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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nice 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 own Bishops but to the African Councils and Mileve 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 dispat 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 Sol. The words of the Council are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 and that nothing but power to revew is More of Conc. Sar. hereafter here given to the Bishop of Rome are both fully manifested by the Arch-Bishop of Paris Petr. de Marc. 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. Lï 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 wbich is more why doth the Eastern Church not reckon it among their Seven
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. c. 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 Obj. But one great point of practice is here pitcht 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 Sol. But where hath he done these strange feats 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 Antioch 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 Obj. But T. C. urgeth that we read of no less than eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome Sol. Where doth he read it In an Epistle of Pope 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. Obj. Did not Sixtus the third depose Policronius Bishop of Jerusalem Sol. No. He only sent eight Persons from a Synod 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 Tom. 2. Con. p. 685. Condemns those very acts that report this story for Spurious 3. But have we any better proof of the Popes power to restore such as were deposed Restoring Patriarchs 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 usurp 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 itself Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus the Pope of Decret p. 1. dis 99. n. 1◠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 Universal 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 called Universalis then sure nothing was added Dr. Ham. disp disp p. 418 419. 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 it that reason required the contrary that Epis ex Reg. l. 8. indic 1. c. 30. c. 4. ind 13. c. 72 76. 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 sidenter 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 Empress l. 4. Ep. 34. Yea an Imitation of none Lib. 4. Ep. 38. 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 consent to it do fidem perdere destroy the Ibid. Ep 32 40. 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 cause but the cause of God of the whole Church Ibid. Ep. 32. 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 abominates or that he really exercised that Vniversal Authority and Universal Bishoprick though he
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 how ever A. C. Term it for Arch-Bishop Iren. l. 3. â— 3. 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 est 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 Obj. Lastly It is acknowledged that Pope Gregory doth say that if there be any fault in Bishops Eph. 65. ind 2. 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 Sol. Indeed this smells of his ambition and design 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 Com. Tom. 5. p. 60. E. â— 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 Confâ—ssor 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 pâ— 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 Mâ—livetane 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 Object They say the Law reacheth not the difference between Patriarchs themselves Sol. But if there should happen a difference betwixt 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 and it doth so undeniably as appears in Can. 28. the Authentick Collection of the African Canons non provocent adtransmarina 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 Obj. Perron and others say this clause was not in the ancient Milevetan Canons Sol. Have they nothing else but this groundless 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 Codex canonum Ecclesiae 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 Hincmarmus proves as well as others Gratius confesseth it but adds this Antidote Nifi 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 Obj. But A. C. urgeth the Epistle of that Council to Boniface as was before noted and thence proves that the Council acknowledged that Bishops had power in their own cause to appeal to Rome Sol. 'T is true they do say that in a Letter written 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 the Nicene Canons they were contented to yield that it should be so till the true Canons were produced Now what can the Reader desire
Statute as also by another 28 Hen. 8. 16. and placed in or rather reduced to the Jurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury saving the Rights of the See of York in all Causes convenient and necessary for the Honour and Safety of the King the Wealth and Profit of the Realm and not repugnant to the Laws of Almighty God The Grounds of removing this Power from the Pope as they are expressed in that excellent Preamble to the said Statute 25 Hen. 8. are worthy our Reflexion they are 1. The Pope's Vsurpation in the Premises 2. His having obtained an Opinion in many of the people that he had full Power to dispence with all humane Laws Uses and Customs in all Causes Spiritual 3. He had practised this strange Usurpation for many years 4. This his practice was in great derogation of the Imperial Crown of this Realm 5. England recognizeth no Superior under God but the King only and is free from Subjection to any Laws but such as are ordained within this Realm or admitted Customs by our own Consent and Usage and not as Laws of any Forreign Power 6. And lastly that according to Natural Equity the whole State of our Realm in Parliament hath this Power in it and peculiar to it to dispence with alter Abrogate c. our own Laws and Customs for Publick good which Power appears by wholsom Acts of Parliament made before the Reign of Henry the Eighth in the time of his Progenitors For these Reasons it was Enacted in those Statutes of Henry the Eighth That no Subject of England should sue for Licences c. henceforth to the Pope but to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Now 't is confessed before and in the Preamble to the Statute that the Pope had used this Power for many years but this is noted as an Aggravation of the Grievance and one Reason for Redress but whether he enjoyed it from the time of Saint dustine or how long quietly is the proper question especially seeing the Laws of the Land made by King Henry's Predecessors are pleaded by him in contradiction to it Yea who will come forth and shew us one Instance No Instance 1110 years after Christ of a Papal Dispensation in England for the first eleven hundred years after Christ if not five hundred of the nine hundred years Prescription and the first five hundred too as well as the first eleven hundred of the fifteen are lost to the Popes and gained to the Prescription of the Church of England But Did not the Church of England without any reference to the Court of Rome use this Power during the first eleven hundred years what man is so hardly as to deny it against the multitude of plain Instances in History Did not our Bishops relax the Rigor of Ecclesiastical Canons did not all Bishops all over the Christian World do the like before the Monopoly was usurped In the Laws of Alured alone and in the conjoynt Laws of Alured and Gunthrun how many Gervis Dorober p. 1648. sorts of Ecclesiastical Crimes were dispensed with by the Sole Authority of the King and Church of England and the like we find in the Laws of Spel. Conc. p. 364. c. some other Saxon Kings Dunstan the Arch Bishop had Excommunicated a great Count he made his peace at Rome the Pope commands his Restitution Dunstan answered I will obey the Pope willingly when I Ibid. p. 481. see him penitent but it is not God's will that he should lie in his sin free from Ecclesiastical Discipline to insult over us God forbid that I should relinquish the Law of Christ for the Cause of any Mortal man this great Instance doth two things at once justifieth the arch-Arch-Bishops and destroyeth the Pope's Authority in the Point The Church of England dispensed with those irreligious Nuns in the days of Lanfrank with the Council of the King and with Queen Maud the Wife of Henry the First in the like Case in the days of Anselm without any Suit to Rome or Forreign Dispensation Lanfr Ep. 32. Eadm l. 3. p. 57. These are great and notorious and certain Instances and when the Pope had usurped this Power afterwards As the Selected Cardinals Stile the avaritious Dispensations of the Pope Sacrilegious Vulnera Legum so our Statutes of Provisors expresly 27 Ed. 3. say they are the undoing and Destruction of the Common Law of the Land accordingly The King Lords and Commons complained of this abuse as a Mighty Grievance of the frequent coming among them of this Infamous Math. Par. Au. 1245. Messenger the Pope's non-obstante that is his Dispensations by which Oaths Customs Writings Grants Statutes Rights Priviledges were not only weakned but made void Sometimes these dispensative Bulls came to legal Trials Boniface the Eighth dispensed with the law where the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was Visitor of the University of Oxford and by his Bull exempted the Vniversity from his Jurisdiction and that Bull was decreed void in Parliament by two Successive Kings as being obtained to the prejudice of the Crown the weakning of the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom and the probable Ruine of the said University Ex Arch. Tur. Londini Ex Antiq. Acad. Cantab. p. 91. In interruption of this Papal Vsurpation were those many Laws made in 25 Edw. 1. and 35 Et 12 Rich. 2. Edw. 1. 25 Edw. 3. and 27 and 28 Edw. 3. and afterwards more expresly in the sixteenth of Richard the Second where complaining of Processes and Censures upon Bishops of England because they executed the King's Comandments in his Courts they express the mischiefs to be the Dismherison of the Crown the Destruction of the King Laws and Realm that the Crown of England is subject to none under God and both the Clergy and Laity severally and severely protest to defend it against the Pope and the same King contested the Point himself with him and would not yield it An Excommunication by the Arch-Bishop albeit it be disanulled by the Pope is to be allowed Lord Coke Cawdrie's Case by the Judges against the Sentence of the Pope according to the 16 Edw. 3. Titl Excom 4. For the Pope's Bulls in special our Laws have abundantly provided against them as well in case of Excommunication as Exemption vid. 30 Edw. 3. lib. Ass pl. 19. and the abundant as is evidenced by my Lord Coke out of our English Laws in Cawd Case p. 15. he mentions a particular Case wherein the Bull was pleaded for Evidence that a Person stood Excommunicate by the Pope but it was not allowed because no Certificate appeared from any Bishop of England 31 Edw. 3. Title Excom 6. The same again 8 Hen. 6. fol. 3. 12 Edw. 4. fol. 16. R. 3. 1 Hen. 7. fol. 20. So late as Henry the Fourth if any Person of Stat. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3. Religion obtain of the Bishop of Rome to be Exempt from Obedience Regular or Ordinary he is in
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 Argument We conclude from the premises that now 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 be 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 quae 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. a general Council and so approved by all Popes Predecessors and Successors of St. Gregory and St. Gregory himself Bin. To. 2. Not. in con Const 5. 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 Sergius of Constantinople SECT VIII Concil Gen. 8. Constant 383 Bishops An. 870. Conclusions from them all HOw did this eighth general Council recognize the Popes Supremacy Binius himself Tom. 3. p. 149. 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 Postscript 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 Infer 1. That the Fathers during eight hundred and seventy years after Christ knew no such thing as the Popes Supremacy by divine
in the Vatican there after he had planted a Christian Church first at Antioch and afterwards at Rome S. Hierom. Page 246. 247. S. Peter 's Martyrdom Ioh. 21. 18. 19. Verily verily I say unto thee when thou wast young thou girdedst thy self walkedst whither thou wouldst but when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands another shall gird thee carry thee whither thou wouldst not This spake he signifying by what death he should glorify God 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 there-of to be shewn Jure divino SECT V. Arg. 3. St. Peter dyed at Rome Then de Facto not de Fide Arg. 3 BEllarmine saith the Succession it self is Jure 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 Ans In short if the Succession of the Bishop of Rome 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 divino vel imperio Christi But when the uncertainty of that Fact on which the Right of so 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 Arg. BEllarmine tells us boldly that the Primacy 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 Ans These great words are no Arguments the matter hath been examined under all these Topicks 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 an 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. Ar. 5 A Primacy was given to Peter for preventing Schism as St. Hierom saith Now hence they urge that a mere precedency of Order is not sufficient for that Ans The Inference is not divine it is not St. Hieroms it is only for St. Peter and reacheth not the Pope Besides it plainly argues a mistake of St. Jerom's assertion and would force him to a Lib. 1. Jov. c. 14. 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 Ar. 6 ST Chrysostom saith the Care of the Church 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 Ans True the Care and power of a Bishop not 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 Arg. 7 THere is one Chair saith Optatus quae prima est de Dotibus in which Peter sate first Linus succeeded him and Clemens Linus Optatus speaks nothing against the Title or power
or two or more passages out of single Fathers are sufficient to bear away the Cause in so great a Point seeing they themselves will not suffer the Testimony of many of the same Fathers to carry it for us in a Point of the least Concernment In the mean time I most confidently conclude that the Pope's Supremacy hath not the Consent of the Primitive Fathers as Bellarmine boasts and that what ever he would have them say they did not believe and therefore not intend to say that the Pope was absolute Monarch of the Catholick Church and consequently that there was no such Tradition in the Primitive Ages either before or during the time of the eight first General Councils is to me a Demonstration evident for these Reasons Reas 1 The eight first General Councils being all Called and Convened by the Authority of Emperors stand upon Record as a notable Monument of the former Ages of the Catholick Church in prejudice to the Papal Monarchy as Saint Peter's Successor in those times the first eight General Councils saith Cusanus were gathered Concord Cathol l. 2. c. 25. by Authority of Emperors and not of Popes insomuch that Pope Leo was glad to entreat the Emperor Theodosius the younger for the gathering of a Council in Italy and non obtinuit could not obtain it Reas 2 Every one of these Councils opposed this pretended Monarchy of the Pope the first by stating the limits of the Roman Diocess as well as other Patriarchates the second by concluding the Roman Primacy not to be grounded upon Divine Authority and setting up a Partriarch of Constantinople against the Pope's Will the third by inhibiting any Bishop whatsoeve to ordain Bishops within the Isle of Cyprus the fourth by advancing the Bishop of Constantinople to equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome notwithstanding the Pope's earnest opposition against it the fifth in condemning the Sentence of Pope Vigilius although very vehement in the cause the sixth and seventh in condemning Pope Honorius of Heresie and the eight and last by imposing a Canon upon the Church of Rome and challenging obedience thereunto Reas 3 This must pass for the unquestionable Sence of the Catholick Church in those Ages viz. for the space of above 540 years together from the first General Council of Nice for our Adversaries themselves stile every one of the General Councils the Catholick Church and what was their Belief was the Faith of the whole Church and what their belief was hath appeared viz. that the Pope had not absolute power over the Church Jure Divino an Opinion abhorred by their contrary Sentences and practises Reas 4 'T is observed by a Learned man that the Fathers which flourished in all those eight Councils were in Number 2280. how few Friends 2280 Fathers had the Pope left to equal and Countermand them or what Authority had they to do it yea name one eminent Father either Greek or Latine that you count a Friend to the Pope and in those Ages whose name we cannot shew you in one of those Councils if so hear the Church the Judgment of single Fathers is not to be received against their Joint Sentences and Acts in Councils 't is your own Law now where is the Argument for the Pope's Authority from the Fathers they are not to be believ'd against Councils they spake their Sence in this very Point as you have heard in the Councils and in all the Councils rejected and condemned it Reas 5 The belief of these eight General Councils is the professed Faith of the Roman Church Therefore the Roman Church hath been involved Rome's contradiction of Faith and entangled at least ever since the Council of Trent in the Confusion and Contradiction of Faith and that in Points necessary to Salvation For the Roman Church hold it necessary to Salvation to believe all the eight General Councils as the very Faith of the Catholick Church and we have found all these Councils have one way or other declared plainly against the Pope's Bull. Pii 4. Supremacy and yet the same Church holds it necessary to Salvation to believe the contrary by the Council of Trent viz. that the Pope is Supreme Bishop and absolute Monarch of the Catholick Church Some Adversaries would deal more severely Rome's Heresie with the Church of Rome upon this Point and charge her with Heresie in this as well as in many other Articles for there is a Repugnancy in the Roman Faith that seems to infer no less than Heresie one way or other he that believes the Article of the Pope's Supremacy denies in effect the eight first General Councils at least in that Point and that 's Heresie And he that believes the Council of Trent believes the Article of the Pope's Supremacy therefore he that believes the Council of Trent does not believe the eight first General Councils and is guilty of Heresie Again he that believes that the Pope is not Supreme denies the Council of Trent and the Faith of the present Church and that 's Heresie and he that believes the eight first general Councils believes that the Pope is not Supreme therefore he denies the Council of Trent and the Faith of the present Church and is an Heretick with a witness 'T is well if the Argument conclude here c. Infidelity and extend not its Consequence to the charge of Infidelity as well as Heresie upon the present Roman Church seeing this Repugnancy in the Roman Faith seems to destroy it altogether for He that believes the Pope's Supremacy in the Sence of the Modern Church of Rome denies the Faith of the Ancient Church in that point and he that believes it not denies the Faith of the present Church and the present Church of Rome that professeth both believes neither These contrary Faiths put together like two contrary Salts mutually destroy one another He that believes that doth not believe this he that believes this doth not believe that Therefore he that professeth to believe both doth plainly profess he believes neither Load not others with the crimes of Heresie and Infidelity but Pull the beams out of your own eye Reas 6 But the charge falls heavier upon the Head of Popes Schism and Perjury the present Roman Church For not only Heresie and Infidelity but Schism and the foulest that ever the Church groaned under and such as the greatest Wit can hardly distinguish from Apostacy and all aggravated with the horrid crime of direct and self-condemning Perjury fasten themselves to his Holiness's Chair from the very constitution of the Papacy it self For the Pope as such professeth to believe and sweareth to govern the Church according to the Canons of the 8 first general Councils yet openly Greg. â— Bin. To. 3. p. 1196. Innoc. 3. Boâ—if 8. Catechis Ro. Nu. 10 11 and 13. claims and professedly practiseth a Power condemned by them all Thus Quatenus Pope he stands guilty of separation from the Ancient Church
Furtivè as Baronius inter Actarelatus Ans This is beyond all colour for the Bishops of Rome opposed it as unfit yet never said it was forged Leo Gelasius Gregory all took it very ill but no one said it was false The Popes Legates also in the Council of Calcedon made mention of this Canon by way of Opposition but yet never offered at its being surreptitious But that which is instar omnium in this Evidence is this the Fathers of the Council of Calcedon in their Letters to Pope Leo say that with mutual consent they confirmed the Canon of 150 Bishops at Const notwithstanding that his Bishops and Legates did dissent therefrom Now what if a few Histories do not mention this Canon which is all that remains to be said Socrates and Zozomon do and two positive Witnesses are better than twenty Negative Besides though it s much against the Hair of Rome yet it 's so evident that Gratian himself reports that Canon verbatim as Acted in that Council SECT IV. Objections against the Third General Council at Ephesus answered Obj. 1 IT is said by Bellarmine that they confessed they deposed Nestorius by the Command of Pope Celestine Ans 1 We answer that Command should appear in the Popes Letters to them but it doth not the stile of Command was not then in use for almost 200 years after Pope Gregory abhors it Li 7. Ep. 30. 2. The words intended are these tum Ecclesiae canonibus tum Epistolà Patris Celestini Verb. Conc. de Nest l. 1. c. 4. Collegae nostri compulsi They were compelled both by the Canons and by his Letters therefore they did it by the Popes Command an excellent consequence from the part to the whole Indeed they first shew that they were satisfied both by his Words and Letters that he had deserved deposition and then acknowledge they ought by the Canons and no doubt would have deposed him as well as John of Antioch shortly after without the Popes Authority though they give this Complement to Celestine for his seasonable advice grounded upon the Canons and merits of the Cause Obj. 2 But the Council say they durst not Judge John Bishop of Antioch and that they reserved him to the Judgment of Pope Celestine Ans Strange Bellarmine hence 1. Denies matter of Fact mentioned in the very same Paragraph They durst not depose this Patriarch when they tell the Pope in terminis they had done it Se illum prius excommunicasse omni potestate sacerdotali exuisse What is this but Deposition 2. He hence concludes a wonderful Right that the Pope is absolutely above a General Council a conclusion denied by their own general Councils of Constance and Basil ever disclaimed by the Doctors of Paris as contrary to Antiquity and which no Council since the beginning of Christianity did expresly decree as Dr. Stapleton himself confesseth and therefore flies to Silence as consent Quamvis nullo decreto publico tamen tacito doctorum consensu definita c. doctr princ l. 13. c. 15. But all this is evidently against both the sence of the Council declared in this point and the reason of the Canon it self 1. They sufficiently declared their sence in the very Epistle alledged where speaking of the points constituted by the Pope We say they have judged them to stand firm wherofore we agree with you in one sentence and do hold them meaning Pelagius and others to be deposed So that instead of the Popes confirming Acts of Councils this Council confirms the Acts of the Pope whom indeed they plainly call their Colleague and Fellow-worker Epis Syn. 2. In the Acts or Canons their reason and very words establishing the Cyprian Priviledge as hath been shewn they bound and determine the power of Rome as well as other Patriarchates and certainly they therefore never intended to acknowledge the absolute Monarchy of the Pope over themselves by reserving John of Antioch to Celestine after they had deposed him they declare their own end plainly enough Vt illius temeritatem animi lenitate vinceremus that is as you have it in Binius Celestine might try whether by any reason he could bring him to a better mind that so he might be received into favour again SECT V. Objections touching the Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth General Councils especially Touching the Fourth General Council of Calcedon answered Conclusion Obj. 1 THis Council stiled the Pope Oecumenical Patriarch or Vniversal Bishop The Title was not given by the Council it self Bellar. but by two Deacons writing to the Council and of Paschasius the Popes Legate in the Council 2. Though the Council did not question the form of the Title yet no one can think that they either intended to grant or acknowledge the Popes Vniversal Authority by such their silence For 't is incredible that the same Council which gave equal Priviledges to Constantinople should give or acknowledge an Vniversal Jurisdiction to Rome over the whole Church 3. But the words answer themselves Vniversali Archiepiscopo magnae Romae Universal Arch. Bishop Conc. Calc Act. 3. not of the whole Church but of Great Rome Which grand Restriction denies that Universal Power which they would argue from it The stile of the Roman Emperor is Vniversal Emperor of Rome and thus is distinguished from the Emperor of Turky and all others and denieth him to be the Emperor of the whole world Obj. Saith Binius in Annot. in Conc. Calced Act 3. ex Baron The Title at first was the Bishop of the Vniversal Church because it is so read in the Epistle of Leo but was altered by some Greek Scribe in envy to the Church of Rome Ans 'T is likely that a private man could or durst alter the Stile of a General Council against the dignity of the Pope his Legate present but 't is more likely that some Latine Scribe hath added that Inscription to the Epistle of Pope Leo in honour of the Church of Rome as is confessed by Cusanus to have been done to the Epistle of Anacletus and by Baronius to have been done to the Epistle of Pope Boniface and by three other Popes themselves unto the Council of Nice viz. Zosimus Boniface and Celestinus And the rather because as was just now noted this Council at the same time honoured the Bishop of Constantinople with equal Priviledges to the Bishop of Rome Obj. 3 Pope Leo opposed this Decree of the Council and disclaimed it Ans No wonder but it seems General Councils were not always of the Popes mind and the Pope would then have had a greater Priviledge than a General Council and if that was a General Council as they themselves say it was the Controversie is ended For by their own confession this General Council made a Decree against the Popes pretences of Superiority and therefore it did not intend by the Title of Bishop of the whole Church to acknowledge that Superiority which he pretended and that Council of
Right he acknowledgeth they cannot find it where it ought to be found in the Publick Decrees of the Church if a Divine Right he confesseth the Fathers denied it before the Council of Constance and he knows that Council condemn'd it Stapleton at length affirms that now no Catholick doubts but the Pope's Primacy is of Divine Right whence the heart of the Roman Cause is stabb'd by these clear and sharp Conclusions 1. Concl. That all Catholicks of the present Roman Church do now hold a New Article touching the Pope's Primacy not known to the Fathers before the Council of Constance An. 1415. and condemned by that Council as an Error 2. Concl. That therein the Faith of the present Roman Church stands counter to the Faith Decrees and Practices of all the first General Councils consisting of Fathers that flourished therein long before the Council of Constance i. e. in their own sence the Ancient Catholick Church You will find that the Evidence hereof ariseth not only from the Words of Stapleton but from the Decrees of all the first eight General Councils every one of them one way or other expresly declaiming that Supremacy which the Pope and his present Church would arrogate and in those Councils all the Fathers and the Catholick Church are confessedly concluded and consequently Antiquity Infallibility and Tradition are not to be found at Rome The Sum is the Church of England that holds the true Ancient Catholick Faith and the four first General Councils and hath the Evidence of four more in the Point cannot be blamed for rejecting or not readmitting a Novel and groundless Usurpation contrary to them all and contrary also to the Profession of the present Roman Church that pretends to believe that the Faith of the eight first general Councils is the Catholick Faith Imprimatur GUIL JANE R. P. D. HEN. Episc LOND Ã Sacris Domest Jan. 24. 1678. THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS and SECTIONS THe Introduction The Design The Controversie contracted into one point viz. Schism Page 1 CHAP. I. The Definition of Schism Sect. 1. Of the Act of it p. 3 Sect. 2. The Subject of Schism p. 4 Sect. 3. The Object of Schism 1. Faith p. 7 2. Worship p. 9 3. Government p. 11 Sect. 4. The Conditions Causeless Voluntary p. 14 Sect. 5. The Application of Schism 't is not applicable to us p. 16 In the Act. p. 17 Or Cause p. 19 Sect. 6. The Application of it to the Romanists p. 20 Sect. 7. The charge retorted upon them p. 21 The Controversie broken into two Points The Authority The Cause p. 23 CHAP. II. An Examination of the Papal Authority in England Five Arguments proposed and briefly reflected on p. 24 1. Conversion 2. Prescription 3. Western Patriarchate 4. Infallibility 5. Succession p. 25 CHAP. III. Of the Pope 's claim from our Conversion by Eleutherius Gregory p. 28 CHAP. IV. His claim as Patriarch Four Propositions laid down 1. The Pope was Patriarch of the West p. 32 2. He had then a limited Jursdiction p. 33 3. His Patriarchate did not include Brittain p. 35 4. A Patriarch and Vniversal Bishop inconsistent p. 37 CHAP. V. The Third Papal claim Prescription The Case stated p. 39 Their Plea Our Answer in three Positions viz. 1. The Pope never had possession absolutely 2. That which he had could never create a Title 3. However his Title extinguish'd with his possession p. 40 CHAP. VI. The Papacy of no power here for the first 600 years Augustine Dionoth in fact or faith p. 41. c. Sect. 1. No one part of Papal Jurisdiction was exercised here for six hundred years not Ordination till 1100 years after Christ c. nor any other p. 46 Sect. 2. No possession of Belief of his Jurisdiction then in England or Scotland p. 52 Sect. 3. This belief could have no ground in the Ancient Canons Apostolic Nicen. Milev c. p. 54 Sect. 4. Of Concil Sardi Calced Constantinop p. 56 Sect. 5. Arabick Canons forged not of Nice p. 60 Sect. 6. Ancient practice interpreted the Canons against the Pope Disposing of Patriarchs S. Cyprian S. Augustine 's sence in practice p. 63 Sect. 7. The Sayings of Ancient Popes Agathe Pelagius Gregory Victor against the pretence of Supremacy p. 69 Sect. 8. The words of the Imperial Law against him p. 90 Sect. 9. The Conclusion touching possession in the first Ages vix six hundred years from Christ p. 97 CHAP. VII The Pope had not full possession here before Hen. 8. I. Not in St. Augustine 's time nor after p. 100 Sect. 1. Not in St. Augustine 's time ibid. A true State of the question betwixt the Pope and the King of England in seven particulars p 102 Sect. 2. No clear or full possession in the Ages after Austine till Hen. 8. p 104 In eight distinctions of Supremacy ibid. The question stated by them p. 105 CHAP. VIII What Supremacy Hen. 8. took from the Pope the particulars of it with Notes upon them p. 107. c. CHAP. IX Whether the Pope 's possession here was a quiet possession till Hen. 8. as to the Point of Supremacy p. 109 Sect. 1. Of Appeals to Rome Three Notions of Appeal Appeals to Rome Locally or by Legates Wilfrid Anselm ibid. Sect. 2. Of the possession by Legates the occasion of them here their entertainment p. 117 CHAP. X. Of the Pope's Legislative power here before Hen. 8. Canons oblige us not without our Consent our Kings Saxon Danish Norman made Ecclesiastical Laws p. 126 CHAP. XI Of the Power of Papal Licenses c. in Edw. 1. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Hen. 7 ' s. time p. 133 CHAP. XII The Patronage of this Church ever in our own Kings by History by Law p. 140 CHAP. XIII Of Peter-pence and other payments to the Pope p. 149 First-Fruits p. 151 Payments extraordinary p. 154 Casual p. 156 CHAP. XIV The Conclusion of the Argument of Prescription 't is on our side p 158 On their side of no force p. 159 CHAP. XV. The Plea from Infallibility considered in its Consequence Retorted p. 161 Sect. 1. Scripture Examples for Infallibility p. 163 High Priest not infallible nothing to the Pope p. 164 Apostles p. 166 Sect. 2. Scripture-promises of Infallibility p. 167 CHAP. XVI 2. Argument for Infallibility viz. Tradition four Concessions three Propositions about Tradition Arguments Objections p. 171 c. CHAP. XVII The third way of Argument for Infallibility viz. by Reason three Reasons answered the Point argued Retorted p 177 CHAP. XVIII TheVniversal Pastorship its Right Divine or Humane this Civil or Ecclesiastical all examined Constantine King John Justinian Phocas c. p. 182. as to Civil Right CHAP. XIX His Ecclesiastical Right by General Councils the eight first to which he is sworn Justinians Sanction of them Canons Apostol allowed by the Council of Nice and Ephesus p. 190 Sect. 1. Canons of the Apostles p. 194 Sect. 2. 1. General Council of Nice Bellarmine
nor the Western Church among their Eight first general Councils Why did the English Church omit it in their Number in the Synod of Hedifeld in the year 680. and embrace only unto Apud Spel. An. 680. l. 169. this day the Council of Nice the first of Constantinople the first of Ephesus and the first and second of Calcedon The five first general Councils were therefore incorporated into our English Laws but this Council of Sardica never was Therefore contrary to this Canon of Appeal 't is the Fundamental Law of England in that Famous Memorial of Clarendon All Appeals in England must proceed Regularly from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and if the Arch-Bishop failed to do justice the last Complaint must be to the King to give Order for redress 'T is evident the great Council of Calcedon P. 2. ac 14. c. 9. contradicted this Canon for Appeals to Rome where Appeals from the Arch-Bishop are directed to be made to every Primate or the Holy Calcedon See of Constantinople as well as Rome from which Evidence we have nothing but silly Evasions as that Primate truly observs v. Sch. guarded p. 374. Besides if our Fore-fathers had heard of rhe Canons of the Councils truly general as no doubt they had how could they possibly believe the unlimited Jurisdiction of Rome the Council of Calcedon is not denied to give equal Priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome And the Council of Constantinople conclude thus for the Nicene Fathers did justly give Priviledges to the Seâ—â— of Constantinople old Rome because it was the Imperial City and the 150 godly Bishops moved with the same consideration did give equal Priviledges to the See of new Rome that that City which was the Seat of the Empire and Senate should enjoy equal Priviledges with the Ancient Imperial City of Rome and be extolled and magnified in Ecclesiastical Affaires as well as it being the Second in order from it and in the last Sentence of the Judges upon Review of the Cause the Arch-Bishop of the Imperial City of Const or new Rome must enjoy the same Priviledges of Honour and have the same Power out of his own Authority to ordain Metropolitans in the Asiatick Pontick and Thracian Diocess Are these the Words of a General Council could these Fathers imagine the Pope at that time Monarch of the whole Church or could this be acknowledged by England at first and they yet give up their Faith to the Pope's Universal Power Can these things consist Yea is there not something in all the Councils allowed by the Ancient Brittains and the Ancient English Church sufficient to induce a Faith quite contrary to the Roman Pretensions Object But as to this Canon of Constantinople S. W. quits his hands roundly telling us that it was no free Act but voted Tumultuously after most of the Fathers were departed Sol. S. W. had been safer if he had been wiser for that which he saith is altogether false and besides such a cluster of Forgeries as deserves the Whet-stone to purpose as my Lord Bramhall manifests against him Sch. guard p. h. 4. 1. False the Act was made before the Bishops had license to depart it had a Second Hearing and was debated by the Pope's own Legates on his behalfe before the most glorious Judges and maturely Sentenced by them in the Name of the Council This was one of those four Councils which Saint Gregory honoured next to the four Gospels This is one of those very Councils which every succeeding Pope doth swear to observe to the least tittle 2. For his Forgeries about it he is sufficiently shamed by the Primate in the place cited 't is pity such shifts should be used and 't is folly to use them when the Truth appears what remains but both the Person and the Cause reproach'd See more of the Councils at the latter end SECT V. Arabic Canons forged no Canons of the Council of Nice Object YEt 't is a Marvellous thing that the Romanist should dare to impose upon so great and learned a Primate as the late Arch-Bishop Laud that by the third Canon of the Council of Nice the Patriarch is in the same manner over all those that are under his Authority as he who holds the See of Rome is Head and Prince of the Patriachs resembling Saint Peter and his Equal in Authority Answ When 't is most evident to the meanest capacity that will search into it that that is no Canon of the true Council of Nice and that in stead of the third it is the thirty ninth of the suppositious and forged Canons as they are set forth in the Arabick Editions both by Pisanus and Turrianus In these Editions there are no less than eighty Canons pretended to be Nicene whereas the Nicene Council never passed above twenty as is evident from such as should know best the Greek Authors who all reckon but twenty Hist Ecl. l. 1. c. 7. Canons of that Council Such as Theodoret Nicephorus Calistus Gelasius Cricenus Alphonsus Ecl. Hist l. 8. c. 19. Act. Conc. Nic. lib. 2. Pisanus and Binnius himself confesseth that all the Greeks say there were no more but twenty Canons then determined Yea the Latins themselves allowed no more for although Ruffinus make twenty two 't is by splitting of two into four And in that Epitome of the Canons which Pope Hadrian sent to Charles the Great for the Government of the Western Churches Anno 773. the same Number appears and in Hincmarus's M. S. the same is proved from the Testimonies of the Tripartite History Ruffinus the Carthaginian Council the Epistles of Ciril of Alex. Atticus of Constant and the twelfth Action of the Council of Calcedon and if we may believe a Pope viz. Stephen in Gratian saith the Roman Church did allow of no more Gra. dis 16. c. 20. than twenty The truth is put beyond all question lastly both by the proceedings of the African Fathers in the case of Zosimus about the Nicene Canons when an early and diligent search made it evident and also by the Codex Canonum Eccl. Afric p. 58. where it is expresly said there was P. 363. but twenty Canons But this matter is more than clear by the P. 391 392 elaborate pains of Dr. Still defence of the late Arch-Bishop Laud to whom I must refer my Reader Obj. Yet Bellarmine and Binius would prove there were more than twenty Sol. But their proofs depend either upon things as suppositions as the Arabick Canons themselves such as the Epistles of Julius and Athanasius ad Marcum or else they only prove that some other things were determined by that Council viz. Concerning Rebaptization and the keeping of Easter c. which indeed might be Acts of the Council without putting them into the Ad an 325. P. 108. Canons as Baronius himself confesseth and leaves the patronage of them and Spondanus
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 Object Saint Gregory saith the care of the whole Church was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles Saint Peter and yet he is not called the Vniversal Bishop Sol. 'T is confessed that Saint Gregory doth say 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 Object Yet it must be acknowledged Saint Gregory adds si dictum fuerit c. where there is no Metropolitane nor Patriarch the Cause may be heard by the ApostolickSee which Gregory calls the Head of all Churches Sol. Now if this be allowed what hath the Pope 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 Patriarcb 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 Object But we see Saint Gregory calls Rome the Head of all Churches Sol. 'T is true whether he intends a Primacy of 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 sore-going concluded all ordinary Jurisdiction within every proper Primacy or Patriarchate Object But saith S. W. Saint Gregory practised the thing though he denied the Word of Vniversal Sol. What Hypocrisie damn the Title as he 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 Cause 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 admo nish 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 secundum Canones and yet he knows that no other Tenure but that will stand him in stead Indeed the unhappiness is as the Doctor observes that such Acts at first but necessary Vid. dispat disp p. 408. to p 423. fraternal charity were by ambitious men drawn into example and means of assuming power of Vniversal Pastorship which yet cannot be more vehemently prejudiced by any thing than by those Ancient examples which being rightly considered pretend no higer than Ecclesiastical Canons and the Universal Laws of Charity but never made
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. I. 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. And 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 jus 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 the 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 pradicandi licentiam he enlarged his licence so to do 'T is true Saint Gregory presumed Iargly 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 than 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 Calcedon hath done his Cause by these little Instances before mentioned will best appear by a true state of the question touching the Supremacy betwixt Vid. Bramh. p. 189. c. 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 Appeal 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 sound 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 sometime 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 Primacy in the Bishop of Rome or an acknowledged Judgment of direction flowing from it or a claim of Jurisdiction which is no Possession
Successoribus Committebat lib. 2. de Sacerdotio Answ 'T is granted Peter had his Successors in time 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 Inference Not in succeeding Popes 3 Lastly it follows that this Primacy was 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 lewdness 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 Arg. 1 INstead of proving that Christ did they say 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 Ans And what then I Ordain then he had it 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 just nothing yet what strange Arts and stretches Vid. Raynolds and Hart. p. 269 c. 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 Arg. 2 BEllarmine argues more subtilly yet supposeth 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 Ans He supposeth that St. Peter's Successor succeeded 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 after St. Peter as their Pastor and Head according to their own way of Arguing 3. Besides St. St. PETER He was crucified at Rome with his head downwards and Buried
hearty prayer of My Lord Your Lordships most obliged and devoted Servant FR. FULLWOOD A PREFACE TO THE READER Good Reader OUr Roman Adversaries claim the Subjection of the Church of England by several Arguments but insist chiefly upon that of possession and the Universal Pastorship if any shall deign to answer me I think it reasonable to expect they should attach me there where they suppose their greatest strength lies otherwise though they may seem to have the Advantage by catching Shadows if I am left unanswered in those two main Points the Substance of their Cause is lost For if it remain unproved that the Pope had quiet possession here and the contrary proof continue unshaken the Argument of Possession is on our side I doubt not but you will find that the Pope had not possession here before that he took not possession by Austine the Monk and that he had no such possession here afterwards sufficient to create or evince a Title 'T is confessed that Austine took his Arch-Bishoprick of Canterbury as the Gift of Saint Gregory and having recalled many of the People to Christianity both the Converts and the Converter gave great Submission and respect to Saint Gregory then Bishop of Rome and how far the People were bound to obey their Parent that had begotten them or he his Master that sent him and gave him the Primacy I need not dispute But these things to our purpose are very certain 1. That Conversion was anciently conceived to be the ground of their Obedience to Saint Gregory which Plea is now deserted and that Saint Gregory himself abhorred the very Title of Universal Bishop the only thing nowinsisted on 2. 'T is also certain that the Addition of Authority which the King's Silence Permission or Connivence gave to Austine was more than Saint Gregory's Grant and yet that Connivence of the new Converted King in the Circumstances of so great Obligation and Surprize who might not know or consider or be willing to exercise his Royal Power then in the Point could never give away the Supremacy inherent in his Crown from his Successors for ever 3. 'T is likewise certain that neither Saint Gregory's Grant nor that King's Permission did or could obtain Possession for the Pope by Austine as the Primate of Canterbury over all the Brittish Churches and Bishops which were then many and had not the same Reason from their Conversion by him to own his Jurisdiction but did stifly reject all his Arguments and Pretenses for it King Ethelbert the only Christian King at that time in England had not above the twentieth part of Brittain within his Jurisdiction how then can it be imagined that all the King of England's Dominions in England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland should be concluded within the Primacy of Canterbury by Saint Augustine's possession of so small a part 4. 'T is one thing to claim another to possess Saint Augustine's Commission was to subject all Brittain to erect two Arch-Bishopricks and twelve Bishopricks under each of them but what possession he got for his Master appears in that after the death of that Gregory and Austine there were left but one Arch-Bishop and two Bishops of the Roman Communion in all Brittain 5. Moreover the Succeeding Arch-Bishops of Canterbury soon after discontinued that small possession of England which Augustine had gotten acknowledging they held of the Crown and not of the Pope resuming the Ancient Liberties of the English Church which before had been and ought always to be Independent on any other and which of Right returned upon the Return of their Christianity and accordingly our Succeeding Kings with their Nobles and Commons and Clergy upon all occasions denied the Papal Jurisdiction here as contrary to the King 's Natural Supremacy and the Customs Liberties and Laws of this Kingdom And as Augustine could not give the Miter so neither could King John give the Crown of England to the Bishop of Rome For as Math. Paris relates Philip Augustus answered the Pope's Legate no King no Prince can Alienate or give away his Kingdom but by Consent of his Barons who we know protested against King John's endeavour of that kind bound by Knighs Service to defend the said Kingdom and in case the Pope shall stand for the contrary Error his Holiness shall give to Kingdoms a most pernitious Example so far is one unwarrantable act of a fearful Prince under great Temptations from laying a firm ground for the Pope's Prescription and 't is well known that both the preceeding and succeeding Kings of England defended the Rights of the Crown and disturbed the Pope's possession upon stronger grounds of Nature Custom and plain Statutes and the very Constitution of the Kingdom from time to time in all the main Branches of Supremacy as I doubt not but is made to appear by full and Authentick Testimony beyond dispute 2. The other great Plea for the Pope's Authority in England is that of Universal Pastorship now if this cannot be claimed by any Right either Divine Civil or Ecclesiastical but the contrary be evident and both the Scriptures Emperors Fathers and Councils did not only not grant but deny and reject the Pope's Supremacy as an Usurpation What Reason hath this or any other Church to give away their Liberty upon bold and groundless Claims The pretence of Civil Right by the Grant of Emperors they are now ashamed of for three Reasons 't is too scant and too mean and apparently groundless and our discourse of the Councils hath beaten out an unanswerable Argument against the claim by any other Right whether Ecclesiastical or Divine for all the General Councils are found first not to make any such Grant to the Pope whereby the Claim by Ecclesiastical Right is to be maintained but secondly they are all found making strict provisions against his pretended Authority whereby they and the Catholick Church in them deny his Divine Right 'T is plainly acknowledged by Stapleton himself that before the Council of Constance non divino sed humano Jure positivis Ecclesiae Decretis primatum Rom. Pont. niti senserunt speaking of the Fathers that is the Fathers before that Council thought the Primacy of the Pope was not of Divine Right and that it stood only upon the Positive Decrees of the Church and yet he further confesseth in the same place that the Power of the Pope now contended for nullo sane decreto publico definita est is not defined by any Publick Decree tacito tamen Doctorum Consensu Now what can remain but that which we find him immediately driven to viz. to reject the pretence of humane Right by Positive Decrees of the Church and to adhere only as he himself affirmeth they generally now do to the Divine Right Nunc inquit autem nemini amplius Catholoco dubium est prorsus Divino Jure quidem illustribus Evangelii Testimoniis hunc Primatum niti Thus how have they intangled themselves if they pretend a humane
deposition to Bishops and Clerks and Anathematization to Lay-men to compose or obtrude upon any persons converted from Paganism or Judaism We retain the same Sacraments and Discipline we derive our holy Orders by lineal succession from them It is not we who have forsaken the essence of the Modern Church by substraction or rather Reformation but they of the Church of Rome who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Roman Church by their corrupt Additions as a learned Man observes The plain truth is this the Church of Rome hath had long and much Reverence in the Church of England and thereby we were by little and little drawn along with her into many gross errors and superstitions both in Faith and Worship and at last had almost lost our liberty in point of Government But that Church refusing to reform and proceeding still further to usurp upon us we threw off the Vsurpation first and afterwards very deliberately Reform'd our selves from all the corruptions that had been growing upon us and had almost over-grown both our Faith and Worship If this be to divide the Church we are indeed guilty not else But we had no power to reform our selves Here indeed is the main hinge of the Controversie but we have some concessions from our worst and fiercest Adversaries that a National Church hath power of her self to reform abuses in lesser matters provided she alter nothing in the Faith and Sacraments without the Pope And we have declared before that we have made no alteration in the essentials of Religion But we brake our selves off from the Papal Authority and divided our selves from our lawful Governors 'T is confest the Papal Authority we do renounce but not as a lawful Power but a Tyrannical Usurpation and if that be proved where is our Schism But this reminds us of the second thing in the Definition of Schism the Cause For what 2. The Cause interpretation soever be put upon the Action whether Reformation or Division and Separation 't is not material if it be found we had sufficient Cause and no doubt we had if we had reason from the lapsed state and nature of our Corruptions to Reform and if we had sufficient Authority without the Pope to reform our selves But we had both as will be evident at last Both these we undertake for satisfaction to the Catholick Church but in defence of our own Church against the charge of Schism by and from the Church of Rome one of them yea either of them is sufficient For if the pretended Authority of the Church of Rome over the Church of England be ill grounded how can our Actions fall under their censure Especially seeing the great and almost only matter of their censure is plainly our disobedience to that ill grounded Authority Again however their Claim and Title stand or fall if we have or had cause to deny that Communion which the Church of Rome requires though they have power to accuse us our Cause being good will acquit us from the guilt and consequently the charge of Schism Here then we must joyn Issue we deny the pretended Power of the Church of Rome in England and plead the justness of our own Reformation in all the particulars of it SECT VI. The Charge as laid by the Romanists THis will the better appear by the indictment of Schism drawn up against us by our Adversaries I shall receive it as it is expressed by one of the sharpest Pens and in the fullest and closest manner I bave met with viz. Card. Perron against Arch-Bishop Laud thus Protestants have made this Rent or Schism by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneneous Doctrines contrary to the faith of Roman or Catholick Church by their rejecting the authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors both immediate and mediate By aggregating themselves into a separate Body or company of pretended Christians independent of any Pastors at all that were in lawful and quiet possession of Jurisdiction over them by making themselves Pastors and Teachers of others and administring Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully impowered to give it by instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of their own in matters of Religion contrary to those anciently received throughout all Christendom by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates of and from their respective Sees Cures and Benefices and intruding themselves into their places in every Nation where they could get footing A foul Charge indeed and the fouler because in many things false However at present we have reason only to observe the foundation of all lies in our disobedience and denying Communion with the Church of Rome all the rest either concerns the grounds or manner or consequences of that Therefore if it appear at last that the Church of England is independant on the Church of Rome and oweth her no such obedience as she requires the Charge of Schism removes from us and recoyls upon the Church or Court of Rome from her unjust Vsurpations and Impositions and that with the aggrevation of Sedition too in all such whether Prelates or Priests as then refused to acknowledge and obey the just Power and Laws of this Land or that continue in the same disobedience at this day SECT VII The Charge of Schism retorted upon the Romanists The Controversie to two Points IT is well noted by a learned Man that while the Papal Authority is under Contest the question Dr. Hammond is not barely this whether the Church of England be schismatical or no For a Romanist may cheaply debate that and keep himself safe whatsoever becomes of the Vmpirage but indifferently and equally whether we or the Romanist be thus guilty or which is the Schismatick that lies under all those severe Censures of the Scriptures and Fathers the Church of England or her Revolters and the Court of Rome Till they have better answered to the Indictment than yet they have done we do and shall lay the most horrid Schism at the door of the Church or Court of Rome For that they have voluntarily divided the Catholick Church both in Faith Worship and Government by their innovations and excommunicated and damned not only the Church of England but as some account three parts of the Christian Church most uncharitably and without all Authority or just cause to the scandal of the whole world But we shall lay the charge more particularly as it is drawn up by Arch-Bishop Bramhal The Church saith he or rather the Court of Rome are causally guilty both of this Schism and almost all other Schisms in the Church 1. By usurping an higer place and power in the Body Ecclesiastical than of right is due unto them 2. By separating both by their Doctrines and Censures three parts of the Christian World from their Communion and as much as in them lies from the Communion of Christ 3. By rebelling against general Councils Lastly by breaking or taking away all the lines of Apostolical
Succession except their own and appropriating all Original Jurisdiction to themselves And that which draws Sedition and Rebellion as the great aggravation of their Schism they Challenge a temporal Power over Princes either directly or indirectly Thus their Charge against us is Disobedience Our Charge against them is Usurpation and abuse of Power If we owe no such Obedience or if we have cause not to obey we are acquitted If the Pope have both power and reason of his side we are guilty If he fail in either the whole weight of Schism with all its dreadful Consequences remains upon him or the Court of Rome The Conclusion TThus we see the Controversie is broken into two great points 1. Touching the Papal Authority in England 2. Touching the Cause of our denying Communion in some things with the Church of Rome required by that Authority Each of these I design to be the matter of a distinct Treatise This first Book therefore is to try the Title The Sum of this first Treatise betwixt the Pope and the Church of England Wherein we shall endeavour impartially to examine all the Pleas and Evidences produced and urged by Romanists on their Masters behalf and shew how they are answered and where there appears greatest weight and stress of Argument we shall be sure to give the greatest diligence Omitting nothing but vnconcluding impertinencies and handling nothing lightly but colours and shadows that will bear no other Now to our Work CHAP. II. An Examination of the Papal Authority in England Five Arguments Proposed and briefly reflected on THis is their Goliah and indeed their whole Army if we rout them here the day is our own and we shall find nothing more to oppose us but Skirmishes of Wit or when they are at their Wits end fraud and force as I am troubled to observe their Use hath been For if the See of Rome hath no just claim or Title to govern us we cannot be obliged to obey it and consequently these two things stand evident in the light of the whole world We are no Schismaticks though we deny obedience to the See of Rome seeing it cannot justly challenge it 2dly Though we were so yet the See of Rome hath no power to censure us that hath no power to govern us And hereafter we shall have occasion further to conclude that the Papal Authority that hath nothing to do with the English Church and yet rigorously exacts our obedience and censures us for our disobedience is highly guilty both of Ambition in its unjust claim and of Tyranny in unjust execution of an usurped power as well in her Commands as Censures which is certainly Schism and aliquid ampliùs They of the Church of Rome do therefore mightily bestir themselves to make good their claim without which they know they can never hope either to gain us or secure themselves I find five several Titles pretended though methinks the power of that Church should be built but upon one Rock 1. The Pope being the means of our first Conversion as they say did thereby acquire a Right 1. Conversion for himself and successors to govern this Church 2. England belongs to the Western Patriarchate 2. Patriarch and the Pope is the Patriarch of the West as they would have it 3. Others found his Right in Prescription and 3. Prescription long continued possession before the Reformation 4. Others flee much higher and derive this power of Government from the Infallibility of 4. Infallibility the Governor and indeed who would not be led by an unerring Guide 5. But their strong hold to which at last resort 5. Succession is still made is the Popes Vniversal Pastorship as Successor to St. Peter and supreme Governor not of Rome and England only but of the whole Christian World Before we enter upon trial of these severally we shall briefly note that where there are many Titles pretended Right is justly suspected especially if the Pretences be inconsistent 1. Now how can the Pope as the Western Patriarch or as our first Converâ—â—r pretend to be our Governor and yet at the same time pretend himself to be universal Bishop These some of our suttlest Adversaries know to imply a contradiction and to destroy one another 2. At first sight therefore there is a necessity on those that assert the universal Pastorship to wave the Arguments either from the Right of Conversion or the Western Patriarchate or if any of them will be so bold as to insist on these he may not think the Chair of St. Peter shall be his Sanctuary at a dead lift 3. Also for Possession what need that be pleaded if the Right be evident Possession of a part if the Right be universal unless by England the Pope took livery and Seisen for the whole world Besides if this be a good plea it is as good for us we have it and have had it time out of mind if ours have not been quiet so neither was theirs before the Reformation 4. For Infallibility that 's but a Qualification no Commission Fitness sure gives no Authority nor desert a Title and that by their own Law otherwise they must acknowledge the Bishops of our Church that are known to be as learned and holy as theirs are as good and lawful Bishops as any the Church of Rome hath Thus we see where the Burthen will rest at last and that the Romanists are forced into one only hold One great thing concerns them to make sure or all is lost the whole Controversir is tied to St. Peters Chair the Supremacy of the Pope must be maintained or the Roman and Catholick are severed as much as the Church of England and the Church of Rome and a great breach is made indeed but we are not found the Schismaticks But this is beside my task Lest we should seem to endeavour an escape at any breach all the said five Pleas of the Romanists shall be particularly examined and the main Arguments and Answers on both sides faithfully and exactly as I can produced And where the Controuersie sticks and how it stands at this day noted as before we promised CHAP. III. Of the Popes Claim to England from our Conversion by Eleutherius Gregory THis Argument is not pressed with much confidence in Print though with very much in Discourse to my own knowledge Perhaps 't is rather popular and plausible than invincible Besides it stands in barr against the Right of St. Peter which they say was good near six hundred years before and extends to very many Churches that received grace neither by the means of St. Peter or his pretender Successor except they plead a right to the whole Church first and to a part afterwards or one kind of right to the whole and another to a part The truth is if any learned Romanist shall insist on this Argument in earnest he is strongly suspected either to deny or question the Right of St. Peter's Successor as
would save their Head whole Therefore after much a do to very Schis diarm p. p. 157. little purpose S. W. concludes against Doctor Hammond thus Besides saith he were all this granted what is it to your or our purpose Since we accuse you not of Schism for breaking from the Pope's Subjection as a Private Patriarch but as the chief Pastor and the Head of the Church So there is an end of their Second Plea CHAP. V. The Third Papal Claim viz. Prescription or long Possession Case Stated Their Plea our Answer in three Propositions THe true state of the case here is this Case stated It cannot be denied but the Church of England was heedlesly and gradually drawn into Communion with the Roman Church in her additions superinduced upon the ancient Faith and Worship and likewise into some degrees of subjection to Papal Jurisdiction And in this Condition we had continued for some considerable time before King Henry the Eighth and that bold King upon what Motives is not here material with the consent of his three Estates in Parliament both houses of the Convocation and both the Vniversities of the Land threw off the Roman Yoke as a manifest Vsurpation and a very grievous oppression and recovered the people and Church of England to their ancient liberties of being governed by their own domestick Rulers Afterwards in the Reigns of Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth and by their proper Authority we reformed our selves by throwing off the Roman Additions to our Faith and Worship Had we gone about a Reformation while we acknowledged subjection to the See of Rome or indeed before we had renounced it there had been more colour to charge us with Schism and disobedience But now the proper question is first whether the State of England did then justly reject the Jurisdiction of the Pope in England and only consequently whether we did afterwards lawfully Reform without him The cause of our Reformation belongs to another Argument which we shall meet hereafter The papal Plea here is the Popes Authority was established here by long Possession and therefore if nothing else could be pleaded for it Prescription was a good Title and therefore it was injurious and Schismatical first to dispossess him and then to go about to reform without him Our Answer is home and plain in these Three Propositions 1. The Church of England was never actually under the Popes Jurisdiction so absolutely as is pretended 2. The Possession which it had obtained here was not sufficient to create the Pope a good Title 3. Or if it were yet that Title ceased when he lost his Possession CHAP. VI. Prop. I. The Papacy had no Power here for the first Six Hundred Years St. Aug. Dionoth THe first Proposition is this that the Church of England was not actually under the Papal Jurisdiction so absolutely as is pretended that is neither Primarily nor Plenarily First not Primarily in that we were free from 1. Not Primarily the Papal Power for the first Six Hundred Years This is confirmed beyond all exception by the entertainment Augustine found among the sturdy Brittains when he came to obtrude that Jurisdiction upon them whence 't is evident that at that time which was near six hundred years after Christ the Pope had neither actual In Fact or Belief possession of Government over nor of the belief of the Brittains that he ought to have it The good Abbot of Bangor when pressed to submit to the Roman Bishop answered in the name of the Brittains That he knew no Obedience due to him whom they called the Pope but the Obedience Spel. conc an 601. of Love and adds those full peremptory exclusive words that under God they were to be Governed by the Bishop of Caerleon Which the Lord Primate Bramhall saith is a full demonstrative convincing proof for the whole time viz. the first six hundred years Vind. p. 84 But 't is added that which follows strikes the question dead Augustine St. Gregories Legate proposing three things to the Brittains 1. That they should submit to the Roman Bishop 2. That they should conform to the Roman Customs 3. Lastly That they should joyn with him in Preaching to the Saxons Hereupon the Brittish Clergy assembled themselves together Bishops and Priests in two several Synods one after another and upon mature deliberation they rejected all his propositions Synodically and refused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do with him upon those terms Insomuch as Augustine was necessitated to return over Sea to obtain his own Consecration and after his return hither to consecrate the Saxon Bishops alone without the assistance of any other Bishop They refused indeed to their own cost Twelve hundred innocent Monks of Bangor shortly after lost their lives for it The foundation of the Papacy here was thus laid in Blood Obj. 'T is objected that the story of the Abbot of Bangor is taken by Sir H. Spelman out of an old Welch Author of suspected credit but all Objections to that purpose are removed by my Lord Primate and Dr. Hammond Besides we have other Authority sufficient for it and beyond contradiction The Story in Bede himself as vouched by Bed li. 2. c. 2. T. H. himself against Dr. Hammond puts it beyond all doubt that the Abbot and Monks opposed Austin and would not subject themselves to the Pope of Rome but referred themselves only to their own Governours which is also the general result of other Authors account of this matter and if the matter of Fact be established 't is enough to disprove the Popes Posession at that time whether they did well or ill is not now considered Baleus speaking of that Convention saith Dinoth In Dinoth disputed against the Authority of Rome and defended stoutly fortitèr the Jurisdiction of St. Davids in the affairs of his own Churches The same is observed by Geoffrey of Monmouth and Sigebert and others for which Dr. Hammond refers us to the Collection of the Anglicane In an 602. Councils and Mr. Whelocks Notes on the Saxon Bede p. 115. And indeed the Author of the Appendix written on purpose to weaken this great instance confesseth as much when he concludes Austin in the Right from the miracles and divine vengeance upon the refusers continuing still refractory to his proposals Of the right of the cause we now dispute not and he acknowledgeth that Augustine had not Possession the thing we contend for However this instance being of great moment in the whole Controversie let us briefly examine what T. H. hath said against it Obj. 1 T. H. questions the Authority of the Welch M. S. An. But the account there is so perfectly agreeable to the general account given by others most competent Witnesses and even Bede himself that as we have no necessity to insist much upon it so they have no reason at all to question it Besides if the Reader would more fully satisfie himself he may
claim to any Supremacy of power over all Bishops by Divine Institution It yet appears not that Saint Gregory practised the thing but to avoid Arrogance disclaims the name of Vniversal Bishop A. C. against my Lord of Canterbury goes another way to work he grants the Title and also the thing signified by it to be both renounced by Saint Gregory but distinguishes of the Term Vniversal Bishop into Grammatical to the exclusion of all other Bishops from being properly Bishops and Metaphorical whereby the Bishops are secured as such in their respective Diocesses yet all of them under the Jurisdiction of the Vniversal Bishop viz. of Rome Sol. This distinction Doctor Stillingfleet destroys not more elaborately than fully and perfectly shewing that 1. 't is impossible Saint Gregory should understand the Term of Vniversal Bishop Lib. 4. Ep. 32. in that strict Grammatical Sense for the reason why this Title was refused was because it seemed to diminish the honour of other Bishops when it was offered the Bishops of Rome in a Council of six hundred and thirty Bishops who cannot be imagined to divest themselves by their kindness of their very Office though they hazarded somewhat of their honour Can we think the Council that gave the same Title to John intended thus to depose themselves how comes it to pass that none of John's or Ciriacus's Successors did ever challenge this Title in that literal sence if so it was understood But to wave many things impertinent 't is evident Saint Gregory understood the Title Metaphorically from the reasons he gives against it which also equally serve to prove against S. W. that it was not so much the Title as the Authority of an Vniversal Bishop which he so much opposed He argueth thus to John the Patriarch What wilt thou answer to Christ the Head of the Vniversal Lib. 4. Ep. 38. Church in the day of Judgment who doest endeavour to subject all his Members to thee under the name of Vniversal Bishop Again doth he not arise to the height of Singularity Ibid. that he is Subject to none but Rules over all and can you have a more perfect description of the present Pope than is here given or is it the Title or the Power that makes him Subject to none that Rules over all Again he imitates the pride of Lucifer endeavouring Ibid. to be Head not sure in Title but Power of the Church Triumphant as the Pope of the Church Militant Exalting his Throne Ibid. not his Name as Gregory adds above the Stars of God viz. the Bishops and the height of the Clouds Again Saint Peter was the first Member of the Church Paul Andrew and John what are they else but Heads of particular Churches and yet they are all Members of the Church under one Head i. e. Christ as before he had said we see he allows not Peter himself to be Head of the Church None that was truly Holy was ever called by that name of Vniversal Bishop which he makes to be the same with the head of the Church But Lastly suppose St. Gregory did mean that this Title in its strict grammatical sence was to be abhorred and not as Metaphorically taken What hath the Pope gained who at this day bears that Title in the highest and strictest sence imaginable as the Dr. proves and indeed needs no proof being evident of it self and to the observation of the whole world Thus all the hard words of St. Gregory uttered so long agon against such as admitted or desired that Title unavoidably fall upon the Modern Roman Bishops that take upon them to be the sole Pastors of the Church and say that they are Oecumenical Bishops and that all Jurisdiction is derived from them They are Lucifers and Princes of Pride using a vain new rash foolish proud profane erroneous wicked hypocritical singular presumptuous blasphemous Name as that holy Pope inveighed against it Moreover as he also adds they transgress Gods Laws violate the Canons dishonour the Church despise their Brethren and cause Schism Istud nomen facere L. 6. ep 30 31. in dissessionem Ecclesiae Obj. But it is said that Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches all at once Therefore saith A. C. the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bishops and by consequence over the whole Church And this appears in that Irenaus in the name of the Gallican Bishops writes to Victor not to proceed so rashly in this Action as appears in Eusebius Sol. 1. We answer that those Bishops among whom Irenoeus was one did severely rebuke that Pope for offering to excommunicate those Asian Vid. Eus l 5. c. 24. Churches Therefore they did not believe him to be the Supreme Infallible Pastor of the whole Church 2. His Letters declaring that Excommunication Ibid. not pleasing all his own Bishops they countermanded him Surely not thinking him to be what Popes would now be esteemed 3. Hence Card. Perron is angry with Eusebius and calls him an Arrian and an enemy to the Church of Rome for hinting that though the Pope did declare them excommunicate yet it took no effect because other Bishops continued still in Communion with them 4. But the force of the whole Argument leans upon a plain mistake of the Ancient Discipline both in the Nature and the Root or Ground of it For the nature of Ancient Excommunication Mistake of the nature Root of Discipline especially when practised by one Church against another did not imply a Positive Act of Authority but a Negative Act of Charity or a declaring against the Communion of such with themselves And therefore was done by Equals to Equals and sometimes by Inferiors to Superiors In Equals thus Johannes Antiochenus in the Ephesine Council excommunicated Cyril Patriarch Vict. Tu. nu cro p. 10. of Alexandria and in Inferiors in the sence of our Roman Adversaries for the African Bishops excommunicated Pope Vigilius Hence also Acacius the Patriarch of Const expunged the Name of Foelix Bishop of Rome out of the Dipticks of the Church And Hilary anethamatized Pope Liberius therefore Victors declaring the Asian Churches to be excommunicate is no argument of his power over them 2. The Root or Ground of the ancient Discipline is also as plainly mistaken which was not Authority always but Care and Charity Care I say not only of themselves who used it but also of the Church that was censured and indeed of the whole Church 'T is here proper to consider that though Bishops had their peculiar Seats and Limits for their Jurisdictions yet they had all a charitive inspection and care of that universal Church and sometimes denominations accordingly Hence we deny not that the ancient Bishops of Rome deservedly gained the Title of Oecumenical Bishops a thing of so great moment in the Controversie that if well considered might advance very far towards the ending of it For so the Title hath been given to others as well as
to put an eternal end to this Controversie and consequently to the claim of the universal Pastor in this Age but an account of the Judgment of this Council when they had received the Copy of the Nicene Canons on which the point depended out of the East This you have in that excellent Epistle of theirs to Pope Celestine who succeeded Boniface and the elaborate Dr. Stillingfleet who searcheth R. ac p. 410 411. all things to the bottom hath transcribed it at large as a worthy Monument of Antiquity and of very great light in the present Controversie To him I shall refer the Reader for the whole and only note some few expressions to the purpose We say they humbly beseech you to admit no more into your Communion those whom we have cast out For your Reverence will easily perceive that this is forbid in the Council of Nice For if this be taken care for as to the inferior Clergy and Laity how much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops The Decrees of Nice have subjected both the inferior Clergy and Bishops to their Metropolitans for they have most wisely and justly provided that every business be determined in the place where it begun Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one if he be offended to appeal to the Council of the Province or even to an universal Council Or how can a Judgment made beyond the Sea be valid to which the Persons of necessary Witnesses cannot be brought by reason c. For this sending of men to us from your Holiness we do not find it commanded by any Synod of the Fathers And as for that Council of Nice we cannot find it in the truest Copies sent by holy Cyril Bishop of Alexandria and the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople which also we sent to your Predecessor Boniface Take heed also of sending any of your Clerks for Executors to those who desire it lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ and concerning our brother Faustinus Apiarius being cast out we are confident that our brotherly Love continuing Africa shall no more be troubled with him This is the sum of that famous Epistle the Pope and the African Fathers referred the point in difference to the true Canons of the Nicene Council The Canons determine against the Pope and from the whole story 't is inferred evidently 1. That Pope Boniface himself implieth his Jurisdiction was limited by the general Council of Nice and that all the Laity and Clergy too except Bishops that lived beyond the Seas and consequently in England were exempted from his Jurisdiction by that Council 2. Pope Boniface even then when he made his claim and stood upon his terms with the African Fathers pleads nothing for the appeals of transmarine Bishops to Rome but the allowance of the Council of Nice no tu es Petrus then heard of 3. Then it seems the practices of Popes themselves were to be ruled and judged by the ancient Canons and Laws of the Church 4. The African Fathers declared the Pope fallible and actually mistaken both to his own power and sense of the Council Proving substantially that neither Authority from Councils nor any foundation in Justice Equity or order of Government or publick Conveniency will allow or suffer such Appeals to Rome and that the Pope had no authority to send Legates to hear causes in such cases All these things lye so obviously in prejudice both of the Popes Possession and Title as universal Pastor at that time both in his own the Churches sence that to apply them further would be to insult which I shall for bear seeing Baronius is so ingenious as to confess there are some hard things in this Epistle And Perron hath hereupon exposed his Wit with so much sweat and so little purpose but his own Correction and Reproach as Dr. Still notes Yet we may modestly conclude from this one plain instance that the sence of the Nicene Council was defined by the African Council to be against the Popes Supremacy and consequently they did not submit to it nor believe it and a further consequence to our purpose is that then the Catholick Church did not universally own it i. e. the Popes Supremacy then had not Possession of the faith of the whole Church For as A. C. p. 191. maintains the Africans notwithstanding the contest in the sixth Council of Carthage were always in true Communion with the Roman Church even during the term of this pretended Separation And Caelestine himself saith that St. Augustine one of those Fathers lived and dyed in the Communion of the Roman Church SECT IX The Conclusion touching Possession Anciently VVE hope it is now apparent enough that the Popes Supremacy had no possession in England from the beginning or for the first six hundred years either de facto or in side Our Ancestors yielded not to it they unanimously resisted it and they had no reason to believe it either from the Councils or practice of the Church or from the Edicts and Rules of the imperial Law or the very sayings of the Popes themselves Thus Sampson's Hair the strength and Pomp of their best Plea is cut off The foundation of the Popes Supremacy is subverted and all other pleas broken with it If according to the Apostles Canons every Nation had its proper Head in the beginning to be ackonwledged by them under God And according to a general Council all such Heads should hold as from the beginning there can be no ground afterwards for a lawful possession to the contrary If tu es Petrus pasce Oves have any force to maintain the Popes Supremacy why did not the ancient Fathers the Authors of those Canons see it Why was not it shewn by the Popes concerned in bar against them when nothing else could be pleaded When both Possession and Tradition were to be begun and had not yet laid their Foundation Yea when actual opposition in England was made against it when general Councils abroad laid restraints upon it and the Eastern Church would not acknowledge it Indeed both Antiquity Universality and Tradition it self and all colour of Right for ever fails with possession For Possession of Supremacy afterwards cannot possibly have either a divine or just Title but must lay its Foundation contrary to Gods Institution and Ecclesiastical Canon And the Possessor is a Thief and a Robber our Adversaries being Judges He invades others Provinces and is bound to Restore And long Possession is but a protracted Rebellion against God and his Church However it be with the secular Powers Christs Vicar must certainly derive from him must hold the power he gave must come in it at his door And S. W. himself P. 50 against Dr. Hammond fiercely affirmeth That Possession in this kind ought to begin near Christs Time and he that hath begun it later unless he can Evidence that he was driven out from an
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 Obj. But Anselm as Arch-Bishop took the Oath that was appointed by the Pope to be taken at the receiving of the Pall which allowed his Power to receive Appeals Ans 'T is true but Pope Paschalis himself who 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 request of his Barons as Hoveden notes to In Hen. 2. 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 Malmsb. 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 English custom not only by their consents but Math. Par. 1164. Hoved. in Hen. 2. 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 the same purpose in these words Whosoever 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. should draw any of the Kings Subjects out of the Realm in plea about any cause 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 Obj. 'T is confest that in the Laws of Hen. 1. 't is granted that in case a Bishop erring in Faith and 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 Ans But the same learned Mans Note upon it is that this is the only Cause wherein I find any English P. 32. 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 which was an 1115. and that they were held Eadm p. 113. 3. 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. Obj. Indeed the King did personally yield afterwards an 1172. not to hinder such appeals in Ecclesiastical Causes Ans But the whole Kingdom four years after would 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 ut 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 of the priviledge of Appeals to us seeing thou thy self has sometimes done the same And near about the same time as Twisden observes
Robert Abbot of Thorney deposed by Hubert Arch-Bishop was kept in Prison a year and an half without any regard had to his appeal Hov. f. 430. b. 37. made to the Pope Obj. Indeed that Pope Innocent the Third and his Clergy great instruments in obtaining Magna Charta from that Prince had got that clause inserted liceat unicuique it is lawful for any one to go out of our Kingdom and to return nisi in tempore Guerrae per aliquod breve tempus After which saith Twisden it is scarce imaginable how every petty cause was by appeals removed to Rome which did not only cause Jealousie at Rome that the grievance would not long be born and put the Pope in prudence to study and effect a mitigation by some favourable priviledges granted to the Arch-Bishoprick but it did also awaken the King and Kingdom to stand upon and recover their ancient liberty in that point Hereupon the Body of the Kingdom in their Matth. Par. p. 668. 3. querelous Letter to Innocent the fourth 1245. or rather to the Council at Lions claim that no Legate ought to come here but on the King's desire ne quis extra Regnum trahatur in Causam which Math. Par. left out but is found in Mr. Roper's M. S. and Mr. Dugdale's as Sir Roger Twisden observes agreeable to one of the Gravamina Angliae sent to the same Pope 1246. viz. quod Anglici extra Regnum in Causis Apostolica Authoritate trahuntur Therefore it is most remarkable that at the revising of Magna Charta by Edw. 1. the former clause liceat unicuique c. was left out Since which time none of the Clergy might Reg. 193. Coke Inst 3. p. 179. 12 R. 2. c. 15. go beyond Seas but with the King's leave as the Writs in the Register and the Acts of Parliament assure us and which is more if any were in the Court of Rome the King called them home The Rich Cardinal and Bishop of Winchester knew the Law in this case and that no man was so great but he might need pardon for the offence and therefore about 1429. caused a Petition to be exhibited in Parliament that neither himself nor any other should be troubled by the King c. for cause of any provision or offence done by the said Cardinal against any Statute of Provisions c. this was in the Rot. Parl. 10 Hen. 6. n. 16. Eighth of Henry the Sixth and we have a plain Statute making such Appeals a premunire in Edward 9 Ed. 4. 3. the Fourth Sir Roger Twisden observes the truth of this barring Appeals is so constantly P. 37. averred by all the Ancient Monuments of this Nation as Philip Scot not finding how to deny it falls upon another way that if the Right of Appeals were abrogated it concludes not the See of Rome had no Jurisdiction over this Church the Concession gives countenance to our present enquiry the consequence shall be considered in its proper place What can be further said in pretence of a quiet possession of Appeals for nine hundred years together since it hath been found to be interrupted all along till within one hundred years before Hen. 8. Especially seeing my Lord Bramhall hath made it evident by clear Instances that it is the Vnanimous Judgment of all Christendom that not the Pope but their own Sovereigns in their Councils are the last Judges of their National Liberties vid Bramh. p. 106. to 118. SECT II. Of the Pope's Possession here by his Legates Occasion of them Entertainment of them IT is acknowledged by some that citing Englishmen to appear at Rome was very inconvenient therefore the Pope had his Legates here to execute his Power without that inconvenience to us How the Pope had possession of this Legantine Power is now to be enquired The Correspondence betwixt us and Rome at first gave rise to this Power the Messengers from Rome were sometimes called Legati though at other times Nuncii After the Erection of Canterbury into an Arch-Bishoprick the Arch-Bishop was held quasi Alterius Orbis Papa as Vrban 2. stiled him he exercising Vices Apostolicas in Anglia that is used the same Power within this Island Malms f. 127. 15. the Pope did in other Parts Consequently if any question did arise the determination was in Council as the deposing Stygand and the setling the precedency betwixt Wigorn. An. 1070. Canterbury and York The Instructions mentioned of Henry the First say the Right of the Realm is that none should be drawn out of it Authoritate Apostolicâ and do assure us that our Ancient Applications to the Pope were Acts of Brotherly Confidence in the Wisdom Piety and Kindness of that Church that it was able and willing to advise and assist us in any difficulty and not of obedience or acknowledgment of Jurisdiction as appear by that Letter of Kenulphus c. to Pope Leo the Third An. 797. Malms de Reg. l. 1. f. 16. quibus Sapientiae Clavis the Key of Wisdom not Authority was acknowledged therein Much less can we imagine that the Pope's Messengers brought hither any other Power than that of Direction and Counsel at first either to the King or Arch-Bishop the Arch-Bishop was nullius unquam Legati ditioni addictus Therefore none were suffered to wear a Miter within his Province or had the Crocier carried nor laid any Excommunication upon this ground in Diaecesi Archiepiscopi Apostolicam non tenere Sententiam Gervas Col. 1663. 55. An. 1187. Col. 1531. 38. The Church of Cam. being then esteemed omnium nostrum Mater Communis sub sponsi Jesu Christi dispositione ibid. True the Pope did praecipere but that did not argue the acknowledgment of his Power so John Calvin commanded Knox the question Knox Hist Scot. 93. is how he was obeyed 't is certain his Precepts if disliked were questioned Eadm p. 92. 40. opposed Gervas Col. 1315. 66. and those he sent not permitted to medle with those things they came about ibid. Col. 1558. 54. But Historians observe that we might be Occasion of Legates wrought to better temper some Persons were admitted into the Kingdom that might by degrees raise the Papacy to its designed height these were called Legates but we find not any Courts kept by them or any Power exercised with effect beyond what the King and Kingdom pleased which indeed was very little The Pope's Legate was at the Council touching the precedence of the Arch-Bishops but he subscribed the sixteenth after all the English Bishops and not like the Pope's Person or Proctor as Sir Roger Twisden proves p. 20. The first Council wherein the Pope's Legate preceded Arch-Bishops was that of Vienna a little more than three hundred years agon viz. 1311. as the same Author observes wherein he looked like the Legate of his Holiness indeed But let us examine what entertainment the Power of a Legate found here the Arch-Bishop Math. Par. p.
Danish Kings without any dependance on the Pope did usually make Ecclesiastical Laws Witness the laws of Excombert Ina Withred Alfrede Edward Athelstan Edmond Edgar Athelred Canutus and Edward the Confessor among which Laws one makes it the Office of a King to Govern the Church as the Vicar of God Indeed at last the Pope was officiously kind and did bestow after a very formal way upon the last of those Kings Edward the Confessor a Priviledge which all his Predecessors had enjoyed as their own undoubted Right before viz. the Protection of all the Churches of England and power to him and his Successors the Kings of England for ever in his stead to make just Ecclesiastical Constitutions with the advice of their Bishops and Abbots But with thanks to his Holiness our Kings still continued their ancient custom which they had enjoyed from the beginning in the right of the Crown without respect to his curtesie in that matter After the Conquest our Norman Kings did also exercise the same Legislative power in Ecclesiastical After Conquest Causes over Ecclesiastical Persons from time to time with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Hence all those Statutes concerning Benefices Tythes Advowsons Lands given in Mortmain Prohibitions Consultations Praemunires quare impedits Priviledge of the Clergy Extortions of Ecclesiastical Courts or Officers Regulation of Fees Wages of Priests Mortuaries Sanctuaries Appropriations and in sum as Bishop Bramhall adds All things which did belong to the external subsistence Regiment and regulating of the Church and this in the Reigns of our best Norman Kings before the Reformation Arch Bishop Bramh. p. 73. But what Laws do we find of the Popes making in England or what English-Law hath he ever effectually abrogated 'T is true many of the Canons of the Church of Rome were here observed but before they became obliging or had the force of Laws the King had power in his great Council to receive them if they were judged convenient or if otherwise to reject them 'T is a notable instance that we have of this in Ed. 3. time When some Bishops proposed 20 Ed. 3. c. 9. in Parliament the reception of the Ecclesiastical Canon for the legitimation of Children born before Marriage all the Peers of the Realm stood up and cried out with one voice Nolumus leges Angliae mutari we will not have the Laws of England to be changed A clear evidence that the Popes Canons were not English Laws and that the Popish Bishops knew they could not be so without the Parliament Likewise the King and Parliament made a legislative exposition of the Canon of the Council of Lions concerning Bigamy which they would 4 Ed. 1. c. 5. not have done had they not thought they had power according to the fundamental Laws of England either to receive it or reject it These are plain and undeniable evidences that when Popery was at highest the Popes Supremacy in making Laws for the English Church was very ineffectual without the countenance of a greater and more powerful viz. the Supremacy of our own Kings Obj. Now admit that during some little space the Pope did impose and England did consent to the authority of his Canons as indeed the very Consent admitted rejecting of that authority intimates yet that is very short of the Possession of it without interruption for nine hundred years together the contrary being more than evident However this Consent was given either by By Permission Permission or Grant If only by Permission whether through Fear or Reverence or Convenience it signifies nothing when the King and Kingdom see cause to vindicate our ancient Liberties and resolve to endure it no longer If a Grant be pretended 't was either from Or by Grant the King alone or joyned with his Parliament If from the King alone he could grant it for his time only and the power of resuming any part of the prerogative granted away by the Predecessors accompanies the Crown of the Successor and fidelity to his Office and Kingdom obligeth him in Justice to retrieve and recover it I believe none will undertake to affirm that the Grant was made by the Law or the King with his Parliament Yet if this should be said and proved too it would argue very little to the purpose for this is to establish Iniquity by a Law The Kings Prerogative as Head of this Church lieth too deep in the very constitution of the Kingdom the foundation of our common Law and in the very Law of Nature and is no more at the will of the Parliament than the fundamental liberties of the Subject Lastly the same Power that makes can repeal a Law if the Authority of Papal Canons had been acknowledged and ratified by Parliament which cannot be said 't is most certain it was revoked and renounced by an equal Power viz. of Henry the Eighth and the whole Body of the Kingdom both Civil and Ecclesiastical It is the Resolution both of Reason and Law that no Prescription of time can be a bar to the Supreme Power but that for the Publick good it may revoke any Concessions Permissions or Priviledges thus it was declared in Parliament in Edward the Third his Reign when reciting the Statute of Edward the First they say the Statute holdeth alway his force and that the King is bound by Oath to cause the same to be kept and consequently if taken away to be restored to its Observation as the Law of the Land that is the Common Fundamental unalterable Law of the Land Besides the Case is most clear that when Henry the Eighth began his Reign the Laws asserting the Supreme Authority in Causes and over Persons Ecclesiastical were not altered or repealed and Henry the Eight used his Authority against Papal Incroachments and not against but according to the Statute as well as the Common Law of the Land witness all those Noble Laws of Provisors and praemunire which as my Lord Bramhall saith we may truly call 25 Ed. 1. 27 Ed. 3. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3 4. 7 Hen. 4. c. 6. the Palladium which preserved it from being swallowed up in that vast gulph of the Roman Court made by Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. CHAP. XI Of the Power of Licences c. here in Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Hen. 7. THough the Pope be denied the Legislative and Judiciary or Executive Power in England yet if he be allowed his Dispensatory Power that will have the effect of Laws and fully supersede or impede the Execution of Laws in Ecclesiastical Causes and upon Ecclesiastical Persons 'T is confest the Pope did usurp and exercise this strange Power after a wonderful manner in England before Henry the Eighth by his Licences Dispensations Impositions Faculties Grants Rescripts Delegacies and other such kind of Instruments as the Statute 25 Hen. 8. 21. mentions and that this Power was denied or taken from him by the same
the Pope eleven hundred years after Christ got possession of the English Church and the Conscience of the Bishops by Investiture and Oaths who will shew us that he had it sooner who will maintain that he kept it quietly till Hen. 8 This last point will be clear by examining 2. Law our Laws the second Topick propounded at the beginning of this discourse For if his Possession were good it was setled in Law and if quiet the Laws were not made to oppose it by the great States of the Kingdom My Lord Bramhall hath produced three great Laws as sufficient to determine this Controversie 1. Clarendon whether the King or the Pope be Patron of the English Church the Assize of Clarendon Statute of Carlisle and of Provisors The first tells us plainly that the Election of an Arch-Bishop Bishop Abbot and Prior was to be made by the respective dignitaries upon the Kings calling them together to that purpose and with the Kings consent And then the Person elected was presently to do homage to the King as his Liege Lord. And that this method was exclusive of the In Ed. 1. Pope that of Carlisle is very distinct The King is the founder of all Bishopricks and ought to 2. Carlisle have the custody of them in the Vacances and the Right of Patronage to present to them and that the Bishop of Rome usurping the right of Patronage giveth them to Aliens That this tendeth to Annullation of the State of holy Church to the disinheriting of Kings and the destruction of the Realm This is an Oppression and shall not be Suffered The Statute of Provisors 15. Ed. 3. affirms that Elections were first granted by Kings Progenitors Provisors upon Condition to demand Licence of the King to Chuse and after the Election to have the Royal Assent Which Conditions not being kept the thing ought by reason to return to its first Nature And therefore they conclude that in Case Reservation Collation or Provision be made by the Court of Rome of any Arch-Bishoprick c. The King and his Heirs shall have the Collations for the same time such as his Progenitors had before the free Elections were granted And they tell the King plainly that the Right of the Crown is such and the Law of the Land too that the King is bound to make Remidies and Laws against such Mischiefs And acknowledg that he is Advower Paramont immediate of all Churches Prebends and other Benefices which are of the Advowrie of holy Church i. e. Soveraign patron of it My Lord Coke more abundantly adds the Wil. 1. Resolutions and Decrees of the Law to confirm us in the Point In the time of William the 7. Ed. 3. tit qu. i. e. p. 19. first it is agreed that no man only can make any Appropriation of any Church having cure of Souls but he that hath Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but William the first did make such Appropriations of himself without any other Edward the first presented his Clerke who was refused by the Arch-Bishop for that the Ed. 1. Pope by way of Provision had conferred it on another The King brought his quare non admisit the Arch-Bishop pleaded the Supremacy of the Pope and that he durst not nor had power to put him out which was by the Popes Bull in Possession for which by judgment of the Common Law the Lands of his whole Bishoprick were seized into the Kings hands and lost during his life And my Lord Coke's Note upon it is that this Judgment was before any Statute was made in that Case In the Reign of Edw. 3. it is often resolved Ed. 3. that all the Bishopricks within England were founded by the Kings Progenitors and therefore the Advowsons of them all belong to the King and at the first they were Donative And that if any Incumbent dye the Lapse comes to the Bishop then to the Arch-Bishop and lastly by the common Law to the King as to the Supreme within his own Kingdom and not to the Bishop of Rome This King presented to a Benefice his Presentee 21 Ed. 3. 40. f. 40. was disturbed by one that had obtained Bulls from Rome for which offence he was condemned to perpetual Imprisonment It is no small spice of the Kings Ecclesiastical Patronage that we find the King made Canons secular to be Regular and that he made the Prior and Covent of Westminster a distinct Corporation from the Abbot 38. li. Ass pl. 22. 49. Ed. 3. l. Ass pl. 8. But more full is the case of Abbot Moris who sent to Rome to be confirmed by the Pope who 46 Ed. 3. Tit. praem 6. by his Bull sleighted the Election of Moris but gave him the Abby of his spiritual Grace and at the request as he feigned of the King of England This Bull was read and considered of in Council that is before all the Judges of England and it was resolved by them all that this Bull was against the Laws of England and that the Abbot for obtaining the same was faln into the Kings mercy whereupon all his Possessions were seiz'd into the Kings hands In the Reign of Richard the Second one sued 12 Rich. 2. Tit. Juris 18. a provision in the Court of Rome against an Incumbent recovered the Church brought an action of account for Oblations c. but the whole Court was of opinion against the Plaintiff and thereupon he was non-suit Vid. Stat. 16. Rich. 2. c. 5. against all Papal Usurpations and this in particular the pain is a praemunire In Hen. 4 s Reign the Judges say that the Statutes which restrain the Popes Provisions to the Benefices 11 H. 4. f. 69 70. of the Advowsons of spiritual men were made for that the spiritualty durst not in their just cause say against the Popes Provisions so as those Statutes were made but in affirmance of the common Laws Now what remains to be pleaded in behalf of the Popes Patronage of our Church at least as to his possession of it against so many plain and great Evidences both of Law and Deed All pretences touching the Popes giving the Pall are more than anticipated For it is not to be denied but that was not held necessary either to the consceration confirmation or investiture of the very Arch-Bishop before Anselm's time Yea 't is manifest that Lanfrank Anselm and Raulf did dedicate Churches consecrate Bishops and Abbots and were called Arch-Bishops while they had no Pall as Twisden proves out of Eadmer P. 47. We never read that either Laurentius or Milletus received the Pall from Rome who no doubt were as lawful Arch-Bishops as Austin Girald and Hoveden both give us an account that Sampson of St. Davids had a Pall but do not say from Rome and though in the time of infection he carried it away with him After Paulinus there are five in the Catalogue of York expresly said to have wanted it and Wilfred was one of
but these obtained upon private persons and many times in methods not cognizable by Law neither were the people so apt to complain in such cases because they had something which they unaccountably valued for their money and the possession of a false opinion in the Vulgar as Juglers and Cheats may equally glory in can never be soberly interpreted to be a good and sufficient Title to the Supremacy of the Church of England Yet it is not amiss to remember that the Popes Messenger Jo. Opizanus for acting against the Kings Laws in getting mony for his Master was cast into Prison as we find it Vit. Hen. Chich. p. 86. Neither can we reasonably imagine but that much of that vast Sum was gathered by those ways which in the Reign of Hen. 3. the Lords and Commons complain of viz. that above four hundred thousand pounds yearly was carried hence into Italy It was some disturbance of such kind of Receipts that the Law forbids any such Bulls to be Stat. de 7. H. 1. c. 6. purchased for the time to come upon pain of praemunire And that 't was decreed that the Popes Collector though he have a Bull for the purpose Hen. 4. fol. 9. hath no Jurisdiction within this Realm And if the ancient Law of the Realm saith that the Pope cannot alter the Laws of England that Law condemns his raising money upon the people in any kind without special Law to that purpose a Prerogative the Kings of England themselves do not claim Therefore that standing Fundamental Law of England always lay in bar against and was a continual real and legal disturbance of the Popes possession of power to impose Taxes or by any devices to collect money from the English either Laity or Clergy CHAP. XIV The Conclusion of the Argument from Prescription 'T is on our side No force for the Pope VVE have seen what the Argument from Prescription is come to how far short of Nine Hundred years and how unsettled both in Law and Practice it ever was both as to Jurisdiction in the Popes Court at Rome and by his Legates here and as to Legislation by the force of his Canons and his dispensation by Faculties Licenses and any sort of Bulls c. and as to his Patronage of or Profits from the English Church If a just Computation were made I believe the Argument from Possession would really appear to be on our side Our Kings having enjoyed and flourished in the exercise of Supremacy over us ever since the Act of Hen. 8. extinguishing the Popes Usurpation here with far more quiet and less interruption than ever the Pope did for so long a time Besides other qualifications of our Kings possession do mightily strengthen the Plea above any thing that can be alledged on the Popes behalf 1. Our Kings had possession from the beginning according to the Canon and therefore could Nice Ephe. never be lawfully divested Ancient Histories are evident for us and Baronius determines well what is said by a Modern concerning ancient Tom. 1. an 1. n. 12. affairs without the Authority of any more ancient is contemned This ancient Possession of our Kings hath ever been continued and declared and confirmed by our Laws and the consent of the whole Kingdom signified thereby And these Laws have still been insisted on and repeated when there hath been any great occasion and fit opportunity to vindicate our ancient Liberties But the Pope could never obtain any legal settlement of his Power here before Queen Mary's Reign nor by Her neither in the main branches of it though indeed she courted him with the dignity of a great name and a verbal Title Indeed the subject of the Question being a spiritual Right our Adversaries themselves agree that Possession sufficient to prove it ought to begin near Christs time And he that hath begun it later as certainly the Pope did unless he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancienter Possession as the Pope can never do is not to be stiled a Possessor but an Vsurper an Intruder an Invader Disobedient Rebellious and Schismatical as no doubt by S. W's Logick the Pope is as before was noted I shall conclude with the grave and considerate Concession of Father Barnes noted by Dr. Stillingfleet who after his thorow study of the point upon clear Conviction determined it positively for us in these words The Britanick Church may plead the Cyprian Dr. Still p. 398. Priviledg that it was subject to no Patriarch and although this priviledge was taken away by Force and Tumult yet being restored in Henry the Eighth's time and quietly enjoyed since it ought to be retained for peace sake without prejudice of Catholicism and the brand of Schism by which he grants all that is pertinent to our Cause that the Pope had not possession here from the beginning nor ought to have had 2. That he took advantage bellorum tumultibus vi for his Usurpation 3. That our Ancient Cyprian priviledge was restored by Henry the Eighth totius Regni Consensu with the Consent of the whole Kingdom 4. That never since it hath been peaceably prescribed pacifice praescriptum or quietly enjoyed 5. And that therefore it still ought to be retained sine Schismatis ullius Notâ without the brand or charge of Schism which is the only thing contended for CHAP. XV. The Argument from Infallibility Considered in its Consequence retorted THe two last Arguments for proof of the Pope's Authority are general and not limited to the Church of England as the three former were and are his Infallibility and his Vniversal Pastorship which remain to be examined Arg. From his Infallibility it may be argued thus Whether the Pope were the means of our Conversion or have a Patriarchal Right over us or have had possession of the Government of the English Church heretofore or not if he be really and absolutely Infallible he hath thereby a right to govern us and we are bound to be ruled and directed by him but the Pope is really and absolutely Infallible Ergo. The Consequence would tempt a denial indeed Consequence Infallibility is an excellent qualification for an Vniversal Rector but are not qualification and Commission two things hath God given Authority to every man equal to his Parts to his Natural acquired or infused abilities if not what necessity is there that he hath to the Pope if all Power as well as all Wisdom is from God the prime fountain of them both and if we pretend to both need we evidence only one Indeed we ought to be guided by one that is Infallible if such a one there be but the Necessity ariseth from Prudence not immediatly from Conscience Unless by some other way of Authority God hath given him power to govern us as well as ability otherwise we ought to submit our selves to the guidance of the Pope as a good and wise man or as a Friend as our Ancestors did
especially when that fails him yet methinks the jus Ecclesiasticum is not at all unbecoming his pretences who is sworn to govern the Church according to the Canons as they say the Pope is If it be pleaded that the Canons of the Fathers do invest the Pope with plenary Power over all Churches And if it could be proved too yet one thing more remains to be proved to subject the Church of England to that his power viz. that the Canon Law is binding and of force in England as such or without our own consent or allowance And 't is impossible this should be proved while our Kings are Supreme and the constitution of the Kingdom stands as it hath always stood However we decline not the examination of the plea viz. that the Popes Supremacy over the whole Church is granted by the Canons of Councils viz. general But when this is said it is but reasonable to demand which or in what Canons It is said the Pope receives his Office with an Oath to observe the Canons of the eight first general Councils in which of these is the grant to be found Sure so great a conveyance should be very legible and Intelligible We find it very plain that in some of those Councils and those the most ancient this Power is expresly denyed him and that upon such reason as is eternal and might justly and effectually prevent any such grant or usurpation of such power for ever if future Grants were to be just and reasonable or future Popes were to be governed by Right or Equity by the Canons of the Fathers or fidelity to the Church to God or their own solemn Oaths at their Inaugurations But we are prepared for the examination of the Councils in this matter by a very strong presumption That seeing Justinian made the Canons to have the force of Laws and he had ever shewed himself so careful to maintain the Rights of the Empire in all causes as well as over all persons Ecclesiastical even Popes themselves 't is not credible that he would suffer any thing in those Canons to pass into the body of the Laws that should be agreeable to the pretended donation of Constantine or to the prejudice of the Emperor 's said Supremacy and consequently not much in favour of the Supremacy claimed by later Popes Justinian's Sanction extended to the four Justin Sanction of four first great Councils Nic. Constant Ephes 1. and Calcedon in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sancimus Vicem Legum obtinere Sanctos Ecclesiasticos Canones qui à Sanctis quatuor Conciliis constituti sunt confirmati hoc est Niceno c. praedictorum enim Consdiorum dogmata sicut divinas Scripturas accipimus Canones sicut Leges observamus Perhaps it may be doubted why he did not Apostles Canons not mention reason confirm those Canons which were then well known by the Title of the Canons of the Apostles whether because their Authority was suspected especially many of them or because Vid. Bin. To. 1. p. 17. a. they were not made by a truly General Council or because they were Confirmed in and with the Council of Nice and Ephesus c. or lastly whether because the first fifty had before a greater Sanction from the general Reception of the whole Ibid. Church or the greater Authority of the Sacred Names of the Authors the Apostles or Apostolical men I venture not to declare my opinion But truly there seems something considerable for the later for that the Council of Nice do not pretend to confirm the Apostles Canons but their own by the Quotation of them taking Authority from them as Laws founded in the Church before to build their own and all future Canons and Decrees of Councils upon in such matters as were found there determined A great Instance of the probability of this Conjecture we have full to our present purpose given us by Binius Nicena Synodus Can. 6. c. the Nicene and Ephesine Synods followed those Bin. To. 1. p. 20. Canons of the Apostles appointing that every Bishop acknowledge suum primum their Chief and Metropolitane Can. Ap. allowed by C. Nice and Ephesus and do nothing without their own Diocess but rather the Bishop of Alexandria according to the Canons understand saith Binius those 35 36 of the Apostles must govern the Churches of Egypt the Bishop of the East the Eastern Churches the Ephesine Synod also saith it is besides the Canons of the Apostles that the Bishop of Antioch should ordain in the Provinces of Cyprus c. Hence it is plain that according to Apostles Canons interpreted and allowed as Authentick so far at least by the Synods of Nice and Ephesus the Metropolitan was Primate or Chief over the Churches within his Provinces and that he as such exclusive of all Forreign Superior Power was to govern and ordain within his own Provinces not consonant to but directly against the pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome But let us consult the Canons to which Binius refers and the matter is plainer SECT I. Can. Apostol THere is nothing in the Canons of the Apostles to our purpose but what we find in Can. 35 36. or in the Reddition as Binius gives it Can. 33 and 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. let the Bishops of 35 33. every Nation know or they ought to know who among them is accounted or is chief and esteem him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut caput and do nothing difficult aut magni momenti praeter ejus Conscientiam vel Sententiam but what if the matter were too hard for the Primate is no direction given to go to the Infallible Chair at Rome here was indeed a proper place for it but not a word of that In the 36 aliàs 34. it is added that a Bishop should not dare to ordain any beyond the bounds of his own Jurisdiction but neither of these Canons concern the Pope unless they signifie that the Pope is not Head of all Churches and hath not power in any place but within the Diocess of Rome or that Binius was not faithful in leaving out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Head in his Note upon these Canons SECT II. Concil Nicen. Gen. 1. Bellar. Evasion VVE find nothing in the true Canons of the Nicene Synod that looks our way except Can. 6. and 7. They are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let ancient Custom be kept through Can. 6. Egypt Libia and Pentapolis so as the Bishop of Alexandria may have power over all these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because also the like Custom is for the Bishop of the City of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as likewise at Antioch and other Provinces let the Priviledges be kept in their own Churches but suppose differences arise is no Liberty or Remedy provided by going to Rome no more than if differences arise in the Roman Church they may have
and consequently hath no force in England especially being urged in a matter contrary to the Famous Memorial of Clarendon a Fundamental Law of this Land all Appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and from him to the King to give order for Redress But to wipe away all colour of Argument what ever Authority these Canons may be thought to have in other matters 't is certain they have none in this matter of Appeals for as to this Point the undoubted General Councils afterward decreed quite otherwise reducing and limiting Appeals ultimately to the Primate of the Province or a Council as hath been made to appear When I heare any thing of moment urged from any other Council as a Grant of the pretended Supremacy to the Pope I shall consider what may be answered till then I think there is an end of his Claim Jure humano either by a Civil or Canonical Grant by Emperors or General Councils So much hath been said against and so little to purpose for the Council of Trent that I shall excuse my self and my Reader from any trouble about it But I must conclude that the Canons of the Council of Trent were never acknowledged or received Epist Synod Conc. Basil by the Kingdom of England as the Council of Basil was which confirmed the Acts of the Council of Constance which Council of Constance without the presence or concurrence of the Pope did decree themselves to be a lawful complete general Council Superior to the Pope and that he was subject to their censures and deposed three Popes at a time The words of the Council are remarkable The Pope is subject to a general Council as well in matters of Faith as of manners so as he may not only be corrected but if he be incorrigible be deposed To say this Decree was not conciliarly made and consequently not confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth signifies nothing if that Martin were Pope because his Title to the Papacy depended merely upon the Authority of that Decree But indeed the word Conciliariter was spoken by the Pope upon a particular occasion after the Council was ended and the Fathers were dismissed as appears in the History CHAP. XX. Of the Popes Title by Divine Right The Question Why not sooner 'T is last Refuge THe modern Champions of the Church of Rome sleight all that hath been said and judge it beneath their Master and his Cause to plead any thing but a Jus divinum for his pretended Supremacy and indeed will hardly endure and tolerate the question Whether the Pope be universal Monarch or Bishop of the whole Church as St Peter's Successor Jure divino But if this point be so very plain may I have leave to ask why was it not urged sooner why were lesser inconsistent Pleas so long insisted on why do not many of their own great men discern it to this day The truth is if the managery of the Combat all along be seriously reflected on this Plea of divine Right seems to be the last Refuge when they have been driven by Dint of Argument out of all other Holds as no longer to be defended And yet give me leave to observe that this last ground of theirs seems to me to be the weakest and the least able to secure them which looks like an Argument of a sinking cause However they mightily labour to support it by these two Pillars 1. That the government of the whole Church is Monarchical 2. That the Pope is the Monarch and both these are Jure divino But these Pillars also must be supported and how that is performed we shall examine SECT I. Whether the Government of the whole Church be Monarchical by Divine Right Bellar. Reason Scripture BEllarmine hath flourished with this argument through no less than eight whole Chapters and indeed hath industriously and learnedly beaten it as far as it would go and no wonder if he have left it thin What solidity is in it we are to weigh both from Reason and Scripture Not from Reason in 3 Arg. Arg. 1 From Reason they argue thus God hath appointed the best and most profitable Government for he is most wise and good but Monarchical Government is the best and most profitable Ans 'T is plainly answered that to know which is the best Government the state of that which is to be governed must be considered the end of Government being the profit and good of the State governed so that unless it appear that this kind of Government be the most convenient for the State of the Church nothing is concluded 2. We believe that God hath the care of the World and not only of the Church therefore in his wise and good Providence he ought to have settled the World under the best and most profitable Government viz. under one universal Monarch 3. Bellarmine himself grants that if particular Churches should not be gathered inter se so as to make one visible Political Body their own proper Rector would suffice for every one and there should be no need of one Monarch But all particular Churches are not one visible political Body but as particular Bodies are complete in themselves enjoying all parts of ordinary Worship and Government singly neither is there any part of Worship or Government proper to the Oecumenical Church qua talis 4. The Argument seems stronger the contrary way God is good and wise and hath appointed the best Government for his own Church but he hath not appointed that it should be Monarchical Therefore that kind of Government seems not to be the best for his Church Christ might foresee the great inconveniences of his Churches being governed by one Ecclesiastical Monarch when divided under the several secular Powers of the World though the Ambition of men overlook it and consider it not Yet that the Government of the Church appointed by God as best for it is Monarchical is not believed by all Catholicks The Sorbon Doctors doubt not to affirm that Aristocratical Government is the best of all and most agreeable to the nature of the Church De Eccl. Polit. potest an 1611. 6. But what if we yeild the whole Argument as the government of the Church is Imperial 't is in Christ the Vniversal Monarch over it but he being in a far Country he governs the several parts of his Church in distinct Countries by visible ministerial Monarchs or Primates proper to each The distinction of imperial and ministerial Power is given us in this very case by our Adversaries There is nothing unreasonable unpracticable or contrary to the practice of the world in the Assertion We grant that Monarchy is the best kind of Government in a due Sphere the World is wide enough for many Monarchs and the Church too The Argument concludes for Primates over Provinces not for an universal Monarch either over the world or the whole Church Arg. 2 2. The Church cannot be propogated as Bell. argues
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 praescrip c. 36. 'T is most evident that Optatus calls the Chair of Peter one not because of any Superiority over other Apostolical Chairs but because of the Vnity of the Catholick Church in opposition to the Donatists who set up another Chair in opposiion Altare contra Altare to the Catholick Church Bellarmine well observes that Optatus followed the doctrine of St. Cyprian who said there is but one Church one Chair c. And out of St. Cyprian himself his meaning therein is manifest Cyprian to be no other than a specifical not numerical Unity He tells us plainly in the same place that the other Apostles were the same with Peter equal in honour and power He teacheth that the one Bishoprick is dispersed consisting of the unanimous multitude of many Bishops that the Bishoprick is but one a portion whereof is wholly and fully Head of every Bishop So there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church i. e. all Bishops ought to be one in Faith and Fellowship Vid. Cypr. de Vnit Eccles lib. 3. Epis 11. But is it not prodigious that men should build the Pope's Dominion upon the Doctrine of Saint Cyprian and Optatus The latter tells us roundly that whosoever is without the Communion of seven Churches of Asia is an Alien in effect calling the Pope Infidel and Saint Cyprian is well known to have always stiled Pope Cornelius Brother to have severely censured his Successor Pope Stephen contradicting his Decrees opposing the Roman Councils disclaiming the Pope's Power of Appeals and contemning his Excommunications A Council at Africk under Saint Cyprian as another wherein Saint Augustine sate rejected and condemned the Jurisdiction of the Pope over them as is frequently observed and why do men endeavour to blind the World with a few words of these great Fathers contrary to the known Language of their Actions and course of Life The sence of the words may be disputed but when it came to a Tryal their deeds are known to have shewed their mind beyond all dispute For Instance Ambrose calls Pope Damascus Ambr. Rector of the whole Church yet 't is known that he would never yield his Sences to the Law of Rome about Easter lib. 3. de sacr c. 1. for which the Church of Milain was called the Church of Ambrose 670 years after his death when the Clergy of Milain withstood the Legate of Leo 9. saying the Church of Ambrose had been always free and never yet subject to the Laws of the Pope of Rome as Baron notes An. 1059. Nu. 46. Many other Aiery Titles and Courtly Addresses given to the Pope in the Writings of the Fathers we have observed before to carry some Colour for a Primacy of Order but no wise man can imagine that they are an Evidence or Ground much less a formal Grant of Vniversal Dominion seeing scarce one of them but is in some of the Fathers and usually by the same Fathers given as well to the other Apostles and to other Bishops as to Peter and the Pope and so unfortunate is Bellarmine in his Instances that usually the very same place carries its Confutation It is strange that so great a Wit should so egregiously bewray it self to bring in Acacius Bishop of Constantinople submitting as it were the Eastern Church to the See of Rome because in his Epistle to Pope Simplicius he tells him he hath the care of all the Churches for what one Bishop of those times could have been worse pitch'd upon for his purpose who ever opposed himself more fiercely against the Jurisdiction of the Pope than Acacius who more boldly rejected his Commands than this Patriarch or stands in greater opposition to Rome in all History yet Acacius must be the Instance of an Eastern Patriarch's Recognition of the An. 478. n. 3. An. 483. n. 78. An. 484. n. 17. As they say See of Rome Acacius phrenesi abreptus as Baronius hath it adversus Rom. Pontificem Violenter insurgit Acacius that Received those whom the Pope Damn'd Acacius Excommunicated by the Pope and the very Head of the Eastern Schism this is the man that must witness the Pope's Supremacy against himself and his own and his Churches famous Cause and this by saying in a Letter to the Pope himself that he had the care of all Churches a Title given to Saint Paul in the days of Peter to Athanasius in the time of Pope Julius to the Bishops of France in time of Pope Elutherius and to Zecharias an Arch-Bishop by Pope John the first but conferred no Monarchy upon any of them I do not remember that I have yet mentioned the Titles of Summus Pontifex and Pontifex Sum. max. Pontifex Maximus which are also said to carry the Pope's Supremacy in them but it is impossible any wise man can think so Azor. Jesuit acknowledgeth these terms may have a Negative Sence only and Baronius saith they do admit Equality In this Sence Pope Clemens called Saint James Bishop of Bishops and Pope Epis 88 Leo stiled all Bishops Summos Pontifices and the Bishops of the East write to the Patriarch of Constantinople under the Title of Universal Patriarch and call themselves Chief Priests Epist ad Tharasiam c. SECT X. The Conclusion touching the Fathers Reasons why no more of them A Challenge touching them No Consent of Fathers in the Point Evident in General Councils Reasons of it Rome 's contradiction of Faith Pope Schism Perjury c. I Was almost tempted to have gone through with a particular Examination of all the Titles and Phrases which Bellarmine hath with too much Vanity gathered out of the Fathers both Greek and Latine on behalf of the Pope's Supremacy But considering they are most of them very frivilous and impertinent and that I conceive I have not omitted any one that can be soberly thought material and that all of them have been frequently answered by Learned Protestants and very few of them so answered thought fit to be replied to by our Adversaries I thought it prudent to excuse that very needless exercise and I hope none will account me blame-worthy for it but if any do so I offer Compensation by this humble Challenge upon mature deliberation If any one or more places in any of the A Challenge Ancient Fathers Greek or Latin shall be chosen by any sober Adversary and argued from as Evidence of the Pope's Supremacy as Successor to Saint Peter God giving me life and health I shall appear and undertake the Combate with weapons extant in our English Writers though they may not think that one
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 Innovations and Tyranny are the Fruits of his Pride Ambition and Perjury but if possible the guilt is made more Scarlet by his Cruelty to Souls intended by his formal Courses of Excommunications against all that own not his usurped Authority viz. the Primitive Churches the 8 first general Councils all the Fathers of the Latine and Greek Churches for many hundred years the greater part of the present Catholick Church and even the Apostles of Christ and our Lord himself The Sum of the whole matter A touch of another Treatise The material Cause of Separation THe Sum of our defence is this If the Pope have no Right to Govern the Church of England as our Apostle or Patriarch or as Infallible if his Supremacy over us was never grounded in but ever renounced by our Laws and Customs and the very constitution of the Kingdom If his Supremacy be neither of Civil Ecclesiastical or Divine Right if it be disowned by the Scriptures and Fathers and condemned by the Ancient Councils the Essential Profession of the present Roman Church and the solemn Oaths of the Bishops of Rome themselves If I say all be certainly so as hath appeared what reason remains for the necessity of the Church of England's re-admission of or submission to the Papal Authority usurped contrary to all this Or what reason is left to charge us with Schism for rejecting it But it remains to be shewn that as the claim of the Popes Authority in England cannot be allowed so there is cause enough otherwise of our denial of obedience actually to it from Reasons inherent in the Vsurpation it self and the Nature of many things required by his Laws This is the second Branch of our defence proposed at first to be the Subject of another Treatise For who can think it necessary to communicate with Error Heresie Schism Infidelity and Apostacy to conspire in damning the Primitive Church the Ancient Fathers General Councils and the better and greater part of the Christian World at this day or willingly at least to return to the infinite Superstitions and Idolatries which we have escaped and from which our blessed Ancestors through the infinite mercy and providence of God wonderfully delivered us Yet these horrid things cannot be avoided if we shall again submit our selves and enslave our Nation to the pretended Powers and Laws of Rome from which Libera nos Domine THE POSTSCRIPT Objections touching the First General Councils and our Arguments from them answered more fully SECT I. The Argument from Councils drawn up and Conclusive of the Fathers and the Cath. Church IN this Treatise I have considered the Canons of the ancient Councils two ways as Evidence and Law As Evidence they give us the undoubted sence and Faith both of the Catholick Church and of single Fathers in those times and nothing can be said against that As Law we have plainly found that none of them confer the Supremacy pleaded for but every one of them in special Canons condemn it Now this latter is so great a proof of the former that it admits of no possible reply except Circumstances on the by shall be set in opposition and contradiction to the plain Text in the body of the Law And if neither the Church nor single Fathers had any such faith of the Popes Supremacy during the first General Councils then neither did they believe it from the Beginning For if it had been the Faith of the Church before the Councils would not have rejected it and indeed the very form and method of proceeding in those Ancient Councils is sufficient Evidence that it was not However why is it not shewn by some colour of Argument at least that the Church did believe the Popes Supremacy before the time of those Councils why do we not hear of some one single Father that declared so much before the Council of Nice or rather before the Canons of the Apostles Or why is there no notice taken of such a Right or so much as Pretence in the Pope either by those Canons or one single Father before that time Indeed our Authors find very shrewd Evidence of the contrary Why saith Casaubon was Dionysius so utterly silent as to the Vniversal Head of the Church Reigning Dionysius at Rome if at that time there had been any such Monarch there Especially seeing he professedly wrote of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Government Exerc. 16. in Bar. an 34. Nu. 290. The like is observable in Ignatius the most Ignatius Epist ad Tral Ancient Martyr and Bishop of Antioch who in his Epistles frequently sets forth the Order Ecclesiastical and dignity of Bishops upon sundry occasions but never mentions the Monarchy of St. Peter or the Roman Pope Ibid. he writing to the Church of Trallis to obey Bishops as Apostles instanceth equally in Timothy St. Paul's Scholar as in Anacletus Successor to St. Peter The Prudence and Fidelity of these two prime Fathers are much stained if there were then an Vniversal Bishop over the whole Church that professedly writing of the Ecclesiastical Order they St. Paul should so neglect him as not to mention Obedience due to him and indeed of St. Paul himself who gives us an enumeration of the Primitive Ministry on set purpose both in the ordinary and extraordinary kinds of it viz. Some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers and takes no notice of the Vniversal Bishop but we hence conclude rather there was no such thing For who would give an account of the Government of a City Army or Kingdom and say nothing of the Mayor General or Prince This surpasseth the fancy of Prejudice it self Irenaeus is too ancient for the Infallible Chair and therefore refers us in the point of Tradition Ireneus lib. 2. c. 3. p. 140 141. as well to Polycarp in the East as to Linus Bishop of Rome in the West Tertullian adviseth to consult the Mother-Churches Turtullian praescr p. 76. immediately founded by the Apostles and names Ephesus and Corinth as well as Rome and Polycarpus ordained by St. John as well as Clemens by Peter Upon which their own Renanus notes that Tertullian doth not confine the Catholick and Apostolick Church to one place for which freedom of Truth the Judex expurgatorius corrected him but Tertullian is Tertullian still These things cannot consist either with their own knowledge of an Vniversal Bishop or the Churches at that time therefore the Church of Egypt held the Catholick Faith with the chief-Priests naming Anatolinus of Constant Basil of Antioch Juvenal of Jerusalem as well as Leo Bishop of Rome Bin. To.