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
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
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
after St. Peter as their Pastor and Head according to their own way of Arguing 3. Besides St. Peter had power of casting out of Devils c. and doing such miracles as the Pope pretends not to do Lastly what if the Pope affirms that he is and others account him to be St. Peter's Successor the point requires the truth thereof to be shewn Jure divino SECT V. Arg. 3. St. Peter dyed at Rome Then de Facto not de Fide BEllarmine saith the Succession it self is Jure Arg. 3 divino but the Ratio Successionis arose out of the Fact of St. Peter planting his See and dying at Rome and not from Christs first Institution Then doubts quamvis non sit c. whether this Succession be so according to his own position fortè non est de jure divino but neither shews the Succession it self to be Christs Institution at all nor proves the Tradition of Peter on which he seems to lay his stress and we may guess why he doth not In short if the Succession of the Bishop of Rome Ans be of Faith 't is so either in Jure or in Facto But neither is proved Yea the contrary is acknowledged by Bellarmine himself Not in Right because that is not certo divinum as Bellarmine confesseth Nor in Fact because before Peter's death which introduced no change in the Faith as Bellarmine also confesseth this Succession was not of Faith Indeed it is well observed that the whole weight of Bellarmine's reasoning is founded in Fact then where is the Jus divinum 2. In such fact of Peter as is not found in Scripture or can be proved any way 3. In such Fact as cannot constitute a Right either divine or humane 4. In such Fact as cannot conclude a Right in the sence of the most learned Romanists Scot. in 4. dist 24. Cordubensis lib. 4. qu. 1. Cajetan de prim pap c. 23. Bannes in 2. 2. q. 1. a. 10. who contend that the union of the Bishoprick of the City and the World is only per accidens and not Jure divine vel imperio Christi But when the uncertainty of that Fact on which the Right of fo great and vast an Empire is raised is considered what further answer can be expected For is it not uncertain whether Peter were ever at Rome or whether he was ever Bishop of Rome or whether he dyed at Rome or whether Christ called him back that he might dye at Rome or whether he ordained Clement to succeed him at Rome Indeed there is little else certain about the matter but this that Peter did not derive to him that succeeded him and his Successors for ever his whole dignity and Power and a greater Authority than he had himself Jure divino But if we allow all the uncertainties mention'd to be most certain we need not fear to look the Argument with all its attendants and strength in the face Peter was Bishop of Rome was warned by Christ immediately to place his Seat at Rome to stay and dye at Rome and before he died he appointed one to succeed him in his Bishoprick at Rome Therefore the Bishops of Rome successively are universal Pastors and have supreme power over the whole Church jure divino Is not the cause rendred suspicious by such Arguments and indeed desperate that needs them and has no better SECT VI. Arg. 4. Councils Popes Fathers BEllarmine tells us boldly that the Primacy Arg. of the Roman High-Priest is proved out of the Councils the Testimonies of Popes by the consent of the Fathers both Greek and Latin These great words are no Arguments the matter hath been examined under all these Topicks Ans and not one of them proves a Supremacy of Power over the whole Church to have been anciently in the Pope much less from the beginning and jure divino especially when St. Augustine and the Greek Fathers directly opposed it as an Vsurpation A Primacy of Order is not in the question though that also was obtained by the ancient Popes only more humano and on Temporary Reasons as hath before appeared But as a learned man saith the Primacy of a Monarchical Power in the Bishop of Rome was never affirmed by any ancient Council or by any one of the ancient Fathers or so much as dreamt of and at what time afterwards the Pope took upon him to be a Monarch it should be inquired qno jure by what Right he did so whether by Divine Humane or altogether by his own i. e. no Right at all SECT VII Arg. 5. The Prevention of Schism St. Jerom. A Primacy was given to Peter for preventing Ar. 5. Schism as St. Hierom saith Now hence they urge that a mere precedency of Order is not sufficient for that The Inference is not divine it is not St. Hieroms Ans it is only for St. Peter and reacheth not the Pope Besides it plainly argues a mistake of Lib. 1. Jov. c. 14. St. Jerom's assertion and would force him to a contradiction For immediately before he teacheth that the Church is built equally on all the Apostles and that they all receive the Keys and that the firmness of the Church is equally grounded on them all so that what Primacy he meant it consisted with Equality as Monarchy cannot Therefore St. Hierom more plainly in another Epis ad Evagr place affirms that wherever there is a Bishop whether at Rome Constantinople c. Ejusdem meriti est ejusdem est Sacerdotii Again 't is neither Riches nor Poverty which makes Bishops higher or lower but they are all the Apostles Successors SECT VIII Arg. 6. Church committed to him ST Chrysostom saith the Care of the Church Ar. 6. was committed as to Peter so to his Successors Tum Petro tum c. therefore the Bishops of Rome being Successors of St. Peter in that Chair have the care and consequently the power committed to them which was committed to Peter True the Care and power of a Bishop not Ans of an Apostle or universal Monarch the commission of all other Bishops carried Care and power also But indeed this place proves not so much as that the Pope is Peter's Successor in either much less Jure divino which was the thing to be proved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those which followed in time and place not otherwise as before SECT IX Arg. 7. One Chair Optatus Cyprian Ambrose Acacius THere is one Chair saith Optatus quae prima Arg. 7 est de Dotibus in which Peter sate first Linus succeeded him and Clemens Linus Optatus speaks nothing against the Title or power of other Chairs or for the preheminence of power in this one Chair above the rest He intended not to exclude the other Apostolical Seats from the honour or power of Chairs For he saith as well that James sate at Jerusalem and John at Ephesus as that Peter sate at Rome which Tertullian calls Apostolicas Cathedras all presiding in their own places De
those Courts to give Remedy in those Cases Thus stood Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England by Common Law before our Statutes took so much notice of it and our Statutes since whenever they mention it do generally mention it as a Government supposed upon grounds good and firm in Law to have existed before and also then to be in use and to flourish in its present exercise and proceedings in its proper course and Courts 'T is as idle a thing to look in the Statute-books for the beginning of Ecclesiastical Power and its Courts as for the Beginning of Courts-Baron which are such by Common Law as Coke saith or the Court of Marshalsea which as Coke's words are hath its foundation in Common Law or Courts of Copyholders which are such by Custom And for the same reason to question the lawfulness of these Courts because in their original they were not Established by Act of Parliament as well as the legality of the Courts Spiritual these being equally founded in the Ancient usage Custom and Law of England and all taken care for in Magna Charta that ancient Authentick account of our Common Law And why are Ecclesiastical Judges I mean not Bishops only whom Mr. Hickeringill finds in Scripture but Archdeacons Chancellors Officials c. as well Establish'd in their proper power as Coroners High-Constables c. that have the Origine of their Offices before Statutes Have not Ecclesiastical Officers when lawfully invested power as well as they to Act in their proper Jurisdictions by the same Common Law by long ancient and establisht Custom or as the usual word in our Statutes in this very Case is secundum Consuetudines Leges Angliae My Lord Coke saith The Kings Prerogative is a principal part of the Common Law which also flourisheth in this part of it the Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction as well as in the Civil State and Government Thus we acknowledge the Ecclesiastical State and External and Coercive Jurisdiction derives from and depends upon the Crown of England by Common Law And I am bold to add that the former cannot easily be Abolish'd and destroy'd I do not say altered without threatning the latter I mean the Crown at least some prejudice to it on which it depends Thus Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction stands by Common Law on which also most of our Civil Rights depend but we confess it is bounded as my Lord Coke by the same Common Law and in all reason it must be so it being subordinate to the King as Supream who is supposed to be personally or virtually present in his great Courts of Common Law and is so declared to be by Acts of Parliament Instit p. 1. pag. 344. of my Lord Coke SECT II. The Government Ecclesiastical is Established in the Statutes of this Realm THE Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction being thus found Establisht by Law before the Statute-books were made the Statutes do Establish it as much as any reasonable unprejudic'd man can expect or desire We shall begin with Magna Charta which is Statute as well as Common Law and seems to unite and tye them together This stands at the beginning of our Statute-book and the first thing in this is a grant and establishment for ever of the Rights and Liberties of the Church that must be understood of the Rights and Liberties then in being and among the rest sure the great Right and Liberty of the Churches Power and the free use of her Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Magna Charta it self expounds what it means by holy Church i. e. the Bishops and Ministers of it which King Hen. 8. in the Statute saith is commonly called the Spiritualty and Mr. HIckeringill for all his scoffing knows that the Church of England allows a larger sence of the word Church viz. the Congregation of all faithful men c. And when we call the Clergie or the Governing-part of the Church the Church we use it in a Law-sence and as a term of Law as Acts of Parliament as well as the Civil or Canon-Law do But this by the way 2. When the subsequent Acts of Parliament do so frequently mention the Spiritual Courts and their Jurisdiction this to me is a legal allowance of them and indeed a Tacit or implicit acknowledgment of their more ancient antecedent Power and Common right and liberty by the undoubted Custom i. e. the Common Laws of the Land Yea those very Statutes that look at least obliquely upon them that say they are bounded by the Common Law that do of themselves limit and prohibit the Ecclesiastical Courts in some cases seem plainly to acknowledge them in other cases not excepted from their Jurisdiction But 3. More plainly and directly those Acts of Parliament that appear in the behalf of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in times of its trial and danger and vindicate its Rights and preserve and maintain its Liberties when most in question there have hapned such occasions wherein the Statutes have rescued and replevied the Ecclesiastical Power in all which the Statutes have been thus favourable to it three of late not to mention many formerly 1. Thus when some might imagine that by the alteration made by King Hen. 8. the Bishops and their Power was shaken the Statutes made in his time assure us that it was but to restore the ancient Jurisdiction and not to destroy it that Bishops should be elected and act as formerly especially as Coke noteth by the 25 Hen. 8. c. 20. it is Enacted That every person chosen invested Consecrated Archbishop or Bishop according to this Act shall do and execute every thing and things as any Archbishop or Bishop of this Realm without offending of the Prerogative Royal of the Crown and the Laws and Customs of the Realm at any time heretofore have done Note that this Statute contrary to the 1 Edw. 6. 2. was revived by Queen Eliz. 1. cap. 1. which the Judges thought and judged a full answer to all the Objections against the Churches proceedings contrary to the 1 Edw. 6. 2. and by this very Statute 1 Edw. 6. 2. stands clearly repealed as my Lord Coke observes Rep. 12. 8 9. which caused me to make choice of it for my present purpose 2. The second is observed in the time of Phil. and Mar. when the manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction had been altered by the 1 Edw. 6. the Statute establisheth the same as it was before in these words And the Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions of the Archbishops Bishops and other Ordinaries to be in the same estate for Processe of Suits punishment of crimes and execution of Censures of the Church and knowledge of causes belonging to the same and as large in those points as the said Jurisdiction was the 20 Hen. 8. which Statute of Phil. and Mar. repealed the 1 Edw. 6. 2. and was never repealed since as the Judges resolved in the foresaid Case 4 Jac. but evidently revived by 1 Eliz. 1. Sect. 13. 3. When thirdly the long Parl. 17 Car. 1. had disabled the
CLARIOR E TENEBRIS BEATAM AETERNA CAELI SPECTO ASPERAM AT LEVEM CHRISTI TRACTO In verbo tuo Spes mea MUNDI CALCO SPLENDIDAM AT GRAVEM Alij diutius Imperium tenuerunt nemo tam fortiter reliquit Tarit Histor Lib. 2. c. 47. p. 417. Augustissimi CAROLI Secundi Dei Gratia ANGLIAE SCOTIAE FRANCIAE ET HIBERNIAE REX Bona agere mala pati Regium est Page 1. The Establish'd Church OR A SUBVERSION OF ALL The Romanist's Pleas FOR THE POPE'S SUPREMACY IN ENGLAND Together with A VINDICATION of the present Government of the Church of England as allow'd by the Laws of the Land against all Fanatical exceptions particularly of Mr. Hickeringill in His Scandalous Pamphlet stiled NAKED TRUTH the 2d Part. In Two Books By FRAN. FVLLWOOD D. D. Archdeacon of Totnes in Devon LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to the King 's most Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXI REVERENDISSIMO In Christo Patri GULIELMO Archiepiscopo CANTUARIENSI Totius ANGLIAE PRIMATI Regiae Serenissimae Majestatis à Sanctioribus Conciliis FRANCISCVS FVLLWOOD Olim Collegii EMANUEL Apud CANTABRIGIENSES Librum hunc humillimè D. D. D. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND Father in God GEORGE Lord Bishop of WINTON Prelate of the Most Noble Order of the GARTER My very good Lord BLessed be God that I have Survived this Labour which I once feared I should have sunk under and that I live to publish my Endeavours once more in the Service of the Church of England and thereby have obtained my wish'd opportunity to dedicate a Monument of my deep Sence of your Lordship's manifold obligations upon me In particular I rejoyce in the acknowledgment that I ow my Publick Station next under God and His Sacred Majesty to your Lordship's Assistance and Sole Interest though I cannot think so much out of kindness to my Person then altogether unknown to your Lordship as affection and care of the Church grounded in a great and pious intention however the object be esteem'd truly worthy of so Renowned a Prelate and many other waies excellent and admired Patriot of the Church of England If either my former attempts have been anywise available to the weakning the Bulworks of Non-Conformity or my present Essay may succeed in any measure to evince or confirm the Truth in this greater Controversie I am happy that as God hath some glory and the Church some advantage so some honour redounds upon your Lordship who with a virtuous design gave me a Capacity at first and ever since have quickned and animated my Endeavours in those Services I may be permitted to name our Controversie with the Church of Rome the great Controversie For having been exercised in all the sorts of Controversie with Adversaries on the other hand I have found that all of them put together are not considerable either for weight of matter or copiousness of Learning or for Art Strength or Number of Adversaries in comparison of this It takes in the Length of time the Breadth of place and is managed with the Heighth of Wit and Depth of Subtlety the Hills are covered with the Shadow of it and its Boughs are like the goodly Cedars My Essay in these Treatises is to shorten and clear the way and therefore though I must run with it through all time I have reduc'd the place and removed the Wit and Subtleties that would impede our progress I have endeavoured to lop off luxuriant branches and swelling excrescencies to lay aside all personal reflections captious advantages Sophistical and Sarcastical Wit and to set the Arguments on both sides free from the darkness of all kind of cunning either of escape or reply in their plain light and proper strength as also to confine the Controversie as near as I can within the bounds of our own Concern i. e. our own Church And when this is done the plain and naked truth is that the meanest of our other Adversaries I had almost said the silly Quaker himself seems to me to have better Grounds and more like Christian than the glorious Cause of the Papacy But to draw a little nearer to our Point your Lordship cannot but observe that one end of the Roman Compass is ever fixed upon the same Center and the summ of their clamour is our disobedience to the See of Rome Our defense stands upon a twofold Exception 1. Against the Authority 2. Against the Laws of Rome and if either be justified we are innocent The first Exception and the defence of our Church against the Authority of that See is the matter of this Treatise the second is reserved I have determined that all the Arguments for the Pope's Authority in England are reduceable to a five-fold Plea the Right of Conversion as our Apostle the Right of a Patriarch the Right of Infallibility the Right of Prescription and the Right of Universal Pastorship the Examination of them carries us through our Work Verily to my knowledge I have omitted nothing Argumentative of any one of these Pleas yea I have considered all those little inconsiderable things which I find any Romanists seem to make much of But indeed their pretended Right of possession in England and the Universal◠Pastorship to which they adhere as their surest holds have my most intended and greatest strength and care and dilligence that nothing material or seemingly so might escape either unobserved or not fully answered let not the contrary be said but shewn I have further laboured to contract the Controversie two ways 1. By a very careful as well as large and I hope as clear state of the question in my definition and discourse of Schism at the beginning whereby mistakes may be prevented and much of matter disputed by others excluded 2. By waving the dispute of such things as have no influence into the Conclusion and according to my use giving as many and as large Concessions to the Adversary as our Cause will suffer Now my end being favourably understood I hope there is no need to ask your Lordships or any others pardon for that I have chosen not to dispute two great things 1. That in the Words tu es Petrus super hanc Petram there is intended some respect peculiar to saint Peter's Person it is generally acknowledged by the most learned Defenders of our Church that Saint Peter had a Primacy of Order and your Lordship well knows that many of the Ancient Fathers have expressed as much and I intend no more 2. That Tradition may be Infallible or indefectible in the delivery of the Essentials of Religion for ought we know By the Essentials we mean no more but the Creed the Lord's Prayer the Decalogue and the two Sacraments in this I have my Second and my Reason too for then Rushworth's Dialogues and the new Methods of Roman opposition need not trouble us My good Lord it is high time to beg your Pardon that I have reason to conclude with an excuse for
should if they would save their Head whole Therefore after much ado to very Schis diarm p. p. 157. little purpose S. W. concludes against Doctor Hammond thus Besides saith he were all this granted what is it to your or our purpose Since we accuse you not of Schism for breaking from the Pope's Subjection as a Private Patriarch but as the chief Pastor and the Head of the Church So there is an end of their Second Plea CHAP. V. The Third Papal Claim viz. Prescription or long Possession Case Stated Their Plea our Answer in three Propositions THe true state of the case here is this Case stated It cannot be denied but the Church of England was heedlesly and gradually drawn into Communion with the Roman Church in her additions superinduced upon the ancient Faith and Worship and likewise into some degrees of subjection to Papal Jurisdiction And in this Condition we had continued for some considerable time before King Henry the Eighth and that bold King upon what Motives is not here material with the consent of his three Estates in Parliament both houses of the Convocation and both the Vniversities of the Land threw off the Roman Yoke as a manifest Vsurpation and a very grievous oppression and recovered the people and Church of England to their ancient liberties of being governed by their own domestick Rulers Afterwards in the Reigns of Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth and by their proper Authority we reformed our selves by throwing off the Roman Additions to our Faith and Worship Had we gone about a Reformation while we acknowledged subjection to the See of Rome or indeed before we had renounced it there had been more colour to charge us with Schism and disobedience But now the proper question is first whether the State of England did then justly reject the Jurisdiction of the Pope in England and only consequently whether we did afterwards lawfully Reform without him The cause of our Reformation belongs to another Argument which we shall meet hereafter The papal Plea here is the Popes Authority was established here by long Possession and therefore Plea if nothing else could be pleaded for it Prescription was a good Title and therefore it was injurious and Schismatical first to dispossess him and then to go about to reform without him Our Answer is home and plain in these Three Propositions 1. The Church of England was never actually Ans under the Popes Jurisdiction so absolutely as is pretended 2. The Possession which it had obtained here was not sufficient to create the Pope a good Title 3. Or if it were yet that Title ceased when he lost his Possession CHAP. VI. Prop. I. The Papacy had no Power here for the first Six Hundred Years St. Aug. Dionoth THe first Proposition is this that the Church of England was not actually under the Papal Jurisdiction so absolutely as is pretended that is neither Primarily for Plenarily First not Primarily in that we were free from 1. Not Primarily the Papal Power for the first Six Hundred Years This is confirmed beyond all exception by the entertainment Augustine found among the sturdy Brittains when he came to obtrude that Jurisdiction upon them whence 't is evident that at that time which was near six hundred In Fact or Belief years after Christ the Pope had neither actual possession of Government over nor of the belief of the Brittains that he ought to have it The good Abbot of Bangor when pressed to submit to the Roman Bishop answered in the name of the Brittains That he knew no Obedience Spel. conc an 601. due to him whom they called the Pope but the Obedience of Love and adds those full peremptory exclusive words that under God they were to be Governed by the Bishop of Caerleon Which the Lord Primate Bramhall saith is a full demonstrative convincing proof for the whole time viz. the first six hundred years Vind. p. 84 But 't is added that which follows strikes the question dead Augustine St. Gregories Legate proposing three things to the Brittains 1. That they should submit to the Roman Bishop 2. That they should conform to the Roman Customs 3. Lastly That they should joyn with him in Preaching to the Saxons Hereupon the Brittish Clergy assembled themselves together Bishops and Priests in two several Synods one after another and upon mature deliberation they rejected all his propositions Synodically and refused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do with him upon those terms Insomuch as Augustine was necessitated to return over Sea to obtain his own Consecration and after his return hither to consecrate the Saxon Bishops alone without the assistance of any other Bishop They refused indeed to their own cost Twelve hundred innocent Monks of Bangor shortly after lost their lives for it The foundation of the Papacy here was thus laid in Blood 'T is objected that the story of the Abbot of Obj. Bangor is taken by Sir H. Spelman out of an old Welch Author of suspected credit but all Objections to that purpose are removed by my Lord Primate and Dr Hammond Besides we have other Authority sufficient for it and beyond contradiction The Story in Bede himself as vouched by Bed li. 2. c. 2. T. H. himself against Dr. Hammond puts it beyond all doubt that the Abbot and Monks opposed Austin and would not subject themselves to the Pope of Rome but referred themselves only to their own Governours which is also the general result of other Authors account of this matter and if the matter of Fact be established 't is enough to disprove the Popes Posession at that time whether they did well or ill is not now considered Baleus speaking of that Convention saith Dinoth In Dinoth disputed against the Authority of Rome and defended stoutly fortitèr the Jurisdiction of St. Davids in the affairs of his own Churches The same is observed by Geoffrey of Monmouth and Sigebert and others for which Dr. In an 602. Hammond refers us to the Collection of the Anglicane Councils and Mr. Whelocks Notes on the Saxon Bede p. 115. And indeed the Author of the Appendix written on purpose to weaken this great instance confesseth as much when he concludes Austin in the Right from the miracles and divine vengeance upon the refusers continuing still refractory to his proposals Of the right of the cause we now dispute not and he acknowledgeth that Augustine had not Possession the thing we contend for However this instance being of great moment in the whole Controversie let us briefly examine what T. H. hath said against it T. H. questions the Authority of the Welch Obj. 1 M. S. But the account there is so perfectly agreeable An. to the general account given by others most competent Witnesses and even Bede himself that as we have no necessity to insist much upon it so they have no reason at all to question it Besides if the Reader would more
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
why doth the Eastern Church not reckon it among their Seven nor the Western Church among their Eight first general Councils Why did the English Church omit it in their Number in the Synod of Hedifeld Apud Spel. An. 680. l. 169. in the year 680. and embrace only unto this day the Council of Nice the first of Constantinople the first of Ephesus and the first and second of Calcedon The five first general Councils were therefore incorporated into our English Laws but this Council of Sardica never was Therefore contrary to this Canon of Appeal 't is the Fundamental Law of England in that Famous Memorial of Clarendon All Appeals in England must proceed Regularly from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and if the Arch-Bishop failed to do justice the last Complaint must be to the King to give Order for redress 'T is evident the great Council of Calcedon P. 2. ac 14. c. 9. contradicted this Canon for Appeals to Rome where Appeals from the Arch-Bishop are directed to be made to every Primate or the Holy Calcedon See of Constantinople as well as Rome from which Evidence we have nothing but silly Evasions as that Primate truly observs v. Sch. guarded p. 374. Besides if our Fore-fathers had heard of the Canons of the Councils truly general as no doubt they had how could they possibly believe the unlimited Jurisdiction of Rome the Council of Calcedon is not denied to give equal Priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome And the Council of Constantinople conclude thus for the Nicene Fathers did justly give Priviledges to the See of Constantinople old Rome because it was the Imperial City and the 150 godly Bishops moved with the same consideration did give equal Priviledges to the See of new Rome that that City which was the Sear of the Empire and Senate should enjoy equal Priviledges with the Ancient Imperial City of Rome and be extolled and magnified in Ecclesiastical Affaires as well as it being the Second in order from it and in the last Sentence of the Judges upon Review of the Cause the Arch-Bishop of the Imperial City of Const or new Rome must enjoy the same Priviledges of Honour and have the same Power out of his own Authority to ordain Metropolitans in the Asiatick Pontick and Thracian Diocess Are these the Words of a General Council could these Fatbers imagine the Pope at that time Monarch of the whole Church or could this be acknowledged by England at first and they yet give up their Faith to the Pope's Universal Power Can these things consist Yea is there not something in all the Councils allowed by the Ancient Brittains and the Ancient English Church sufficient to induce a Faith quite contrary to the Roman Pretensions But as to this Canon of Constantinople S. W. Object quits his hands roundly telling us that it was no free Act but voted Tumultuously after most of the Fathers were departed S. W. had been safer if he had been wiser Sol. for that which he saith is altogether false and besides such a cluster of Forgeries as deserves the Whet-stone to purpose as my Lord Bramhall manifests against him Sch-guard p. 354. 1. False the Act was made before the Bishops had license to depart it had a Second Hearing and was debated by the Pope's own Legates on his behalfe before the most glorious Judges and maturely Sentenced by them in the Name of the Council This was one of those four Councils which Saint Gregory honoured next to the four Gospels This is one of those very Councils which every succeeding Pope doth swear to observe to the least tittle 2. For his Forgeries about it he is sufficiently shamed by the Primate in the place cited 't is pity such shifts should be used and 't is folly to use them when the Truth appears what remains but both the Person and the Cause reproach'd See more of the Councils at the latter end SECT V. Arabic Canons forged no Canons of the Council of Nice YEt 't is a Marvellous thing that the Romanist Object should dare to impose upon so great and learned a Primate as the late Arch-Bishop Land that by the third Canon of the Council of Nice the Patriarch is in the same manner over all those that are under his Authority as he who holds the See of Rome is Head and Prince of the Patriachs resembling Saint Peter and his Equal in Authority When 't is most evident to the meanest capacity Answ that will search into it that that is no Canon of the true Council of Nice and that in stead of the third it is the thirty ninth of the supposititious and forged Canons as they are set forth in the Arabick Editions both by Pisanus and Turrianus In these Editions there are no less than eighty Canons pretended to be Nicene whereas the Nicene Council never passed above twenty as is evident from such as should know best the Greek Authors who all reckon but twenty Hist Ecl. l. 1. c. 7. Canons of that Council Such as Theodoret Nicephorus Calistus Gelasius Cricenus Alphonsus Ecl. Hist l. 8. c. 19. Act. Conc. Nic. lib. 2. Pisanus and Binnius himself confesseth that all the Greeks say there were no more but twenty Canons then determined Yea the Latins themselves allowed no more for although Ruffinus make twenty two 't is by splitting of two into four And in that Epitome of the Canons which Pope Hadrian sent to Charles the Great for the Government of the Western Churches Anno 773. the same Number appears and in Hincmarus's M. S. the same is proved from the Testimonies of the Tripartite History Ruffinus the Carthaginian Council the Epistles of Ciril of Alex. Atticus of Constant and the twelfth Action of the Council of Calcedon and if we may believe a Pope viz. Stephen in Gratian saith the Roman Church did allow of no more Gra. dis 16. c. 20. than twenty The truth is put beyond all question lastly both by the proceedings of the African Fathers in the case of Zosimus about the Nicene Canons when an early and diligent search made it evident and also by the Codex Canonum Eccl. Afric P. 363. p. 58. where it is expresly said there was but twenty Canons But this matter is more than clear by the P. 391 392 elaborate pains of Dr. Still defence of the late Arch-Bishop Land to whom I must refer my Reader Yet Bellarmine and Binius would prove there Obj. were more than twenty But their proofs depend either upon things Sol. as suppositions as the Arabick Canons themselves such as the Epistles of Julius and Athanasius ad Marcum or else they only prove that some other things were determined by that Council viz. Concerning Rebaptization and the keeping of Easter c. which indeed might be Acts of the Council without putting them into the Ad an 325. P. 108. Canons as
Baronius himself confesseth and leaves the patronage of them and Spondanus in his contraction of Baronius relates it as his positive Ad an 325. n. 42. Opinion that he rejected all but twenty whether Arabick or other as spurious So that it will bear no further contest but we may safely conclude the Arabick Canons and consequently this of the Popes Authority is a mere Forgery of later times there being no evidence at all that they were known to the Church in all the time of the four first general Councils Vid. â— 20. SECT VI. Practice interpreted the Canons to the same Sence against the Pope Disposing of Patriarchs Cyprian Aug. VVE have found nothing in the Canons of the ancient Councils that might give occasion to the belief of the Popes Jurisdiction in England in the Primitive Ages of the Church but indeed very much to the contrary But the Romanist affirms against my Lord of Canterbury that the Practice of the Church is always the best Expositor and Assertor of the Canons We are now to examine whether the ancient practice of the Church was sufficient to persuade a belief of the Popes Jurisdiction as is pretended In the mean time not doubting but that it is a thing most evident that the Pope hath practised contrary to the Canons and the Canons have declared and indeed been practised against the Pope But what Catholick Practice is found on Record that can be supposed a sufficient ground of this Faith either in England or any part of Christendom Certainly not of Ordinations or Appeals or Visitations Yea can it be imagined that our English Ancestors had not heard of the practice of the Brittains in maintaining their liberty when it was assaulted by Austin and rejecting his demands of Subjection to the See of Rome No doubt they had heard of the Cyprian Priviledge and how it was insisted on in barr of the universal Pastorship by their friends the Eastern Church from whom they in likelihood received the Faith and with whom they were found at first in Communion about the observation of Easter and Baptism and in practice divers from the Church of Rome But one great point of practice is here pitcht Obj. upon by Baronius and after him by T. C. It is the Popes Confirmation of the Election deposing and restoring of Patriarchs which they say he did as Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs and consequently of the whole Church But where hath he done these strange feats Sol. Certainly not in England And we shall find the instances not many nor very early any where else But to each Branch 1. 'T is urged that the Popes Confirmation Confirm Patriarchs is required to all new elected Patriarchs Admit it but the Arch-Bishop of Paris Petrus Dr. Still de Marca fully answers Baronius and indeed every body else that this was no token of Jurisdiction but only of receiving into Communion De conc l. 6. c. 5. s. 2. and as a Testimony of Consent to the Consecration If any force be in this Argument then the Bishop of Carthage had power Cypr. Ep. 52. p. 75. over the Bishop of Rome because he and other African Bishops Confirm'd the Bishop of Rome's Ordination Baronius insists much upon the Confirmation of Anatolius by Leo I. which very instance answers it self Leo himself tells us that it was Ep. 38. to manifest that there was but one entire Communion among them throughout the World Yet it is not to be omitted that the practice of the Church supposeth that the Validity of the Patriarchs Consecration depended not upon Consec depends not on Confirmation the Confirmation or indeed Consent of the Pope of Rome Yea though he did deny his Comunicatory letters that did not hinder them from the Execution of their Office Therefore Flavianus the Patriarch of Antloch though opposed by three Roman Bishops successively who used all importunity with the Emperor that he might be displaced yet because the Churches of the Orient did approve of him and Communicate with him he was allowed and their consent stood against the Bishops of Rome At last the Bishop of Rome severely rebuked for his Pride by the Emperor yielded and his Consent was given only by renewing Communion with him But where was the Popes power either to make or make void a Patriarch while this was in Practice 2. Doth Practice better prove the Popes Deposing Patriarchs power to depose unworthy Patriarchs The contrary is evident for both before and after the Council of Nice according to that Council the practice of the Church placed the power of deposing Patriarchs in Provincial Councils and the Pope had it not till the Council of Sardica decreed in the case of Athanasius as P. de Marca abundantly proves Vid. de Concord l. 7. c. 1. Sect. 6. Also that the Council of Sardica it self did not as is commonly said decree Appeals to Rome but only gave the Bishop of Rome power to review their Actions but still reserving to Provincial Councils that Authority which the Nicene Council had established them in But T. C. urgeth that we read of no less than Obj. eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome Where doth he read it In an Epistle of Pope Sol. Nicolaus to the Emperor Michael Well chosen saith Doctor Still a Popes Testimony in his own Cause And such a one as was then in Controversie with the Patriarch of Constantinople and so late too as the Ninth Century is when his power was much grown from the Infancy of it Yet for all this this Pope on such an occasion and at that time did not say that the Patriarchs mention'd by him were depos'd by the Popes sole Authority but not Ejected Sine Consensu Romani Pontificis without his Consent and his design was only to shew that Ignatius the Patriarch ought not to have been deposed without his Consent v. Nic. 1. 8. Mich. Imp. Tom. 6. Con. p. 506. Did not Sixtus the third depose Policronius Obj. Bishop of Jerusalem No. He only sent eight Persons from a Synod Sol. at Rome to Jerusalem who offered not by the Popes Authority to depose him as should have have been proved but by their means seventy Neighbour Bishops were Called by whom he was deposed besides Binius himself Tâ—m 2. Con. p. 685. Condemns those very acts that report this story for Spurious 3. But have we any better proof of the Restoring Patriarchs Popes power to restore such as were deposed The only Instance in this Case brought by T. C. is of Athanasius and Paulus restored by Julius and indeed to little purpose T is true Athanasius Cndemned by two Synods goes to Rome where he and Paulus are received into Communion by Julius not liking the decree of the Eastern Bishops Julius never pleads his Power to depose Patriarchs but that his consent for the sake of Vnity should also have been first desired and that
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
it could not possibly be intended to carry in it the Authority of the whole Church or any more than that qualified sence of Vigorius before mentioned because other Patriarchs had the same Title and we see no reason to believe that that Council intended to subject themselves and all Patriarchs to the Authority of the Western Pope contrary to their great design of advancing the See of Constantinople to equal priviledges with that of Rome as appears by their 16 Sess Can. 28. and their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo. Thus the bare Title is no Argument and by what hath been said touching the grandure of the Roman Empire and the answerable greatness and renown of the Roman Church frequent recourse had unto it from other Churches for counsel and assistance is of no more force to conclude her Supremacy nor any matter of wonder at all Experience teacheth us that it is and will be so in all cases not only a renowned Lawyer Physician but Divine shall have great resort and almost universal addresses An honest and prudent Countryman shall be upon all Commissions the Church of Rome was then famous both for Learning Wisdom Truth Piety and I may add Tradition it self as well as greatness both in the eye of the world and all other Churches and her Zeal and care for general good keeping peace and spreading the grace of the Gospel was sometimes admirable And now no wonder that Applications in difficult cases were frequently and generally made hither which at first were received and answered with Love and Charity though soon after the Ambition of Popes knew how to advance and hence to assume Authority From this we see it was no great venture Iren. l. 3. c. 3. how ever A. C. Term it for Arch-Bishop Laud to grapple with the Authority of Irenaeus who saith to this Church meaning Rome propter potentiorem Principalitatem for the more powerful Principality of it 't is necessary that every Church that is the faithful undique should have recourse in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata estâ—ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio His Lordship seems to grant the whole Rome being then the Imperial City and so a Church of more powerful Authority than any other yet not the Head of the Church Vniversal this may suffice without the pleasant criticizing about undique with which if you have a mind to be merry you may entertain your self in Dr. Still p. 441. c. But indeed A. C. is guilty of many Mistakes in reasoning as well as criticizing he takes it for granted that this Principality is attributed by Irenaeus here to Rome as the Church not as the City 2. That the necessity arising hence was concerning the Faith and not secular Affairs neither of which is certain or in likelihood true vid. Dr. Still p. 444. Besides if both were granted the necessity is not such as supposeth Duty or Authority in the faithful or in Rome but as the sense makes evident a necessity of expedience Rome being most likely to give satisfaction touching that Tradition about which that dispute was Lastly the Principality here implies not proper Authority or Power to decide the Controversie one kind of Authority it doth imply but not such as A. C. enquired for not the Authority of a Governor but of a Conservator of a Conservator of that Truth that being made known by her might reasonably end the quarrel not of an absolute Governour that might command the Faith or the Agreement of the Dissenters This is evident 1. Because the Dispute was about a matter of Fact whether there was any such Tradition or not as the Valentinians pretended 2. Because Irenaeus refers them to Rome under this reason conservata est the Apostolical Traditions are kept there being brought by the faithful undique thither and therefore brought thither because of the more Principality of the City all persons resorted thither Lastly It is acknowledged that Pope Gregory Obj. Eph. 65. ind 2. doth say that if there be any fault in Bishops it is subject to the Apostolical See but when their fault doth not exact it that then upon the account of Humility all were his Equals Indeed this smells of his ambition and design Sol. before spoken of but if there be any truth in it it must agree with the Canon Saint Gregory himself records and suppose the faulty Bishop hath no proper Primate or Patriarch to judge him also with the proceeding then before him and suppose Complaint to the Emperor and the Emperor's subjecting the Cause to the Apostolical See as that Cause was by Saint Gregory's own Confession However what he seems here to assume to his own See he blows away with the same breath denying any ordinary Jurisdiction and Authority to be in that See over all Bishops while he supposes a fault necessary to their subjection and that while there is no fault all are equall which is not true where by a lawful standing ordinary Government there is an eternal necessity of Superiority and Inferiority But of this I had spoken before had I thought as I yet do not that there is any weight or consequence in the words Further Evidence that the Ancient Popes themselves though they might thirst after it did not believe that they were Vniversal Bishops and Monarks over the whole Church and that they did not pretend to it in any such manner as to make the World believe it I say further evidence of this ariseth from their acknowledged subjection to the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical Affairs Pope Leo begged the Emperor Theodosius with tears that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he would Command not permit a Council to be held in Italy that sure was not to signifie his Authoritative desires That Instance of Pope Agatho in his Epistle to the Emperor is as pertinent as the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. with praise we admire your Conc. Tom. 5. p. 60. E. F. purpose well pleasing to God not to the Pope and for these Commands of yours we are rejoyced and with groans give thanks to God and many such Doctor Hammond saith might be afforded Pope Gregory received the power of hearing and determining Causes several times as he himself confesseth from the Emperor as we shewed before Hence Pope Eleutherius to King Lucius you are the Vicar of Christ the same in effect which is contained in the Laws of Edward the Confessor And Pope Vrban the Second entertained our Arch-bishop Anselm in the Council of Bar with the Title of the Pope of another World or as some relate it the Apostle of another World and a Patriarch worthy to be reverenced Malm. pro. ad lib. de gest pont Angl. Now when the Bishops of Rome did acknowledge that the Civil Magistrate had power to command the assembling of general Councils and to command Popes themselves to hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes when they acknowledged the King of England
to be the Vicar of Christ and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Pope of another World we may I think safely conclude that whatever they thought of the Primacy of dignity they did not believe themselves or give occasion to others to believe that they had then the Jurisdiction of England much less of the whole World Indeed the Powers of Emperors over Popes Vid. King James's defence p. 50. was exercised severely and continued long in practice an 654. Constantius bound and banished Pope Martin an 963. Otho rejected Pope John 13. and made Leo 8. Pope and John 14. Gregory 5. and Sylvester 2. were made Popes by the Otho 's an 1007. Hen. 2. deposed three Popes this practice is confessed till Gregory 7. and before An. 679. Popes submitted to Emperors by purchasing their Investitures of them by submissive terms and bowing the knee before them Platin. Baron Segeb. SECT VIII Nor the Words of the Imperial Law IF the Ancient Councils or practice or Popes themselves offered nothing to perswade our Ancestors to a belief of the Pope's Vniversal Power or Possession of England Certainly we may despair of finding any such thing in the Ancient Laws of the Church which are justly presumed to contain the Sense and Rule of all were all other Records of Antiquity silent saith our late Primate the Civil Law is proof enough for that 's a Monument of the Primitive Church and not only so it being the Imperial as well as Canon Law it gives us the reason and Law both of the Church and the whole World Now what saith the Law it first forbids the Title and then the Practice Primae sedis Apostolus the Patriarch or Bishop Cor. Jur. Can. de pa. 1. dist 99. c. 3. Can. 4. of the first See is not to be called Prince of the Priests or Supreme Priest nor as the African Canon adds aliquid hujusmodi any other thing of that kind The practice of any such Power was expresly forbidden and not the proud Title only the very Text of the Law saith à Patriarcha non datur Appellatio from a Patriarch there lies no Appeal Cod. lib. 1. Tit. 4. l. 29. Auth. Collat. 9. Tit. 15. c. 22. And this we have found agreeable to the Melivetane Council where Saint Augustine was Can. 23. present forbidding under pain of Excommunication any Appeal to any Foreign Councils or Judicatures and this is again Consonant to the fifth Canon of Nice as that was to the thirty fourth Apostolick where the Primate in every Nation is to be accounted their Head Now what do our Adversaries say to this Indeed they seem to be put to it and though their Wits are very pregnant to deliver many Answers such as they be in most Cases they all seem to joyn in one poor slight Evasion here namely that the Laws concerning Appeals did only concern inferiour Clergy-men but Bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome even by the African Canon and acknowledged in that Councils Epistle to Pope Boniface Three bold Sayings first that the Law concerned not the Appeals of Bishops 2. The Council of Africa decreed Bishops Appeals to Rome 3. And acknowledged it in their Letter to Pope Boniface but are these things as truly as boldly said for the first which is their Comment whereby they would restrain the sense of the Laws to the exclusion of the Bishops we shall consider their ground for it and then propose our reason and the Law expresly against it and then their Reasons will need little answer They say the Law reacheth not the difference Object between Patriarchs themselves But if there should happen a difference betwixt Sol. a Patriarch and the Pope who shall decide that both these inconveniences are plainly solved by referring all such extraordinary difficulties to a General Council But why should the Law allow Forreign Appeals to Bishops and not to Priests Are all Bishops Patriarchs is not a Patriarch over his Bishops as well as a Bishop over his Priests may not the Gravamen of a Priest be given by his Bishop or the difference among Priests be as Caelestus necessity of Grace Milev Con. considerable to the Church sometimes as among Bishops or hath not the universal Pastor if the Pope be so power over and care of Priests as well as Bishops or can the Summum imperium receive limits from Canon or Law to say that Priests are forbidden to appeal but the Pope is not forbidden to receive their Appeals is plainly to cripple the Law and to make it yield to all the inconveniences of foreign appeals against its true end But what if this very Canon they pretend to allow Appeals from Bishops to Rome do expresly forbid that very thing it is brought to allow Can. 28. and it doth so undeniably as appears in the Authentick Collection of the African Canons non provocent ad transmarina Judicia sed ad primates suarum Provinciarum aut ad universale Concilium sicut de Episcopis saepe constitutum est The same thing had often been determined in the case of Bishops Perron and others say this clause was not Obj. in the ancient Milevetan Canons Have they nothing else but this groundless Sol. conceit to support their universal Pastorship against express Law for four hundred years after Christ Sure it behoved highly to produce a true Authentick Copy of those Canons wherein that clause is omitted which because they do not we conclude they cannot However it is manifest that the same thing against appeals of Bishops to Rome had been often determined by far greater Testimony than the bare assertion of Perron and his Partners viz. that general Council of Carthage An. D. 419. about three years after that Milevetan at the end of the first Session they reviewed the Canons of the seventeen lesser Councils which Justellus mentions and wherein no doubt that point had been often determined and out of them all composed that Câ—dex canonum Ecclesia Africanae with that clause inserted as appears both in the Greek and many ancient latine Copies and was so received and pleaded by the Council of Rhemes as Hincumarmus proves as well as others Gratius confesseth it but adds this Antidote Nisi forte Romanam Sedem appellaverit i. e. None shall appeal to Rome the main design of the Council except they do appeal to Rome not expounding the Canon but exposing himself and that excellent Council But A. C. urgeth the Epistle of that Council to Obj. Boniface as was before noted and thence proves that the Council acknowledged that Bishops had power in their own cause to appeal to Rome 'T is true they do say that in a Letter written Sol. a year before to Zosimus they had granted liberty to Bishops to appeal to Rome This is true but scarce honest the next words in the Letter spoil the Argument and the sport too for they further say that because the Pope contended that the appeals of Bishops were contained in
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
Kings leave First he was told by the Bishops as well as Lay-Lords that it was a thing unheard of and altogether against the use of the Realm for any of the great men especially himself to presume any such thing without the Kings Licence Notwithstanding he would and did go but what followed His Bishoprick was seiz'd into the Kings hand And the Pope durst not or thought not good to give him either Consilium or Auxilium as Sir Rog. Twisd p. 11. 12. makes appear out Eadmer p. 20 26 38 39 53. In the dispute the King told Anselm the Pope had not to do with his Rights and wrote that free Letter we find in Jorvalensis Col. 999 30. and upon the ambiguous answer of the Pope the King sent another letter by Anselm himself to Rome who spake plainly his Master nec amissione Eadem 73. 13. Regni c. for the loss of his Kingdom he would not lose the investiture of his Churches But Anselm as Arch-Bishop took the Oath Obj. that was appointed by the Pope to be taken at the receiving of the Pall which allowed his Power to receive Appeals 'T is true but Pope Paschalis himself who Ans devised that Oath acknowledgeth that it was as Anselm signified to him not admitted but wondred at and lookt on as a strange innovation both by the King and the great men of the Kingdom Baron an 1102. nu 8. The King pleaded the Fundamental Laws and customs of the Land against it it is a custom of my Kingdom instituted by my Father that no Pope may be appealed unto without the Kings licence He that takes away the customs of the Kingdom doth violate the Power and Crown of the King And 't is well noted by Arch-Bishop Bramhall Malms l. 1. degest Pont. Ang. that the Laws established by his Father viz. William the Conqueror were no other than the Laws of Edward the Confessor that is to say the old Saxon Laws who had before yielded to the â—â— Hen. 2. request of his Barons as Hoveden notes to confirm those Laws But though Anselm had obliged himself by the said Oath to the Pope yet the rest of the Bishops refused the Yoke and thereupon Malmsâ— tells us in his c. that in the execution of these Malm. ibid. things all the Bishops of England did deny their Suffrage to their Primate Consequently the Vnanimity of the whole Realm appeared in the same Point in the Reign of this Kings Grandchild in the Statute of Clarendon confirming the former Brittish Math. Par. 1164. Hoved. in Hen. 2. English custom not only by their consents but their Oaths wherein generally every man is interdicted to appeal to Rome This Statute of Clarendon was made when Popery seemed to be at the height in England It was made to confirm the Customs and Liberties of Henry the Seconds Predecessors that is to say as the words of the Statute are his Grandfather Henry the first Son of the Conqveror and other Kings Now the Customs of England are our common Laws and the customs of his Predecessors were the Saxon Danish and Norman Laws P. 73. and therefore ought to be observed of all as my Lord Bramhall reasons What these customs were I may shew more largely hereafter at present this one is pertinent All appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Arch Bishop and if the Arch-Bishop fail to do his duty the last must be to the King to give order for redress that is by fit delegates In Ed. the Thirds time we have a plain Law to 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. the same purpose in these words Whosoever should draw any of the Kings Subjects out of the Realm in plea about any caufe whereof the Cognizance belongeth to the Kings Court or should sue in any foreign Court to defeat any Judgment given in the Kings Court viz. by appealing to Rome they should incur the same penalties and upon the same ground the body of the Kingdom would not suffer Edward the First to to be cited before the Pope 'T is confest that in the Laws of Hen. 1. 't is granted that in case a Bishop erring in Faith and Obj. on Admonition appearing incorrigible ad summos Pontifices the arch-Arch-Bishops vel sedem Apostolicam accusetur which passage as Sir Ro Twisden guesses was inserted afterwards or the grant gotten by the importunity of the then Pope But the same learned Mans Note upon it is Ans P. 32. that this is the only Cause wherein I find any English Law approve a foreign Judicature 'T is plain Anselm's Appeal now on foot was disapproved by the whole Kingdom 't is evident that this Clause was directly repugnant to the Liberties and Customs of the Realm upon which Anselm's Appeal was so ill resented 'T is manifest in those days and after appeals to Rome were not common yea this very Pope Paschalis complains to this King Vos oppressis Apostolicae sedis appellationem substrahitis Eadm p. 113 3. which was an 1115. and that they were held a cruel intrusion on the Churches Liberty so as at the Assize at Clarendon 1164. this Law if it were so was annulled and declared to be contrary to the liberties and customs of the Realm the eighth Chapter whereof is wholly spent in shewing the Right of the Kingdom in this point quod non appellaretur for any Cause ad sedem Apostolicam without leave had first from the King and his Officials as Joh. Sarisb interprets Ep. 159. p. 254. Indeed the King did personally yield afterwards an 1172. not to hinder such appeals in Obj. Ecclesiastical Causes But the whole Kingdom four years after would Ans not quit their interest but did again renew the assize of Clarendon 1176. using this close expression Justitiae faciant quaerere per consuetudinem Hoved. f. 314. b. 3. terrae illos qui a regno recesserunt nisi redire voluerint stare in curia domini Regis â— legentur c. as Gervase also notes au 1176. Col. 1433. 19. Accordingly was the practice during K. Rich. the seconds time Geffrey Arch-Bishop of York was complained of that he did not only refuse Appeals to Rome but imprisoned those that made them and though upon that complaint a time was assigned to make his defence to the Pope yet he refused to go because of the Kings Prohibition and the indisposition of the Air. After this upon a difference with the King the Arch-Bishop went to Rome and made his peace with the Pope and returns but the King offended with it committed the care even of the spirituals of his Arch-Bishoprick to others till he had reconciled himself to the Crown which was nere two years after about 1198. After this again he received complaint from Innocentius III. non excusare te potes c. Thou canst not excuse thy self as thou oughtest that Hov. an 1201. thou art ignorant
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 greatness of hs Virtue Virtue is a personal gift and cannot pass by Succession Saint Chrisostom indeed is urged against us Object Curam tum Petro tum Petri Successoribus Committebat lib. 2. de Sacerdotio 'T is granted Peter had his Successors in time Answ and place and that 's all the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be rendred those which followed him will conclude However admit the Bishop of Rome did succeed Saint Peter in his care as the word is doth it follow that he succeeded him in his Primacy which hath appeared not capable of Succession Application of Sect. 1. Therefore I conclude that whatsoever Inference Primacy the Bishop of Rome obtained in the Ancient Church it was not the Primacy of Saint Peter or as he was Successor of Saint Peter in his Primacy but he obtained it upon other Grounds not those Antecedent in Saint Peter but such as arose afterwards and were peculiar to the Church of Rome A Note as easie to be observed by such as look into the practice of the Ancient Church as of great caution and use in this Controversie The Grounds are known to be such as these because Rome was the Imperial City because the Church of Rome was then most Famous for the Christian Faith because she was the most noted Seat of true Tradition because her Bishops were most Eminent for Piety Learning and a charitable Care for other Churches and lastly perhaps because Saint Peter had been Bishop there his Memory might deflect some honour at least by way of motive on the Bishop of Rome as the Council of Sardica moveth if it please you let us honour the Memory of Saint Peter but though the Memory of Saint Peter might be used as an Argument of the Pope's Priority 't is far from concluding his inheriting Saint Peter's Primacy though he had honour by being his Successor 2. It further follows that the Primacy of Inference Primacy not Jure Divino that See heretofore was not Jure Divino but from the Civility of the World and the Curtesie of Princes and the Gratitude of the Church Indeed this Primacy was not an Office but an honour and that honour was not given by any Solemn Grant of God or Man but seems to have gained upon the World insensibly and by degrees till it became a Custom as the Council of Nice intimates 3 Lastly it follows that this Primacy was Inference Not in succeeding Popes not derived to the Succeeding Bishops of Rome it standing upon such temporary Grounds as too soon failed for when that which was the cause of it ceased no wonder if the honour was denied When the Faith of the See was turned to Infidelity and Blasphemy and Atheism and Sorcery as their own men say when their piety was turned into such villanies of pride Symony uncleaness and monstrous lawdness as themselves report when their care and vigilance was turned into Methods of wasting and destroying the Churches when the Exordium Vnitatis was turned into a Head of Schism and division no wonder that the Primacy and honour of the See of Rome which was raised and stood upon the contrary grounds was at length discovered to be groundless and the former primacy which stood on Courtesie and was exalted by an usurped Supremacy and Tyranny was thrown off by us and our ancient liberty is Repossessed and the Glory of Rome is so far departed SECT II. Whether the Pope be Supreme as Successor of Peter by Divine Right Neg. Not Primate as such Peter himself not Supreme Pope not Succed him at all THis is the last Refuge and the meaning of it is that our Saviour made St. Peter Vniversal Monarch of the whole Church and intended the Pope of Rome should succeed him in that power All possible defence herein hath been prevented For if the Bishop of Rome did not succeed him in his Primacy how should he succeed him in his Supremacy Again if St. Peter had no such Supremacy as hath appeared how should the Pope receive it as his Successor Besides what ever power St. Peter had it doth no way appear that the Pope should succeed him in it much less in our Saviours Intention or by Divine Right However let us try their colours Will they maintain it that Christ appointed the Bishops of Rome to succeed St. Peter in so great a power The Claim is considerable the whole World in all Ages is concerned none could give this priviledge of Succession but the giver of the power But where did he do it Where or how when or by whom was it expressed Should not the Grant of so great an Empire wherein all are so highly concern'd especially when it is disputed and pretended be produced Instead of plain proof we are put off with obscure and vanishing Shadows such as follow SECT III. Arg. 1. Peter Assigned it INstead of proving that Christ did they say Arg. 1 that St. Peter when he died bestowed the Supremacy upon the Bishops of Rome in words to this effect as Hart expresseth them I Ordain this Clement to be your Bishop unto whom alone I commit the Chair of my Preaching and Doctrine And I give to him that power of binding and loosing which Christ gave to me And what then I Ordain then he had it Ans not as Peters Successor by Divine Right but as a Gift and Legacy of St. Peter 2. This Clement a foul blot to the Story For it 's plain in Records that Linus continued Bishop eleven years after Peter's death and Cletus twelve after Linus before Clemens had the Chair Your Bishop Euseb in Chron. that is the Bishop of Rome what 's this to the Vniversal Bishop And I give to him what the Chair of Preaching and Doctrine and the power of the Keys viz. no more than is given to every Bishop at his Ordination Now 't is observable though this pitiful Story signifie Vid. Raynolds and Hart. p. 269 c. just nothing yet what strange Arts and stretches of invention are forced to support it and to render it possible though all in vain SECT IV. Arg. 2. Bishop of Antioch did not Succeed Ergo of Rome BEllarmine argues more subtilly yet supposeth Arg. 2 more strongly than he argues Pontifex Romanus the High-Priest of Rome succeeded St. Peter dying at Rome in his whole dignity and power for there was never any that affirmed himself to be St. Peter's Successor any way or was accounted for such besides the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Antioch But the Bishop of Antioch did not succeed St. Peter in pontificatu Ecclesiae totius therefore the Bishop of Rome did He supposeth that St. Peter's Successor succeeded Ans him in all his dignity and power but 't is acknowledged by his friends there was no Succession of the Apostolick but only of the Episcopal power 2. If so then Linus Cletus and Clemens should have had dignity and power over John and the other Apostles who lived
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
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
had and exercised after the Empire became Christian only it seems very clear that Constantine and the other eminent Christian Emperors never made any Ecclesiastical Laws without the Counsel of Bishops but only in Confirmation or for the Execution of Ecclesiastical Canons Yet it cannot be denied but they called Councils they approved their Canons and afterwards enter'd them into the body of their Laws and still ratified the Sentences of Ecclesiastical Judges with Civil penalties 3. Nor yet is' t my present Province to recollect what Influence Imperial Christian Rome had upon the Tender Age and immature State of the new born Church of England though we do not deny but it might be considerable both as to the Form and Order of our External Jurisdiction in our inferiour Ministers and ancient Canons But how great soever it was it was at first only by way of Example and Direction and when afterwards it was by Command it was such Command as according to the Rights and Constitution of this Church had no Legal obligation upon us but by our own consent and as it became part of our own Establishment either by Custom or express Law upon such an occasion the ancient State of England cry out Nolumus mutare Leges Angliae This Realm hath been and is free from Subjection to any mans Laws but only to such as have been devised within this Realm or to such other as by sufferance of your Grace and your Progenitors the people of this Realm have taken at their free liberty by their own consent to be used amongst them and have bound themselves by long use and Custom to the observance thereof not as to the observance of the Laws of any foreign Prince 25 Hen. 8. 21. For as Coke declares in Cawdries Case as the Romans fetching diverse Laws from Athens yet being approved and allowed by the State there called them Jus Civile Romanorum and as the Normans borrowing all or most of their Laws from England yet baptized them by the name of the Laws or Customs of Normandy so albeit the Kings of England derived their Ecclesiastical Laws from others yet so many as be proved approved and allowed here by and with a general consent are aptly and rightly called The Kings Ecclesiastical Laws of England 4. As for the Inferior Ministers in the Ecclesiastical Courts that seem to be so offensive to weak people that they are not Popish or so slanderously to be reported there is this plain demonstration that these Courts are the Kings Courts and the Laws thereof are the Kings Laws and that notwithstanding all the severe Statutes especially since the Reformation against all foreign Jurisdiction and all such as act under or by vertue of any foreign Power within this Realm yet such Ministers are both permitted and required to execute their places in the said Courts by the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom But grave Mr. Hickeringill saith there is not the least Specimen of Chancellors Registers Sumners Officials Commissaries Advocates Notaries Surrogates c. or any ejusdem farinae in holy Writ and hence 't is learnedly inferred by some that we have made so many new Officers in the Church of Christ But how witless and Quaker-like is this and how unlike Mr. Hickeringill I should suspect he would call for Scripture for an hour-Glass and for Clerks and Sextons were it not that he is so palpably in the service of a vile Hypothesis that will stand upon no better grounds for he knows that these are not so many new Officers of the Church but only Assistants allow'd by Law under Bishops and such other Spiritual men as have proper power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction he knows there is no other Canon but the Law of the Land and that the Civil Magistrate hath power to tell us what is Scripture and that he hath told us S. Paul ' s Epistles are so where we read of helps in 1 Cor. 12. 28. Government and that Chancellors Commissaries Officials and Surrogates are but such helps under different names from the several ways and degrees of their Delegation That Registers are but to make and keep the Acts of Court c. Advocates and Proctors to order and manage Causes and Apparators to serve Processe and execute Mandates and that none but one in Orders meddles with the Keys either for Excommunication or Absolution Mr. Hickeringill is a man of great experience in Spiritual Jurisdiction and need not be told of these plain matters 5. And seeing the Statist will not be quieted but by Argument taken from Law I have written the following Treatise wherein I hope I have sufficiently demonstrated that our Ecclesiastical Courts are Establish'd in the Laws and Statutes of this Kingdom Our Magna Charta it self or the great Charter of the English Liberties doth suppose and acknowledge the Legal exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by the forementioned Ministers as one of the Ancient Rights and Liberties of this Church and doth also ratifie confirm and establish it for ever at least in the Judgment of my Lord Coke in these words This Charter is Declaratory of the Ancient Law and Liberty of England Et habeat omnia Jura sua integra that is that all Ecclesiastical persons shall enjoy all their lawful Jurisdictions and other their Rights wholy without any Diminution or Substraction whatsoever and Jura sua shew plainly that no new right was given unto them but such as they had before hereby are Confirmed Libertates suas illaesas Libertates are here taken in two Sences 1. For the Laws of England 2. For Priviledges held by Parliament Charter or Prescription more than Ordinary Coke Magna Charta By all which Titles the Church of England Ecclesia non Moritur but Moriuntur Ecclesiastici holds her Ancient Liberty of keeping Courts to this day 6. Yet I do not say but the manner of proceedings in these Courts may be justly and reasonably altered as his gracious Majesty may be advised and yet the true Liberty of the Church be rather fortified than Violated Therefore after some Overtures made lately by a far greater Person in a larger Sphere my Narrower subject may suffer me humbly to offer my thoughts touching some Alterations that perhaps might not prejudice our Ecclesiastical Ministers or their Courts with all due submission to my Superiors These things following have been long in my thoughts 1. That a speedier way might be appointed for the dispatch of Causes in the Spiritual Courts than the present Legal Rules thereof will allow 2. That trivial matters such as small Tithes and Church-Rates might be summarily ended without exposing the solemn Sentence of Excommunication as is generally complain'd Especially considering that the Statute touching the Writ de Excom capi as well as Vulgar apprehension makes a difference in Original Causes though indeed the immediate cause of all Excommunication is always the contempt of the King 's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in not obeying either its Summons or Sentence both these
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
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
and had Power by the Law of the Land to try such Causes as were not to be tried by Common Law so declared and Establish'd by Acts of Parliament Vid. in the time of Edw. 1. and Edw. 2. near four Hundred years since Circumspecte agatis 13 Edw. 1. An. 1285. The King to his Judges sendeth greeting Use your selves circumspectly in all matters concerning the Bishop of Norwich and his Clergy not punishing them if they hold Plea in things as be meer Spiritual as Penance enjoyned by Prelates Corporal or Pecuniary for Fornication Adultery or such like for Tithes and Oblations due and accustomed Reparations of the Church and Church-yard Mortuaries Pensions laying violent hands upon a Clerk Causes of Defamation Perjury All such demands are to be made in the Spiritual Courts and the Spiritual Judge shall have power to take knowledge of them notwithstanding the Kings Prohibition III. Hereupon a Consultation was to be granted 24 Edw. 1. as followeth Whereas Ecclesiastical Judges have often surceased to proceed by force of the Kings Writ of Prohibition in Cases whereas Remedy could not be had in the Kings Courts our Lord the King Willeth and Commandeth That where Ecclesiastical Judges do surcease in the aforesaid Cases by the Kings Prohibition that the Chancellor or the Chief Justice upon sight of the Libel at the instance of the Plaintiff if they can see that the Case cannot be redressed by Writ out of Chancery but that the Spiritual Court ought to determine the Matters shall write to the Ecclesiastical Judge that he proceed therein notwithstanding the Kings Prohibition More particularly Those Cases reserved by Law and Statute against which no Prohibition can be legally granted are enumerated in Articul Cleri 9 Edw. 2. IV. Thus the proceedings of the Spiritual Courts and the Causes belonging to them were supposed directed allowed and Establish'd by these Ancient Statutes And lest those Causes have not been sufficiently specified no Prohibition shall be awarded out of Chancery but in Case where we have the connusance and of Right ought to have as it is in the 18 of Edw. 3. provided Whence 't is a general Rule both in Law and Statute That such cases as have no remedy provided in the other Law belong to the Spiritual Courts and indeed it hence appears they have ever done so because we no where find in our Laws that the Common Law did ever provide for them and because the Kingdom of England is an intire Empire where the King is furnish'd with a Temporalty and Spiritualty sufficient to administer Justice to all persons and in all Causes whatsoever And consequently what Causes are not in the connusance of the Common Law belong to the Spiritual Jurisdiction which is plainly implied in 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. and other Statutes Upon the same ground in Law depend three great truths 1. The Antiquity of Ecclesiastical Courts 2. Their dependance upon the Crown 3. The perfection of the Government to administer Justice in all cases to all persons from the Supream Power exercised in the Temporal and Spiritual Courts all which lie in the Preamble of that Statute according to our Ancient Laws For saith my Lord Coke in the conclusion of Cawdries Case it hath appeared as well by the ancient Common Laws of this Realm by the Resolution of the Judges and Sages of the Laws of England in all succession of Ages as by Authority of many Acts of Parliament ancient and of latter times That the Kingdom of England is an absolute Monarchy and that the King is the only Supream Governour as well over Ecclesiastical persons and in Ecclesiastical Causes as Temporal To the due observation of which Laws both the King and the Subject are sworn V. IF you desire a more full and particular account of such Cases as being not provided for at Common Law are therefore and have been ever under the Spiritual power take this excellent Enumeration of my Lord Cawdries Case Coke Observe good Reader seeing that the determination of Heresies Schisms and Errors in Religion Ordering Examination Admission Institution and Deprivation of men of the Church which do concern God's true Religion and Service of right of Matrimony Divorces and general Bastardy whereupon depend the strength of mens Descents and Inheritances of Probate of Testaments and Letters of Administration without which no debt or duty due to any dead man can be recovered by the Common Law Mortuaries Pensions Procurations Reparations of Churches Simony Incest Adultery Fornication and Incontinency and some others doth not belong to the Common Law how necessary it was for administration of Justice that his Majestie 's Progenitors Kings of this Realm did by publick Authority authorize Ecclesiastical Courts under them to determine those great and important Causes Ecclesiastical exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Common Law by the Kings Laws Ecclesiastical which was done originally for two causes 1. That Justice should be administred under the Kings of this Realm within their own Kingdom to all their Subjects and in all causes 2. That the Kings of England should be furnished upon all occasions either foreign or domestical with Learned Professors as well of the Ecclesiastical as Temporal Laws VI. Ecclesiastical Laws are the Kings Laws though Processe be not in the Kings Name Now albeit the proceedings and Processe of the Ecclesiastical Courts be in the Name Coke Cawdr Case latter end of the Bishops c. it followeth not therefore that either the Court is not the Kings or the Law whereby they proceed is not the King's Law For taking one example for many every Leet or View of Frank-pledge holden by a Subject is kept in the Lords Name and yet it is the Kings Court and all the proceedings therein are directed by the Kings Laws VII Spiritual Causes secured from Prohibitions notwithstanding by Acts of Parliament Lord Coke Cawdries Case in Edw. 2. Albeit by the Ordinance of Circumspecte agatis made in the 13 year of Edw. 1. and N. B. by general allowance and usage the Ecclesiastical Court held Plea of Tithes Obventions Oblations Mortuaries Redemptions of Penance laying of violent hands upon a Clerk Defamations c. yet did not the Clergie think themselves assured nor quiet from Prohibitions purchased by Subjects until that King Edw. the Second by his Letters Patents under the Great Seal in and by consent of Parliament upon the Petitions of the Clergie had granted unto them to have Jurisdiction in those Cases The King in a Parliament holden in the Ninth year of his Reign after particular Answers made to their Petitions concerning the matters abovesaid doth grant and give his Royal assent in these words We desiring as much of right as we may to provide for the state of the Church of England and the tranquillity and quiet of the Prelates of the said Clergie to the honour of God and the amendment of the state of the said Church and of the Prelates and Clergie ratifying and approving all and singular the said