basis is taken away I cannot discern where their Authority lies Nak T. q. 1. p. 4 5 6. This is the Spirit of his Reason which he confesseth is not infallible for he saith as before he doth not peremptorily assert it But can a man have the face to write this first and then to say he is not peremptory Would a man in his wits expose himself in this manner in Print and blunder out so much prejudice envy spite and wrath against Government and talk such pitiful unadvised stuff about Law and think to shake the Fabrick of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction that hath stood firm so long in the midst of all
Jurisdiction of the Courts Ecclesiastical it was very carefully restored and established by the Stat. 13. Car. 2. in these words Neither this Act shall take away any ordinary Jurisdiction from the said Archbishops c. but that they and every of them may proceed in all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and in all Censures and Coercions belonging to the same as they did and might lawfully have done before the making of the said Act. Vid. 17 Car. 1. 4. 'T is sufficient yet I cannot but subjoyn one notable way more Argumentative enough alone by it self to prove the Ecclesiastical Courts to be allow'd and confirm'd by Statute viz. when the Statutes direct such particulars to be tried in these Courts and require these Spiritual Courts to use their power for the punishment of offenders and the doing Justice And I think there cannot be a better medium or clearer evidence than we have in this matter For if the Spiritual Courts have no power to try such matters and pass Judgment and punish in such cases why do the Statutes direct and remit such matters to them and why do the Statutes enjoyn them to take Connusance and proceed accordingly that so they do is plain In the 18 of Edw. 3. 6. 't is said that Processe in Causes Testamentary notoriously appertaineth to holy Church We must not blemish the Franchize of Holy Church And in the 18 of Edw. 3. 6. parties are to be dismissed from Secular Judges in Cause of Tithes and left to the Church Ordinaries have power to punish Ministers and Priests as in 1 Hen. 7. c. 4. Synodals Proxies Pensions c. are to be recovered in the Spiritual Courts Vid. 15 Hen. 8. c. 7. Sect. 7. The like is known touching Causes Matrimonial and Defamations c. I shall only instance one more viz. in the great Cause of Non-Conformity and that in an Act that is nearer to us and of unquestionable Authority which both directs what we should punish and most solemnly requires by its own Authority to exercise our Ecclesiastical Power by the very rules and proper methods of our Spiritual Courts in these words 1 Eliz. before the Common Prayer Provided always and be it Ordained and Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That all and singular Archbishops and Bishops and every of their Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons and other Ordinaries having any peculiar Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction shall have full power and Authority by vertue of this Act as well to enquire in their Visitatiions Synods and elsewhere within their Jurisdiction at any other time or place to take accusation and informations of all and every the things above mentioned done committed or perpetrated within the limits of their Jurisdictions and Authority as to punish the same by Admonition Excommunication Sequestration or Deprivation and other Censures and Processe in like form as heretofore hath been used in like cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical Laws This doubtless is very plain And hereupon 't is solemnly required in these words a little-before For the due execution hereof they do in Gods name earnestly require and charge all Archbishops Bishops and other Ordinaries that they shall endeavour themselves to the utmost of their knowledges that the due and true execution hereof may be had throughout their Dioceses and Charges as they will answer before God for such evils and plagues whereby Almighty God may justly punish his people for neglecting this good and wholsom Law Now if in like cases it had not been lawful before this Act for the Spiritual Courts so to proceed why are the former Laws and use to be followed by these directions Or if this Act cannot impower us give us reason or Law against it Or if any thing be a greater grievance to you in the Spiritual Courts than the punishment provided for the crimes mentioned in this Act say what it is or say nothing But if these cases be not sufficient Mr. Cary can tell you of at least ten particular matters upon which the Law is to grant the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo and according to a know Act of Parliament made after this viz. 5 Eliz. 23. which sufficiently allows and confirms our Ecclesiastical proceedings to the fences of too many as some complain CHAP. VII Of Canons and Convocations WE see what Reason Mr. Hickeringill had to keep such a pother about the force of Ecclesiastical Canons and the Authority of Convocations Especially 1. Seeing the late mentioned Act of 1 Eliz. supposeth the Ecclesiastical Laws i. e. the Canons to be her own Laws and requires Ecclesiastical Judges so severely to put them in execution 2. Seeing since the Reformation most of the matters of Canons are expressed and enjoyned in Acts of Parliament insomuch that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction might stand and proceed well enough had we no other Canon but Acts of Parliament as Mr. Hickeringill insinuates and 't is worthy his observation that the greatest complaints of Dissenters since the Kings happy return have been upon the execution of Acts of Parliament and that not so much by Ecclesiastical as Civil Ministers Indeed the Statute of Car. 2. that restored the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction hath a Proviso That by vertue of that Act the Canons of 1640. shall not be of force and that no Canons are made of force by that Act that were not formerly confirm'd by Acts of Parliament or by the establish'd Laws of the Land as they stood in Ann. 1639. But 't is evident enough that by the 25 Hen. 8. c. 19. the old Canons not against Law or Prerogative are of force and that the King with the Convocation may make new ones with the same Condition and indeed while the Convocation is so limited by that Act their power seems not very formidable My Lord Coke who was not a Bigot for Spiritual Power declares the Law in both those Cases and tells us That it was resolved by the Judges at a Committee of Lords these restraints of the Convocation were grounded on that Statute 1. They cannot Assemble without the assent of the King 2. They cannot Constitute any Canons without his licence 3. Nor execute them without his Royal assent 4. Nor after his assent but with these four limitations 1. That they be not against the Kings Prerogative 2. Nor against Common Law 3. Nor against Statute Law 4. Nor against any Custom of the Kingdom Rep. 12. p. 720. And my Lord Coke adds That these restraints put upon the Convocation by the 25 Hen. 8. are but an affirmance of what was before the Statute and as he saith in his book of Courts are but declaratory of the old Common Law Pag. 323. consequently the Courts of Common Law are to bound and over-rule all Ecclesiastical executions of Canons and secure the Crown and the Laws against them But what Acts of Parliament have abrogated the Authority of the Synod 1603. and quite annihilated the very beings of Convocations I am yet to learn though Mr. Hickeringill so boldly after his own