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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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