Schism is a voluntary division of a Christian Church in its external Communion without sufficient cause 1. 'T is a Division 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divisions or Act. Division in the Church particular Rents among you This division of the Church is made either in the Church or from it in it as it is a particular Church which the Apostle blames in the Church of Corinth c. 11. Though they came together and did not separate from the external Communion but divided in it and about it 2. Division is made also in the Church as Catholick Catholick or Universal and some charge the Church or Court of Rome as we shall observe hereafter herewith as the cause of many deplorable Rents and Convulsions in the bowels of it and indeed in a true sence all that are guilty of dividing either in or from a particular Church without just cause are guilty of Schism in the Catholick as the Aggregatum of all particular Churches There is division as well from as in the Church and this is either such as is improperly called Separation or properly or more perfectly so 1. Separation improperly so called we may term Negative which is rather a recusancy or a denyal of Communion where it is either due or only claimed and not due but was never actually given 2. 'T is properly so where an actual separation is made and Communion broken or denyed where it has wont to be paid 3. Or yet more perfectly when those that thus separate and withdraw their Communion from a Church joyn themselves in an opposite body and erect Altar against Altar SECT II. Subject of Schism THus of the Act of Schism Division Let us briefly consider the Subject of this division Subject which is not a civil or an Infidel Society but a Christian Church I do not express it a true Church for that is supposed For if it be a Christian Church it must be true otherwise it is not at all Some learned of our own side distinguish here of the truth of the Church Physically or metaphysically considered or morally and acknowledge the Roman Church to be a true Church or truly a Church as some would rather have it but deny it to be such morally and plead for separation from it only in a moral sence or as it is not a true Church i. e. as it is a false and corrupt Church not as it is a Church But finding this distinction to give offence and perhaps some advantage to our Adversaries at least for the amusing and disturbing the method of disputation and being willing to reduce the difference as much as I am able I shall not insist upon these distinctions I confess pace tantorum I see no danger in but rather a necessity of granting the Church of Rome to be a true Church even in a moral sence largely speaking as moral is distinguished from Physical or metaphysical and the necessity of this concession ariseth from the granting or allowing her to be a true Church in any sence or a Church of Christ For to say that a Christian Church is not a true Church morally yet is so really i. e. Physically or Metaphysically seems to imply that it is a Christian Church and it is not a Christian Church seeing all the being of a Christian Church depends upon its truth in a moral sence as I conceive is not questioned by either side And when we grant that the Church of Rome or any other is a true Christian Church in any sence we do mean that she retains so much of Christian truth in a moral sence as is requisite to the truth and being of a Christian Church Indeed the very Essence of a Christian Church seems to be of a Moral nature as is evident in all its causes its Efficient The preaching of the Gospel under divine Influence is a Moral cause the form living in true faith and Religion is moral its End and all its formal Actions in Profession and Communion are of a Moral nature and the Christians as they are Men are indeed natural Beings yet as they are Christians and the matter of the Christian Church and more as they are in a Society they fall properly under a Moral Consideration But how can a Church be true and not true and both in a Moral sence How can we own the Church of Rome as a true Church and yet leave her as a false Church and true and false be both taken Morally Very well And our Learned Men intend no other though they speak it not in these terms For to be true and false in the same Moral Sence doth not imply the being so in the same respects Thus the Church of Rome may be granted to be a true Christian Church with respect to those Fundamentals retained in her Faith and Profession wherein the being and truth of such a Church consisteth and yet be very false and justly to be deserted for her gross Errors in many other points believed also and professed by her as a Bill in Chancery may be a true Bill for the substance of it and so admitted and yet in many things falsely suggested it may be very false and as to them be rejected 2. The Church as the Subject of Schism may 1. Catholick be further considered as Catholick i. e. Absolute Formal Essential and as it lies spread over all the world but united in one common Faith From this Church the Donatists and other ancient Hereticks are said to have separated 2. As Particular in a greater or lesser number 2. Particular or part of the Catholick Thus the modern Separatists forsaking the Church of England are said to be Schismaticks 3. In a Complex and mixt Sence as the particular 3. Mix'd Roman Church pretending also to be the Catholick Church calls her self Roman Catholick and her Particular Bishop the universal Pastor In which sence the Church of England is charged with separation from the Catholick Church for denying Communion with the particular Church of Rome SECT III. Object of Schism 1. Faith THe third Point is the Object about and External Communion in which Separation is made Namely External Communion in those three great Means or Bonds of it Faith Worship and Government under that Notion as they are bonds of Communion The first is Faith or Doctrine and it must Faith be acknowledged that to renounce the Churches Faith is a very great Schism yet here we must admit two exceptions it must be the Churches Faith that is such Doctrine as the Church hath defined as necessary to be believed if we speak of a particular Church for in other Points both Authorities allow Liberty Again though the Faith be broken there is not Schism presently or necessarily except the external Communion be also or thereby disturbed Heretical Principles not declared are Schism in Principle but not in Act Hast thou Faith have it to thy Self 'T is farther agreed that we may and some times
and will not rebel against the Government that God hath placed immediatly over us This fair respect the Church of England holds to the Communion both of the Catholick and all particular Churches both in Doctrine Worship and Government and the main exception against her is that she denies obedience to a pretended Power in the See of Rome a Power not known as now claimed to the Ancient Church a Power when once foreseen warned against as Antichristian by a Pope himself and when usurped condemned by a General Council And lastly such a Power as those that claim it are not agreed about among themselves But the charge of Schism falls after another sort upon our Roman Adversaries who have disturbed the Vniversal and all particular Churches by manifest violation of all the three bonds of external Communion The Doctrine and Faith by adding to the Canon of the Scripture Apocriphal Books by adding to the revealed will of God groundless Traditions by making new Creeds without the Consent of the present and against the Doctrine and practice of the Ancient Churches and as for Worship how have they not corrupted it by Substraction taking away one essential part of a Divine Ordinance the Cup from the Laity c. by additions infinite to the Material and Ceremonial Parts of Worship and by horrid Alterations of the pure and Primitive Worship to childish Superstitions and some say dangerous Idolatry Lastly As to Government they have plainly separated themselves both from the Ancient and present Catholick Church and all other particular Churches by usurping a Dominion condemned by the Ancient and that cannot be owned without betraying the Liberty of the present Church By exerting this Usurpation in unlawful and unreasonable Conditions of Communion and as it is said by Excommunicating for Non-obedience to these Impositions not only the Church of England but three Parts of the Christian World The proof on both sides we are to expect in due place SECT IV. The Conditions of Schism Causless Voluntary THe fourth and last thing considerable Condition in the Definition is the Condition which adds the guilt and formality of Schism to Separation which is twofold it must be Causeless and Voluntary 1. It must be voluntary Separation or denial Voluntary of Communion but of this I shall say nothing a greater man received a check from his Romish Adversaries for the proof of it saying who knows not that every sin is voluntary S. W Causless 2. It must be causless or as it is usually expressed without sufficient cause 't is a Rule generally allowed that the Cause makes the Schism i. e. if the Church give cause of Separation there is the Schism if not the cause of Schism is in the Separatist and consequently where the cause is found there the charge of Schism resteth I know 't is said that there cannot be sufficient cause of Separation from the true Church and therefore this Condition is needless but they ever mean by the true Church the Catholick Church 'T is granted the Catholick Church cannot be supposed to give such cause she being the ordinary Pillar of Truth wherein the means of Salvation can be only found therefore we rarely meet with any such condition in the Definitions of Schism given by the Fathers of the Ancient Church because they had to deal with Schisms of that kind that separated from the whole Church But hence to infer that we cannot have just cause to separate from the Church of Rome will be found bad Logick However if we could grant this Condition to be needless it cannot be denied to be true and the lawfulness of Separation for just cause is an eternal verity and if the cause be supposed just cannot be said to be unjust seeing there cannot be supposed a sufficient cause of Sin the Act is justified while it is condemned Besides it is not questioned by our Adversaries but there may be sufficient cause of separation from a particular Church then if at last we find that the Church of Rome is no more there is more than reason to admit this Condition in the present Controversie But the Cause must not be pretended to effect beyond its influence or Sufficiency Therefore none may be allowed to deny Communion with a Church farther than he hath cause for beyond its Activity that which is said to be a cause is no cause Hence we admit the distinction of partial and total separation and that known Rule that we may not totally separate from a true Church and only so far as we cannot communicate without sin The Reason is evident because the truth and very being of a Christian Church implieth something wherein every Christian Church in the very Foundation and being of it hath an agreement both of Union and Communion Far be it from us therefore to deny all kind of Communion with any Christian Church yea we franckly and openly declare that we still retain Communion out of fraternal charity with the Church of Rome so far as she is a true Church Only protesting against her Vsurpations and reforming our selves from those corruptions of Faith and Worship of which Rome is too fond and consequently the more guilty SECT V. The Application of Schism Not to our Church IF this definition of Schism be not applicable to the Church of England she is unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism If the Church of England doth not voluntarily divide in or from the Catholick Church or any particular Church either by separation from or denying Communion with it much less by setting another Altar against it without sufficient cause then the definition of Schism is not applicable to the Church of England But she hath not thus divided whether we respect the Act or the Cause With respect to the Act viz. Division We 1. In the Act. argue if the Church of England be the same for Substance since the Reformation that it was before then by the Reformation we have made no such Division for we have divided from no other Church further than we have from our own as it was before the Reformation as our Adversaries grant And therefore if we are now the same Church as to Substance that we were before we hold the same Communion for substance or essentials with every other Church now that we did before But for Substance we have the same Faith the same Worship the same Government now that we had before the Reformation and indeed from our first Conversion to Christianity Indeed the Modern Romanists have made new Essentials in the Christian Religion and determine their Additions to be such But so Weeds are of the essence of a Garden and Botches of the essence of a Man We have the same Creed to a word and in the same sence by which all the Primitive Fathers were saved which they held to be so sufficient Con. Ept. p. 2. Act. 6. c. 7. that in a general Council they did forbid all persons under
pain of deposition to Bishops and Clerks and Anathematization to Lay-men to compose or obtrude upon any persons converted from Paganism or Judaism We retain the same Sacraments and Discipline we derive our holy Orders by lineal succession from them It is not we who have forsaken the essence of the Modern Church by substraction or rather Reformation but they of the Church of Rome who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Roman Church by their corrupt Additions as a learned Man observes The plain truth is this the Church of Rome hath had long and much Reverence in the Church of England and thereby we were by little and little drawn along with her into many gross errors and superstitions both in Faith and Worship and at last had almost lost our liberty in point of Government But that Church refusing to reform and proceeding still further to usurp upon us we threw off the Vsurpation first and afterwards very deliberately Reform'd our selves from all the corruptions that had been growing upon us and had almost overgrown both our Faith and Worship If this be to divide the Church we are indeed guilty not else But we had no power to reform our selves Here indeed is the main hinge of the Controversie but we have some concessions from our worst and fiercest Adversaries that a National Church hath power of her self to reform abuses in lesser matters provided she alter nothing in the Faith and Sacraments without the Pope And we have declared before that we have made no alteration in the essentials of Religion But we brake our selves off from the Papal Authority and divided our selves from our lawful Governors 'T is confest the Papal Authority we do renounce but not as a lawful Power but a Tyrannical Usurpation and if that be proved where is our Schism But this reminds us of the second thing in the Definition of Schism the Cause For what 2. The Cause interpretation soever be put upon the Action whether Reformation or Division and Separation 't is not material if it be found we had sufficient Cause and no doubt we had if we had reason from the lapsed state and nature of our Corruptions to Reform and if we had sufficient Authority without the Pope to reform our selves But we had both as will be evident at last Both these we undertake for satisfaction to the Catholick Church but in defence of our own Church against the charge of Schism by and from the Church of Rome one of them yea either of them is sufficient For if the pretended Authority of the Church of Rome over the Church of England be ill grounded how can our Actions fall under their censure Especially seeing the great and almost only matter of their censure is plainly our disobedience to that ill grounded Authority Again however their Claim and Title stand or fall if we have or had cause to deny that Communion which the Church of Rome requires though they have power to accuse us our Cause being good will acquit us from the guilt and consequently the charge of Schism Here then we must joyn Issue we deny the pretended Power of the Church of Rome in England and plead the justness of our own Reformation in all the particulars of it SECT VI. The Charge as laid by the Romanists THis will the better appear by the indictment of Schism drawn up against us by our Adversaries I shall receive it as it is expressed by one of the sharpest Pens and in the fullest and closest manner I bave met with viz. Card. Perron against Arch-Bishop Laud thus Protestants have made this Rent or Schism by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneneous Doctrines contrary to the faith of Roman or Catholick Church by their rejecting the authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors both immediate and mediate By aggregating themselves into a separate Body or company of pretended Christians independent of any Pastors at all that were in lawful and quiet possession of Jurisdiction over them by making themselves Pastors and Teachers of others and administring Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully impowered to give it by instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of their own in matters of Religion contrary to those anciently received throughout all Christendom by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates of and from their respective Sees Cures and Benefices and intruding themselves into their places in every Nation where they could get footing A foul Charge indeed and the fouler because in many things false However at present we have reason only to observe the foundation of all lies in our disobedience and denying Communion with the Church of Rome all the rest either concerns the grounds or manner or consequences of that Therefore if it appear at last that the Church of England is independant on the Church of Rome and oweth her no such obedtence as she requires the Charge of Schism removes from us and recoyls upon the Church or Court of Rome from her unjust Vsurpations and Impositions and that with the aggrevation of Sedition too in all such whether Prelates or Priests as then refused to acknowledge and obey the just Power and Laws of this Land or that continue in the same disobedience at this day SECT VII The Charge of Schism retorted upon the Romanists The Controversie to two Points IT is well noted by a learned Man that while the Papal Authority is under Contest the question Dr. Hammond is not barely this whether the Church of England be schismatical or no For a Romanist may cheaply debate that and keep himself safe whatsoever becomes of the Vmpirage but indifferently and equally whether we or the Romanist be thus guilty or which is the Schismatick that lies under all those severe Censures of the Scriptures and Fathers the Church of England or her Revolters and the Court of Rome Till they have better answered to the Indictment than yet they have done we do and shall lay the most horrid Schism at the door of the Church or Court of Rome For that they have voluntarily divided the Catholick Church both in Faith Worship and Government by their innovations and excommunicated and damned not only the Church of England but as some account three parts of the Christian Church most uncharitably and without all Authority or just cause to the scandal of the whole world But we shall lay the charge more particularly as it is drawn up by Arch-Bishop Bramhal The Church saith he or rather the Court of Rome are causally guilty both of this Schism and almost all other Schisms in the Church 1. By usurping an higer place and power in the Body Ecclesiastical than of right is due unto them 2. By separating both by their Doctrines and Censures three parts of the Christian World from their Communion and as much as in them lies from the Communion of Christ 3. By rebelling against general Councils Lastly by breaking or taking away all the lines of Apostolical
abominates or that he really exercised that Vniversal Authority and Universal Bishoprick though he so prodigiously lets flie against the Stile of Vniversal Bishop yet all this is said and must be maintained lest we should exclude the Vniversal Pastorship out of the Primitive Church There is a great deal of pitiful stuff used by the Romanist upon this Argument with which I shall not trouble the Reader yet nothing shall be omitted that hath any shew of Argument on their Side among which the words of Saint Gregory following in his Argument are most material Saint Gregory saith the care of the whole Object Church was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles Saint Peter and yet he is not called the Vniversal Bishop 'T is confessed that Saint Gregory doth say Sol. that the care of the whole is committed to Saint Peter again that he was the Prince of the Apostles and yet he was not called Vniversal Apostle 't is hence plain that his being Prince of the Apostles did not carry in it so much as Vniversal Bishop otherwise Saint Gregory would not have given the one and denied him the other and 't is as plain that he had the care of all Churches and so had Saint Paul but 't is not plain that he had Power over all Churches Doctor Hammond proceeds irrisistibly to prove the contrary from Saint Gregory himself in the Novels if any Complaint be made saith he against a Bishop the Cause shall be judged before the Metropolitane Secundum Regulas Ex Reg. lib. 11. Ep. 54. Sanctas Nostras Leges if the Party stand not to his Judgment the Cause is to be brought to the Arch-Bishop or Patriarch of that Diocess and he shall give it a Conclusion according to the Canons and Laws aforesaid no place left for Appeal to Rome Yet it must be acknowledged Saint Gregory Object adds si dictum fuerit c. where there is no Metropolitane nor Patriarch the Cause may be heard by the Apostolick See which Gregory calls the Head of all Churches Now if this be allowed what hath the Pope Sol. gained if perhaps such a Church should be found as hath neither Primate nor Patriarch how is he the nearer to the Vniversal Authority over those Churches that have Primates of their own or which way will he by this means extend his Jurisdiction to us in England who have ever had more than one Metropolitane the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was once acknowledged by a Pope to be Alterius Orbis Apostolicus Patriarch But admitting this extraordinary Case that where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch there they are to have recourse to the See Apostolick 't is a greater wonder that the Romanist should insist upon it then that his late Grace should mention it at which A. C. so much admires for this one observation with the assistance of that known Rule in Law exceptio confirmat Regulam in non exceptis puts a plain and speedy end to the whole Controversie for if recourse may be had to Rome from no other place but where there is neither Primate nor Patriarch then not from England either when Saint Gregory laid down the Rule or ever since and perhaps then from no other place in the World and indeed provision was thus made against any such extraordinary Case that might possibly happen for it is but reason that where there is no Primate to appeal to appeal should be received somewhere else and where better than at Rome which Saint Gregory calls Caput omnium Ecclesiarum and this is the utmost advantage the Romanist can hope to receive from the Words But we see Saint Gregory calls Rome the Head Object of all Churches 'T is true whether he intends a Primacy of Sol. Fame or visible Splendor and Dignity being the Seat of the Emperor or Order and Vnity is not certain but 't is certain he intends nothing less by it than that which just now he denied a Supremacy of Power and Vniversal ordinary Jurisdiction he having in the words immediately fore-going concluded all ordinary Jurisdiction within every proper Primacy or Patriarchate But saith S. W. Saint Gregory practised the Object thing though he denied the Word of Vniversal What Hypocrisie damn the Title as he Sol. doth and yet practise the thing you must have good proof His first Instance is of the Primate of Byzacene wherein the Emperor first put forth his Authority and would have him judged by Gregory Piissimus Imperator eum per nos voluit Vid. Ep. 65. l. 7. judicari saith Gregory Hence as Doctor Hammond smartly and soundly observes that Appeals from a Primate lie to none but the Supreme Magistrate To which purpose in the Case of Maximus Bishop of Solana decreed excommunicate Ep. l. 3. Ep. 20. by Gregory his Sentence was still with this reserve and submission nisi prius unless I should first understand by my most Serene Lords the Emperors that they commanded it to be done Thus if this perfect instance as S. W. calls it have any force in it his Cause is gone what ever advantage he pretends to gain by it Besides the Emperors Command was that Gregory should judge him juxta Statuta Canonica and Gregory himself pleads quicquid esset Canonicum Judicaremus Thus S. W's Cause is killed twice by his own perfect instance for if Saint Gregory took the Judgment upon him in obedience to the Emperor and did proceed and was to proceed in judging according to the Canons where was then the Vniversal Monarchy Yet it is confessed by Dr. Hammond which is a full answer to all the other not so perfect instances that in case of injury done to any by a Primate or Patriarch there being no lawful Superior who had power over him the injured person sometimes made his complaint to the Pope as being the most Eminent Person in the Church and in such case he questionless might and ought in all fraternal Charity admonish the Primate or Patriarch or disclaim Communion with him unless he reform But it ought to be shewn that Gregory did formally excommunicate any such Primate or Patriarch or juridically and authoritively act in any such Cause without the express license of the Emperor which not being done his instances are answered besides Saint Gregory always pleads the Ancient Canons which is far from any claim of Vniversal Pastorship by Divine Right or Donation of Christ to Saint Peter I appeal saith Doctor Hammond to S. W. whether that were the Interpretation of secundùm Canones and yet he knows that no other Tenure but that will stand him in stead Indeed the unhappiness is as the Doctor Vid. dispat disp p. 408. to p 423. observes that such Acts at first but necessary fraternal charity were by ambitious men drawn into example and means of assuming power of Vniversal Pastorship which yet cannot be more vehemently prejudiced by any thing than by those Ancient examples which being rightly
Innovations and Tyranny are the Fruits of his Pride Ambition and Perjury but if possible the guilt is made more Scarlet by his Cruelty to Souls intended by his formal Courses of Excommunications against all that own not his usurped Authority viz. the Primitive Churches the 8 first general Councils all the Fathers of the Latine and Greek Churches for many hundred years the greater part of the present Catholick Church and even the Apostles of Christ and our Lord himself The Sum of the whole matter A touch of another Treatise The material Cause of Separation THe Sum of our defence is this If the Pope have no Right to Govern the Church of England as our Apostle or Patriarch or as Infallible if his Supremacy over us was never grounded in but ever renounced by our Laws and Customs and the very constitution of the Kingdom If his Supremacy be neither of Civil Ecclesiastical or Divine Right if it be disowned by the Scriptures and Fathers and condemned by the Ancient Councils the Essential Profession of the present Roman Church and the solemn Oaths of the Bishops of Rome themselves If I say all be certainly so as hath appeared what reason remains for the necessity of the Church of England's re-admission of or submission to the Papal Authority usurped contrary to all this Or what reason is left to charge us with Schism for rejecting it But it remains to be shewn that as the claim of the Popes Authority in England cannot be allowed so there is cause enough otherwise of our denial of obedience actually to it from Reasons inherent in the Vsurpation it self and the Nature of many things required by his Laws This is the second Branch of our defence proposed at first to be the Subject of another Treatise For who can think it necessary to communicate with Error Heresie Schism Infidelity and Apostacy to conspire in damning the Primitive Church the Ancient Fathers General Councils and the better and greater part of the Christian World at this day or willingly at least to return to the infinite Superstitions and Idolatries which we have escaped and from which our blessed Ancestors through the infinite mercy and providence of God wonderfully delivered us Yet these horrid things cannot be avoided if we shall again submit our selves and enslave our Nation to the pretended Powers and Laws of Rome from which Libera nos Domine THE POSTSCRIPT Objections touching the First General Councils and our Arguments from them answered more fully SECT I. The Argument from Councils drawn up and Conclusive of the Fathers and the Cath. Church IN this Treatise I have considered the Canons of the ancient Councils two ways as Evidence and Law As Evidence they give us the undoubted sence and Faith both of the Catholick Church and of single Fathers in those times and nothing can be said against that As Law we have plainly found that none of them confer the Supremacy pleaded for but every one of them in special Canons condemn it Now this latter is so great a proof of the former that it admits of no possible reply except Circumstances on the by shall be set in opposition and contradiction to the plain Text in the body of the Law And if neither the Church nor single Fathers had any such faith of the Popes Supremacy during the first General Councils then neither did they believe it from the Beginning For if it had been the Faith of the Church before the Councils would not have rejected it and indeed the very form and method of proceeding in those Ancient Councils is sufficient Evidence that it was not However why is it not shewn by some colour of Argument at least that the Church did believe the Popes Supremacy before the time of those Councils why do we not hear of some one single Father that declared so much before the Council of Nice or rather before the Canons of the Apostles Or why is there no notice taken of such a Right or so much as Pretence in the Pope either by those Canons or one single Father before that time Indeed our Authors find very shrewd Evidence of the contrary Why saith Casaubon was Dionysins so utterly Dionysins silent as to the Vniversal Head of the Church Reigning at Rome if at that time there had been any such Monarch there Especially seeing he professedly wrote of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Government Exerc. 16. in Bar. an 34. Nu. 2â—0 The like is observable in Ignatius the most Ignatius Epist ad Tral Ancient Martyr and Bishop of Antioch who in his Epistles frequently sets forth the Order Ecclesiastical and dignity of Bishops upon sundry occasions but never mentions the Monarchy of St. Peter or the Roman Pope Ibid. he writing to the Church of Trallis to obey Bishops as Apostles instanceth equally in Timothy St. Paul's Scholar as in Anacletus Successor to St. Peter The Prudence and Fidelity of these two prime Fathers are much stained if there were then an Vniversal Bishop over the whole Church that professedly writing of the Ecclesiastical Order they St. Paul should so neglect him as not to mention Obedience due to him and indeed of St. Paul himself who gives us an enumeration of the Primitive Ministry on set purpose both in the ordinary and extraordinary kinds of it viz. Some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers and takes no notice of the Vniversal Bishop but we hence conclude rather there was no such thing For who would give an account of the Government of a City Army or Kingdom and say nothing of the Mayor General or Prince This surpasseth the fancy of Prejudice it self Irenaeus is too ancient for the Infallible Chair Ireneus lib. 2. c. 3. p. 140 141. and therefore refers us in the point of Tradition as well to Polycarp in the East as to Linus Bishop of Rome in the West Tertullian adviseth to consult the Mother-Churches Tertullian praescr p. 76. immediately founded by the Apostles and names Ephesus and Corinth as well as Rome and Polycarpus ordained by St. John as well as Clemens by Peter Upon which their own Renanus notes that Tertullian doth not confine the Catholick and Apostolick Church to one place for which freedom of Truth the Judex expurgatorius corrected him but Tertullian is Tertullian still These things cannot consist either with their own knowledge of an Vniversal Bishop or the Churches at that time therefore the Church of Egypt held the Catholick Faith with the chief-Priests naming Anatolinus of Constant Basil of Antioch Juvenal of Jerusalem as well as Leo Bishop of Rome Bin. To. inter Epist illust person 147. And it is decreed saith the Church of Carthage we consult our Brethren Syricius Bishop of Rome and Simplicius Bishop of Milain Concil Carth. 3. c. 48. The like we have observed out of Origen Clemens Alex. Cyprian c. before Hence it follows that the Church and the Fathers before the Councils had no knowledge of the Popes Supremacy and we have
CLARIOR E TENEBRIS BEATAM AETERNA CAELI SPECTO ASPERAM AT LEVEM CHRISTI TRACTO In verbo tuo Spes mea MUNDI CALCO SPLENDIDAM AT GRAVEM Alij diutius Imperium tenuerunt nemo tam fortiter reliquit Tarit Histor Lib. 2. c. 47. p. 417. Augustissimi CAROLI Secundi Dei Gratia ANGLIAE SCOTIAE FRANCIAE ET HIBERNIAE REX Bona agere mala pati Regium est Page 1. The Establish'd Church OR A SUBVERSION OF ALL The Romanist's Pleas FOR THE POPE'S SUPREMACY IN ENGLAND Together with A VINDICATION of the present Government of the Church of England as allow'd by the Laws of the Land against all Fanatical exceptions particularly of Mr. Hickeringill in His Scandalous Pamphlet stiled NAKED TRUTH the 2d Part. In Two Books By FRAN. FVLLWOOD D. D. Archdeacon of Totnes in Devon LONDON Printed for R. Royston Bookseller to the King 's most Sacred Majesty at the Angel in Amen-Corner MDCLXXXI REVERENDISSIMO In Christo Patri GULIELMO Archiepiscopo CANTUARIENSI Totius ANGLIAE PRIMATI Regiae Serenissimae Majestatis à Sanctioribus Conciliis FRANCISCVS FVLLWOOD Olim Collegii EMANUEL Apud CANTABRIGIENSES Librum hunc humillimè D. D. D. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND Father in God GEORGE Lord Bishop of WINTON Prelate of the Most Noble Order of the GARTER My very good Lord BLessed be God that I have Survived this Labour which I once feared I should have sunk under and that I live to publish my Endeavours once more in the Service of the Church of England and thereby have obtained my wish'd opportunity to dedicate a Monument of my deep Sence of your Lordship's manifold obligations upon me In particular I rejoyce in the acknowledgment that I ow my Publick Station next under God and His Sacred Majesty to your Lordship's Assistance and Sole Interest though I cannot think so much out of kindness to my Person then altogether unknown to your Lordship as affection and care of the Church grounded in a great and pious intention however the object be esteem'd truly worthy of so Renowned a Prelate and many other waies excellent and admired Patriot of the Church of England If either my former attempts have been anywise available to the weakning the Bulworks of Non-Conformity or my present Essay may succeed in any measure to evince or confirm the Truth in this greater Controversie I am happy that as God hath some glory and the Church some advantage so some honour redounds upon your Lordship who with a virtuous design gave me a Capacity at first and ever since have quickned and animated my Endeavours in those Services I may be permitted to name our Controversie with the Church of Rome the great Controversie For having been exercised in all the sorts of Controversie with Adversaries on the other hand I have found that all of them put together are not considerable either for weight of matter or copiousness of Learning or for Art Strength or Number of Adversaries in comparison of this It takes in the Length of time the Breadth of place and is managed with the Heighth of Wit and Depth of Subtlety the Hills are covered with the Shadow of it and its Boughs are like the goodly Cedars My Essay in these Treatises is to shorten and clear the way and therefore though I must run with it through all time I have reduc'd the place and removed the Wit and Subtleties that would impede our progress I have endeavoured to lop off luxuriant branches and swelling excrescencies to lay aside all personal reflections captious advantages Sophistical and Sarcastical Wit and to set the Arguments on both sides free from the darkness of all kind of cunning either of escape or reply in their plain light and proper strength as also to confine the Controversie as near as I can within the bounds of our own Concern i. e. our own Church And when this is done the plain and naked truth is that the meanest of our other Adversaries I had almost said the silly Quaker himself seems to me to have better Grounds and more like Christian than the glorious Cause of the Papacy But to draw a little nearer to our Point your Lordship cannot but observe that one end of the Roman Compass is ever fixed upon the same Center and the summ of their clamour is our disobedience to the See of Rome Our defense stands upon a twofold Exception 1. Against the Authority 2. Against the Laws of Rome and if either be justified we are innocent The first Exception and the defence of our Church against the Authority of that See is the matter of this Treatise the second is reserved I have determined that all the Arguments for the Pope's Authority in England are reduceable to a five-fold Plea the Right of Conversion as our Apostle the Right of a Patriarch the Right of Infallibility the Right of Prescription and the Right of Universal Pastorship the Examination of them carries us through our Work Verily to my knowledge I have omitted nothing Argumentative of any one of these Pleas yea I have considered all those little inconsiderable things which I find any Romanists seem to make much of But indeed their pretended Right of possession in England and the Universal◠Pastorship to which they adhere as their surest holds have my most intended and greatest strength and care and dilligence that nothing material or seemingly so might escape either unobserved or not fully answered let not the contrary be said but shewn I have further laboured to contract the Controversie two ways 1. By a very careful as well as large and I hope as clear state of the question in my definition and discourse of Schism at the beginning whereby mistakes may be prevented and much of matter disputed by others excluded 2. By waving the dispute of such things as have no influence into the Conclusion and according to my use giving as many and as large Concessions to the Adversary as our Cause will suffer Now my end being favourably understood I hope there is no need to ask your Lordships or any others pardon for that I have chosen not to dispute two great things 1. That in the Words tu es Petrus super hanc Petram there is intended some respect peculiar to saint Peter's Person it is generally acknowledged by the most learned Defenders of our Church that Saint Peter had a Primacy of Order and your Lordship well knows that many of the Ancient Fathers have expressed as much and I intend no more 2. That Tradition may be Infallible or indefectible in the delivery of the Essentials of Religion for ought we know By the Essentials we mean no more but the Creed the Lord's Prayer the Decalogue and the two Sacraments in this I have my Second and my Reason too for then Rushworth's Dialogues and the new Methods of Roman opposition need not trouble us My good Lord it is high time to beg your Pardon that I have reason to conclude with an excuse for
not defined by any Publick Decree tacito tamen Doctorum Consensu Now what can remain but that which we find him immediately driven to viz. to reject the pretence of humane Right by Positive Decrees of the Church and to adhere only as he himself affirmeth they generally now do to the Divine Right Nunc inquit autem nemini amplius Catholoco dubium est prorsus Divino Jure quidem illustribus Evangelii Testimoniis hunc Primatum niti Thus how have they intangled themselves if they pretend a humane Right he acknowledgeth they cannot find it where it ought to be found in the Publick Decrees of the Church if a Divine Right he confesseth the Fathers denied it before the Council of Constance and he knows that Council condemn'd it Stapleton at length affirms that now no Catholick doubts but the Pope's Primacy is of Divine Right whence the heart of the Roman Cause is stabb'd by these clear and sharp Conclusions 1. Concl. That all Catholicks of the present Roman Church do now hold a New Article touching the Pope's Primacy not known to the Fathers before the Council of Constance An. 1415. and condemned by that Council as an Error 2. Concl. That therein the Faith of the present Roman Church stands counter to the Faith Decrees and Practices of all the first General Councils consisting of Fathers that flourished therein long before the Council of Constance i. e. in their own sence the Ancient Catholick Church You will find that the Evidence hereof ariseth not only from the Words of Stapleton but from the Decrees of all the first eight General Councils every one of them one way or other expresly declaiming that Supremacy which the Pope and his present Church would arrogate and in those Councils all the Fathers and the Catholick Church are confessedly concluded and consequently Antiquity Infallibility and Tradition are not to be found at Rome The Sum is the Church of England that holds the true Ancient Catholick Faith and the four first General Councils and hath the Evidence of four more in the Point cannot be blamed for rejecting or not readmitting a Novel and groundless Usurpation contrary to them all and contrary also to the Profession of the present Roman Church that pretends to believe that the Faith of the eight first general Councils is the Catholick Faith Imprimatur GUIL JANE R. P. D. HEN. Episc LOND Ã Sacris Domest Jan. 24. 1678. THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS and SECTIONS THe Introduction The Design The Controversie contracted into one point viz. Schism Page 1 CHAP. I. The Definition of Schism Sect. 1. Of the Act of it p. 3 Sect. 2. The Subject of Schism p. 4 Sect. 3. The Object of Schism 1. Faith p. 7 2. Worship p. 9 3. Government p. 11 Sect. 4. The Conditions Causeless Voluntary p. 14 Sect. 5. The Application of Schism 't is not applicable to us p. 16 In the Act. p. 17 Or Cause p. 19 Sect. 6. The Application of it to the Romanists p. 20 Sect. 7. The charge retorted upon them p. 21 The Controversie broken into two Points The Authority The Cause p. 23 CHAP. II. An Examination of the Papal Authority in England Five Arguments proposed and briefly reflected on p. 24 1. Conversion 2. Prescription 3. Western Patriarchate 4. Infallibility 5. Succession p. 25 CHAP. III. Of the Pope's claim from our Conversion by Eleutherius Gregory p. 28 CHAP. IV. His claim as Patriarch Four Propositions laid down 1. The Pope was Patriarch of the West p. 32 2. He had then a limited Jursdiction p. 33 3. His Patriarchate did not include Brittain p. 35 4. A Patriarch and Vniversal Bishop inconsistent p. 37 CHAP. V. The Third Papal claim Prescription The Case stated p. 39 Their Plea Our Answer in three Positions viz. 1. The Pope never had possession absolutely 2. That which he had could never create a Title 3. However his Title extinguish'd with his possession p. 40 CHAP. VI. The Papacy of no power here for the first 600 years Augustine Dionoth in fact or faith p. 41. c. Sect. 1. No one part of Papal Jurisdiction was exercised here for six hundred years not Ordination till 1100 years after Christ c. nor any other p. 46 Sect. 2. No possession of Belief of his Jurisdiction then in England or Scotland p. 52 Sect. 3. This belief could have no ground in the Ancient Canons Apostolic Nicen. Milev c. p. 54 Sect. 4. Of Concil Sardi Calced Constantinop p. 56 Sect. 5. Arabick Canons forged not of Nice p. 60 Sect. 6. Ancient practice interpreted the Canons against the Pope Disposing of Patriarchs S. Cyprian S. Augustine's sence in practice p. 63 Sect. 7. The Sayings of Ancient Popes Agathâ— Pelagius Gregory Victor against the pretence of Supremacy p. 69 Sect. 8. The words of the Imperial Law against him p. 90 Sect. 9. The Conclusion touching possession in the first Ages vix six hundred years from Christ p. 97 CHAP. VII The Pope had not full possession here before Hen. 8. I. Not in St. Augustine's time nor after p. 100 Sect. 1. Not in St. Augustine's time ibid. A true State of the question betwixt the Pope and the King of England in seven particulars p 102 Sect. 2. No clear or full possession in the Ages after Austine till Hen. 8. p 104 In eight distinctions of Supremacy ibid. The question stated by them p. 105 CHAP. VIII What Supremacy Hen. 8. took from the Pope the particulars of it with Notes upon them p. 107. c. CHAP. IX Whether the Pope's possession here was a quiet possession till Hen. 8. as to the Point of Supremacy p. 109 Sect. 1. Of Appeals to Rome Three Notions of Appeal Appeals to Rome Locally or by Legates Wilfrid Anselm ibid. Sect. 2. Of the possession by Legates the occasion of them here their entertainment p. 117 CHAP. X. Of the Pope's Legislative power here before Hen. 8. Canons oblige us not without our Consent our Kings Saxon Danish Norman made Ecclesiastical Laws p. 126 CHAP. XI Of the Power of Papal Licenses c. in Edw. 1. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Hen. 7's time p. 133 CHAP. XII The Patronage of this Church ever in our own Kings by History by Law p. 140 CHAP. XIII Of Peter-pence and other payments to the Pope p. 149 First-Fruits p. 151 Payments extraordinary p. 154 Casual p. 156 CHAP. XIV The Conclusion of the Argument of Prescription 't is on our side p 158 On their side of no force p. 159 CHAP. XV. The Plea from Infallibility considered in its Consequence Retorted p. 161 Sect. 1 Scripture Examples for Infallibility p. 163 High Priest not infallible nothing to the Pope p. 164 Apostles p. 166 Sect. 2. Scripture-promises of Infallibility p. 167 CHAP. XVI 2. Argument for Infallibility viz. Tradition four Concessions three Propositions about Tradition Arguments Objections p. 171 c. CHAP. XVII The third way of Argument for Infallibility viz. by Reason three
Reasons answered the Point argued Retorted p 177 CHAP. XVIII The Vniversal Pastorship its Right Divine or Humane this Civil or Ecclesiastical all examined Constantine King John Justinian Phocas c. p. 182. as to Civil Right CHAP. XIX His Ecclesiastical Right by General Councils the eight first to which he is sworn Justinians Sanction of them Canons Apostol allowed by the Council of Nice and Ephesus p. 190 Sect. 1. Canons of the Apostles p. 194 Sect. 2. 1. General Council of Nice Bellarmine's Evasion p. 195 Sect. 3. Concil 2 gen Constantinop An. 381. p. 196 Sect. 4. Concil Ephesin 3 gen An. 431. p. 197 Sect. 5. Concil Calced 4 gen An. 451. p. 199 Sect. 6. Concil Constantin 2. the fifth gen Council An. 553. p. 202 Sect 7. Concil Constant 6 gen An. 681. v. 685. Concil Nic. 7 gen An. 781. p. 203 Sect. 8 Concil gen â— Constant An. 870. p. 204 Seuen Conclusions from Councils p. 205 Sect. 9. Of the Latine Church the Councils of Constance Basil c. An. 1415. 1431. p. 206 Sect. 10. The Greek Church African Canons Synod Carthag Concil Antiochen the faith of the Greek Church since in the Point p. 208 c. Sect. 11. The Sardican Canons No Grant from their matter manner or Authority No Appendix to the Council of Nice Zozimus his Forgery they were never Ratified nor received as Vniversal and were contradicted by after Councils p. 212 CHAP. XX. The Pope's Title by Divine Right The Question Why not sooner 'T is their last Refuge p. 217 Sect. 1. Whether the Government of the Church be Monarchical Jure Divino Bellarmine Reason Scripture p. 218 Promises Metaphors and Example of the High Priest in Scripture p 221 Sect. 2. Of St. Peter's Monarchy Tâ—â—eâ— Petrus p. 223 Fathers Expressions of it p 228 Fathers corrupted and Council of Calcedon by Thomas p. 230 c. CHAP. XXI Of the Pope's Succession p 237 Sect. 1. Whether the Primacy descended to the Bishop of Rome as such by Succession from Saint Peter Neg. Bellar 28 Prerogatives of Saint Peter personal or false p. 238 239 c. Application of this Section p. 241 By three great Inferences the Pope's Ancient Primacy not that of Saint Peter not Jure Divino not to descend to succeeding Popes Sect. 2. Whether the Pope have Supremacy as Successor to Saint Peter Neg. not Primate as such Peter himself not Supreme the Pope did not succeed him at all p. 244 Sect. 3. Arg. 1. Peter Assign'd it to the Pope answered p. 245 Sect. 4. Arg. 2. The Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter because Antioch did not answered p. 246 Sect. 5. Arg. 3. Saint Peter died at Rome answered question de facto not de fide p. 247 Sect. 6. Arg. 4. From Councils Popes Fathers p. 249 Sect. 7. Arg. 5. For prevention of Schism Saint Hierom. p. 250 Sect. 8. Arg. 6. The Church committed to his care Saint Chrysostom p. 251 Sect. 9. Arg. 7. One Chair Optatus Cyprian Ambrose Acatius ibid. Sect 10. The Conclusion touching the Fathers Reasons why we are not more particular about them A Challenge touching them there cannot be a Consent of the the Fathers for the Papacy as is evident from the General Councils Reasons for it Rome's contradiction of faith the Pope's Schism Perjury c. p. 255 c. The Sum of the whole matter a Touch of another Treatise the material Cause of Separation p. 261 THE POSCRIPT Objections touching the first General Councils and our Arguments from them answered more fully SECT 1. THE Argument from Councils drawn up 't is conclusive of the Fathers and the Catholick Church p. 263 SECT 2. Obj. Touching the Council of Nice answered p. 267 SECT 3. Obj. Touching the Council of Constant Second General p. 269 SECT 4. The third General Council viz. Ephesin p. 272 SECT 5. Of the Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth General Councils Binius his quotations of Ancient Popes considered p. 274 Conclusion p. 279 AN APPENDIX A Serious Alarm to all sorts of Englishmen against Popery from Sense and Conscience their Oaths and their Interests p. 281 The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy p. 289 ERRATA PAge 6. line 7. for and the read and though p. 136. l. 13. add ' t is observed that p. 137. l. 23. blot out and the abundant p. 138. l. 5. add of before the grievances p. 147. l. 17. before the word evacuate add not p. 164. l. 24. for is r. are p. 175. l. 10. for his messenger r. the Popes messenger p. 177. after Sentence add with the Fathers was ever taken p. 205. l. 22. after the word Faith add of the Church p. 213. l. 31. for they r. these Canons p. 227. l 34. for Kingdoms r. the Kingdom p. 235. l. 1. for are r. are not The Printer to the Reader THe absence of the Author and his inconvenient distance from London hath occasioned some lesser escapes in the Impression of this Book The Printer thinks it the best instance of pardon if his Escapes be not laid upon the Author and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary understanding may amend and a little charity may forgive THE INTRODUCTION The Design The Controversie Contracted into one Point viz. SCHISM THE Church of England hath been long possest both of her self and the true Religion and counts it no necessary part of that Religion to molest or censure any other Church Yet she cannot be quiet but is still vext and clamour'd with unwearied outcries of Heresie and Schism from the Church of Rome provoking her defence The Ball hath been tossed as well by cunning as learned Hands ever since the Reformation and 't is complained that by weak and impertinent Allegations tedious Altercations unnecessary Excursions and much Sophistry needlesly lengthening and obscuring the controversie it is in danger to be lost After so great and so long exercises of the best Champions on both sides 't is not to be expected that any great Advance should be made on either Yet how desirable is it that at length the true difference were clearly stated and the Arguments stript of their said Cumber and presented to us in their proper Evidence and the controversie so reduced that the World might perceive where we are and doubtful inquirers after Truth and the safest Religion might satisfie their Consciences and fix their Practice This is in some measure the Ambition of the present Essay In order to it we have observed that the Shop out of which all the Arms both Offensive and Defensive on both sides are fetched is Schism and the whole Controversie is truly contracted into that one Point which will appear by two things 1. By the State of the allowed Nature of Schism 2. By the Application of it so explain'd CHAP. I. The Definition of SCHISM SECT 1. Of the Act of Schism THat we may lie open to their full Charge we lay the Notion in as great a Latitude as I think our Adversaries themselves would have it
considered pretend no higher than Ecclesiastical Canons and the Universal Laws of Charity but never made claim to any Supremacy of power over all Bishops by Divine Institution It yet appears not that Saint Gregory practised the thing but to avoid Arrogance disclaims the name of Vniversal Bishop A. C. against my Lord of Canterbury goes another way to work he grants the Title and also the thing signified by it to be both renounced by Saint Gregory but distinguishes of the Term Vniversal Bishop into Grammatical to the exclusion of all other Bishops from being properly Bishops and Metaphorical whereby the Bishops are secured as such in their respective Diocesses yet all of them under the Jurisdiction of the Vniversal Bishop viz. of Rome This distinction Doctor Stillingfleet destroys Sol. not more elaborately than fully and perfectly shewing that 1. 't is impossible Saint Gregory should understand the Term of Vniversal Bishop Lib. 4. Ep. 32. in that strict Grammatical Sense for the reason why this Title was refused was because it seemed to diminish the honour of other Bishops when it was offered the Bishops of Rome in a Council of six hundred and thirty Bishops who cannot be imagined to divest themselves by their kindness of their very Office though they hazarded somewhat of their honour Can we think the Council that gave the same Title to John intended thus to depose themselves how comes it to pass that none of John's or Ciriacus's Successors did ever challenge this Title in that literal sence if so it was understood But to wave many things impertinent 't is evident Saint Gregory understood the Title Metaphorically from the reasons he gives against it which also equally serve to prove against S. W. that it was not so much the Title as the Authority of an Vniversal Bishop which he so much opposed He argueth thus to John the Patriarch What wilt thou answer to Christ the Head of the Vniversal Lib. 4. Ep. 38. Church in the day of Judgment who doest endeavour to subject all his Members to thee under the name of Vniversal Bishop Again doth he not arise to the height of Singularity Ibid. that he is Subject to none but Rules over all and can you have a more perfect description of the present Pope than is here given or is it the Title or the Power that makes him Subject to none that Rules over all Again he imitates the pride of Lucifer endeavouring Ibid. to be Head not sure in Title but Power of the Church Triumphant as the Pope of the Church Militant Exalting his Throne Ibid. not his Name as Gregory adds above the Stars of God viz. the Bishops and the height of the Clouds Again Saint Peter was the first Member of the Church Paul Andrew and John what are they else but Heads of particular Churches and yet they are all Members of the Church under one Head i. e. Christ as before he had said we see he allows not Peter himself to be Head of the Church None that was truly Holy was ever called by that name of Vniversal Bishop which he makes to be the same with the head of the Church But Lastly suppose St. Gregory did mean that this Title in its strict grammatical sence was to be abhorred and not as Metaphorically taken What hath the Pope gained who at this day bears that Title in the highest and strictest sence imaginable as the Dr. proves and indeed needs no proof being evident of it self and to the observation of the whole world Thus all the hard words of St. Gregory uttered so long agon against such as admitted or desired that Title unavoidably fall upon the Modern Roman Bishops that take upon them to be the sole Pastors of the Church and say that they are Oecumenical Bishops and that all Jurisdiction is derived from them They are Lucifers and Princes of Pride using a vain new rash foolish proud profane erroneous wicked hypocritical singular presumptuous blasphemous Name as that holy Pope inveighed against it Moreover as he also adds they transgress Gods Laws violate the Canons dishonour the Church despise their Brethren and cause Schism Istud nomen facere L. 6. ep 30 31. Obj. in dissessionem Ecclesiae But it is said that Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches all at once Therefore saith A. C. the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bishops and by confequence over the whole Church And this appears in that Irenaus in the name of the Gallican Bishops writes to Victor not to proceed so rashly in this Action as appears in Eusebius 1. We answer that those Bishops among Sol. whom Irenaeus was one did severely rebuke that Pope for offering to excommunicate those Asian Vid. Eus l. 5. c. 24. Churches Therefore they did not believe him to be the Supreme Infallible Pastor of the whole Church 2. His Letters declaring that Excommunication Ibid. not pleasing all his own Bishops they countermanded him Surely not thinking him to be what Popes would now be esteemed 3. Hence Card. Perron is angry with Eusebius and calls him an Arrian and an enemy to the Church of Rome for hinting that though the Pope did declare them excommunicate yet it took no effect because other Bishops continued still in Communion with them 4 But the force of the whole Argument leans upon a plain mistake of the Ancient Discipline both in the Nature and the Root or Ground of it For the nature of Ancient Excommunication Mistake of the nature Root of Discipline especially when practised by one Church against another did not imply a Positive Act of Authority but a Negative Act of Charity or a declaring against the Communion of such with themselves And therefore was done by Equals to Equals and sometimes by Inferiors to Superiors In Equals thus Johannes Antiochenus in the Ephesine Council excommunicated Cyril Patriarch Vict. Tu. nu cro p. 10. of Alexandria and in Inferiors in the sence of our Roman Adversaries for the African Bishops excommunicated Pope Vigilius Hence also Acacius the Patriarch of Const expunged the Name of Foelix Bishop of Rome out of the Dipticks of the Church And Hilary anethamatized Pope Liberius therefore Victors declaring the Asian Churches to be excommunicate is no argument of his power over them 2. The Root or Ground of the ancient Discipline is also as plainly mistaken which was not Authority always but Care and Charity Care I say not only of themselves who used it but also of the Church that was censured and indeed of the whole Church 'T is here proper to consider that though Bishops had their peculiar Seats and Limits for their Jurisdictions yet they had all a charitive inspection and care of that universal Church and sometimes denominations accordingly Hence we deny not that the ancient Bishops of Rome deservedly gained the Title of Oecumenical Bishops a thing of so great moment in the Controversie that if well considered might
Ephesus the first and second of Calcedon to this day Therefore Arch-Bishop Bramhall had reason to say that this Council was never incorporated into the English Laws and consequently hath no force in England especially being urged in a matter contrary to the Famous Memorial of Clarendon a Fundamental Law of this Land all Appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and from him to the King to give order for Redress But to wipe away all colour of Argument what ever Authority these Canons may be thought to have in other matters 't is certain they have none in this matter of Appeals for as to this Point the undoubted General Councils afterward decreed quite otherwise reducing and limiting Appeals ultimately to the Primate of the Province or a Council as hath been made to appear When I heare any thing of moment urged from any other Council as a Grant of the pretended Supremacy to the Pope I shall consider what may be answered till then I think there is an end of his Claim Jure humano either by a Civil or Canonical Grant by Emperors or General Councils So much hath been said against and so little to purpose for the Council of Trent that I shall excuse my self and my Reader from any trouble about it But I must conclude that the Canons of the Council of Trent were never acknowledged or received Epist Synod Conc. Basil by the Kingdom of England as the Council of Basil was which confirmed the Acts of the Council of Constance which Council of Constance without the presence or concurrence of the Pope did decree themselves to be a lawful complete general Council Superior to the Pope and that he was subject to their censures and deposed three Popes at a time The words of the Council are remarkable The Pope is subject to a general Council as well in matters of Faith as of manners so as he may not only be corrected but if he be incorrigible be deposed To say this Decree was not conciliarly made and consequently not confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth signifies nothing if that Martin were Pope because his Title to the Papacy depended merely upon the Authority of that Decree But indeed the word Conciliariter was spoken by the Pope upon a particular occasion after the Council was ended and the Fathers were dismissed as appears in the History CHAP. XX. Of the Popes Title by Divine Right The Question Why not sooner 'T is last Refuge THe modern Champions of the Church of Rome sleight all that hath been said and judge it beneath their Master and his Cause to plead any thing but a Jus divinum for his pretended Supremacy and indeed will hardly endure and tolerate the question Whether the Pope be universal Monarch or Bishop of the whole Church as St Peter's Successor Jure divino But if this point be so very plain may I have leave to ask why was it not urged sooner why were lesser inconsistent Pleas so long insisted on why do not many of their own great men discern it to this day The truth is if the managery of the Combat all along be seriously reflected on this Plea of divine Right seems to be the last Refuge when they have been driven by Dint of Argument out of all other Holds as no longer to be defended And yet give me leave to observe that this last ground of theirs seems to me to be the weakest and the least able to secure them which looks like an Argument of a sinking cause However they mightily labour to support it by these two Pillars 1. That the government of the whole Church is Monarchical 2. That the Pope is the Monarch and both these are Jure divino But these Pillars also must be supported and how that is performed we shall examine SECT I. Whether the Government of the whole Church be Monarchical by Divine Right Bellar. Reason Scripture BEllarmine hath flourished with this argument through no less than eight whole Chapters and indeed hath industriously and learnedly beaten it as far as it would go and no wonder if he have left it thin What solidity is in it we are to weigh both from Reason and Scripture Not from Reason in 3 Arg. From Reason they argue thus God hath appointed Arg. 1 the best and most profitable Government for he is most wise and good but Monarchical Government is the best and most profitable 'T is plainly answered that to know which is Ans the best Government the state of that which is to be governed must be considered the end of Government being the profit and good of the State governed so that unless it appear that this kind of Government be the most convenient for the State of the Church nothing is concluded 2. We believe that God hath the care of the World and not only of the Church therefore in his wise and good Providence he ought to have settled the World under the best and most profitable Government viz. under one universal Monarch 3. Bellarmine himself grants that if particular Churches should not be gathered inter se so as to make one visible Political Body their own proper Rector would suffice for every one and there should be no need of one Monarch But all particular Churches are not one visible political Body but as particular Bodies are complete in themselves enjoying all parts of ordinary Worship and Government singly neither is there any part of Worship or Government proper to the Oecumenical Church qua talis 4. The Argument seems stronger the contrary way God is good and wise and hath appointed the best Government for his own Church but he hath not appointed that it should be Monarchical Therefore that kind of Government seems not to be the best for his Church Christ might foresee the great inconveniences of his Churches being governed by one Ecclesiastical Monarch when divided under the several secular Powers of the World though the Ambition of men overlook it and consider it not Yet that the Government of the Church appointed by God as best for it is Monarchical is not believed by all Catholicks The Sorbon Doctors doubt not to affirm that Aristocratical Government is the best of all and most agreeable to the nature of the Church De Eccl. Polit. potest an 1611. 6. But what if we yeild the whole Argument as the government of the Church is Imperial 't is in Christ the Vniversal Monarch over it but he being in a far Country he governs the several parts of his Church in distinct Countries by visible ministerial Monarchs or Primates proper to each The distinction of imperial and ministerial Power is given us in this very case by our Adversaries There is nothing unreasonable unpracticable or contrary to the practice of the world in the Assertion We grant that Monarchy is the best kind of Government in a due Sphere the World is wide enough for many Monarchs and the Church too The Argument concludes
after St. Peter as their Pastor and Head according to their own way of Arguing 3. Besides St. Peter had power of casting out of Devils c. and doing such miracles as the Pope pretends not to do Lastly what if the Pope affirms that he is and others account him to be St. Peter's Successor the point requires the truth thereof to be shewn Jure divino SECT V. Arg. 3. St. Peter dyed at Rome Then de Facto not de Fide BEllarmine saith the Succession it self is Jure Arg. 3 divino but the Ratio Successionis arose out of the Fact of St. Peter planting his See and dying at Rome and not from Christs first Institution Then doubts quamvis non sit c. whether this Succession be so according to his own position fortè non est de jure divino but neither shews the Succession it self to be Christs Institution at all nor proves the Tradition of Peter on which he seems to lay his stress and we may guess why he doth not In short if the Succession of the Bishop of Rome Ans be of Faith 't is so either in Jure or in Facto But neither is proved Yea the contrary is acknowledged by Bellarmine himself Not in Right because that is not certo divinum as Bellarmine confesseth Nor in Fact because before Peter's death which introduced no change in the Faith as Bellarmine also confesseth this Succession was not of Faith Indeed it is well observed that the whole weight of Bellarmine's reasoning is founded in Fact then where is the Jus divinum 2. In such fact of Peter as is not found in Scripture or can be proved any way 3. In such Fact as cannot constitute a Right either divine or humane 4. In such Fact as cannot conclude a Right in the sence of the most learned Romanists Scot. in 4. dist 24. Cordubensis lib. 4. qu. 1. Cajetan de prim pap c. 23. Bannes in 2. 2. q. 1. a. 10. who contend that the union of the Bishoprick of the City and the World is only per accidens and not Jure divine vel imperio Christi But when the uncertainty of that Fact on which the Right of fo great and vast an Empire is raised is considered what further answer can be expected For is it not uncertain whether Peter were ever at Rome or whether he was ever Bishop of Rome or whether he dyed at Rome or whether Christ called him back that he might dye at Rome or whether he ordained Clement to succeed him at Rome Indeed there is little else certain about the matter but this that Peter did not derive to him that succeeded him and his Successors for ever his whole dignity and Power and a greater Authority than he had himself Jure divino But if we allow all the uncertainties mention'd to be most certain we need not fear to look the Argument with all its attendants and strength in the face Peter was Bishop of Rome was warned by Christ immediately to place his Seat at Rome to stay and dye at Rome and before he died he appointed one to succeed him in his Bishoprick at Rome Therefore the Bishops of Rome successively are universal Pastors and have supreme power over the whole Church jure divino Is not the cause rendred suspicious by such Arguments and indeed desperate that needs them and has no better SECT VI. Arg. 4. Councils Popes Fathers BEllarmine tells us boldly that the Primacy Arg. of the Roman High-Priest is proved out of the Councils the Testimonies of Popes by the consent of the Fathers both Greek and Latin These great words are no Arguments the matter hath been examined under all these Topicks Ans and not one of them proves a Supremacy of Power over the whole Church to have been anciently in the Pope much less from the beginning and jure divino especially when St. Augustine and the Greek Fathers directly opposed it as an Vsurpation A Primacy of Order is not in the question though that also was obtained by the ancient Popes only more humano and on Temporary Reasons as hath before appeared But as a learned man saith the Primacy of a Monarchical Power in the Bishop of Rome was never affirmed by any ancient Council or by any one of the ancient Fathers or so much as dreamt of and at what time afterwards the Pope took upon him to be a Monarch it should be inquired qno jure by what Right he did so whether by Divine Humane or altogether by his own i. e. no Right at all SECT VII Arg. 5. The Prevention of Schism St. Jerom. A Primacy was given to Peter for preventing Ar. 5. Schism as St. Hierom saith Now hence they urge that a mere precedency of Order is not sufficient for that The Inference is not divine it is not St. Hieroms Ans it is only for St. Peter and reacheth not the Pope Besides it plainly argues a mistake of Lib. 1. Jov. c. 14. St. Jerom's assertion and would force him to a contradiction For immediately before he teacheth that the Church is built equally on all the Apostles and that they all receive the Keys and that the firmness of the Church is equally grounded on them all so that what Primacy he meant it consisted with Equality as Monarchy cannot Therefore St. Hierom more plainly in another Epis ad Evagr place affirms that wherever there is a Bishop whether at Rome Constantinople c. Ejusdem meriti est ejusdem est Sacerdotii Again 't is neither Riches nor Poverty which makes Bishops higher or lower but they are all the Apostles Successors SECT VIII Arg. 6. Church committed to him ST Chrysostom saith the Care of the Church Ar. 6. was committed as to Peter so to his Successors Tum Petro tum c. therefore the Bishops of Rome being Successors of St. Peter in that Chair have the care and consequently the power committed to them which was committed to Peter True the Care and power of a Bishop not Ans of an Apostle or universal Monarch the commission of all other Bishops carried Care and power also But indeed this place proves not so much as that the Pope is Peter's Successor in either much less Jure divino which was the thing to be proved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those which followed in time and place not otherwise as before SECT IX Arg. 7. One Chair Optatus Cyprian Ambrose Acacius THere is one Chair saith Optatus quae prima Arg. 7 est de Dotibus in which Peter sate first Linus succeeded him and Clemens Linus Optatus speaks nothing against the Title or power of other Chairs or for the preheminence of power in this one Chair above the rest He intended not to exclude the other Apostolical Seats from the honour or power of Chairs For he saith as well that James sate at Jerusalem and John at Ephesus as that Peter sate at Rome which Tertullian calls Apostolicas Cathedras all presiding in their own places De
praescrip c. 36. 'T is most evident that Optatus calls the Chair of Peter one not because of any Superiority over other Apostolical Chairs but because of the Vnity of the Catholick Church in opposition to the Donatists who set up another Chair in opposiion Altare contra Altare to the Catholick Church Bellarmine well observes that Optatus followed the doctrine of St. Cyprian who said there is but one Church one Chair c. And out of St. Cyprian himself his meaning therein is manifest Cyprian to be no other than a specifical not numerical Unity He tells us plainly in the same place that the other Apostles were the same with Peter equal in honour and power He teacheth that the one Bishoprick is dispersed consisting of the unanimous multitude of many Bishops that the Bishoprick is but one a portion whereof is wholly and fully Head of every Bishop So there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church i. e. all Bishops ought to be one in Faith and Fellowship Vid. Cypr. de Vnit Eccles lib. 3. Epis 11. But is it not prodigious that men should build the Pope's Dominion upon the Doctrine of Saint Cyprian and Optatus The latter tells us roundly that whosoever is without the Communion of seven Churches of Asia is an Alien in effect calling the Pope Infidel and Saint Cyprian is well known to have always stiled Pope Cornelius Brother to have severely censured his Successor Pope Stephen contradicting his Decrees opposing the Roman Councils disclaiming the Pope's Power of Appeals and contemning his Excommunications A Council at Africk under Saint Cyprian as another wherein Saint Augustine sate rejected and condemned the Jurisdiction of the Pope over them as is frequently observed and why do men endeavour to blind the World with a few words of these great Fathers contrary to the known Language of their Actions and course of Life The sence of the words may be disputed but when it came to a Tryal their deeds are known to have shewed their mind beyond all dispute For Instance Ambrose calls Pope Damascus Ambr. Rector of the whole Church yet 't is known that he would never yield his Sences to the Law of Rome about Easter lib. 3. de sacr c. 1. for which the Church of Milain was called the Church of Ambrose 670 years after his death when the Clergy of Milain withstood the Legate of Leo 9. saying the Church of Ambrose had been always free and never yet subject to the Laws of the Pope of Rome as Baron notes An. 1059. Nu. 46. Many other Aiery Titles and Courtly Addresses given to the Pope in the Writings of the Fathers we have observed before to carry some Colour for a Primacy of Order but no wise man can imagine that they are an Evidence or Ground much less a formal Grant of Vniversal Dominion seeing scarce one of them but is in some of the Fathers and usually by the same Fathers given as well to the other Apostles and to other Bishops as to Peter and the Pope and so unfortunate is Bellarmine in his Instances that usually the very same place carries its Confutation It is strange that so great a Wit should so egregiously bewray it self to bring in Acacius Bishop of Constantinople submitting as it were the Eastern Church to the See of Rome because in his Epistle to Pope Simplicius he tells him he hath the care of all the Churches for what one Bishop of those times could have been worse pitch'd upon for his purpose who ever opposed himself more fiercely against the Jurisdiction of the Pope than Acacius who more boldly rejected his Commands than this Patriarch or stands in greater opposition to Rome in all History yet Acacius must be the Instance of an Eastern Patriarch's Recognition of the An. 478. n. 3. An. 483. n. 78. An. 484. n. 17. As they say See of Rome Acacius phrenesi abreptus as Baronius hath it adversus Rom. Pontificem Violenter insurgit Acacius that Received those whom the Pope Damn'd Acacius Excommunicated by the Pope and the very Head of the Eastern Schism this is the man that must witness the Pope's Supremacy against himself and his own and his Churches famous Cause and this by saying in a Letter to the Pope himself that he had the care of all Churches a Title given to Saint Paul in the days of Peter to Athanasius in the time of Pope Julius to the Bishops of France in time of Pope Elutherius and to Zecharias an Arch-Bishop by Pope John the first but conferred no Monarchy upon any of them I do not remember that I have yet mentioned the Titles of Summus Pontifex and Pontifex Sum. max. Pontifex Maximus which are also said to carry the Pope's Supremacy in them but it is impossible any wise man can think so Azor. Jesuit acknowledgeth these terms may have a Negative Sence only and Baronius saith they do admit Equality In this Sence Pope Clemens called Saint James Bishop of Bishops and Pope Epis 8â— Leo stiled all Bishops Summos Pontifices and the Bishops of the East write to the Patriarch of Constantinople under the Title of Universal Patriarch and call themselves Chief Priests Epist ad Tharasiam c. SECT X. The Conclusion touching the Fathers Reasons why no more of them A Challenge touching them No Consent of Fathers in the Point Evident in General Councils Reasons of it Rome ' s contradiction of Faith Pope Schism Perjury c. I Was almost tempted to have gone through with a particular Examination of all the Titles and Phrases which Bellarmine hath with too much Vanity gathered out of the Fathers both Greek and Latine on behalf of the Pope's Supremacy But considering they are most of them very frivilous and impertinent and that I conceive I have not omitted any one that can be soberly thought material and that all of them have been frequently answered by Learned Protestants and very few of them so answered thought fit to be replied to by our Adversaries I thought it prudent to excuse that very needless exercise and I hope none will account me blame-worthy for it but if any do so I offer Compensation by this humble Challenge upon mature deliberation If any one or more places in any of the A Challenge Ancient Fathers Greek or Latin shall be chosen by any sober Adversary and argued from as Evidence of the Pope's Supremacy as Successor to Saint Peter God giving me life and health I shall appear and undertake the Combate with weapons extant in our English Writers though they may not think that one or two or more passages out of single Fathers are sufficient to bear away the Cause in so great a Point seeing they themselves will not suffer the Testimony of many of the same Fathers to carry it for us in a Point of the least Concernment In the mean time I most confidently conclude that the Pope's Supremacy hath not the Consent of the
perhaps may be contrived by wise men without prejudice to the said Jurisdiction 3. That there is reason to reascertain the Fees for Probates of Wills and granting Letters of Administration with some moderate respect had to the difference of the value of Mony when the former Act was made and at this time so as the Officers in the Kings Spiritual Courts may live upon their Employment 4. And why Excommunication decreed in Court may not be sent to the Parochial Minister to be not only declared but Executed by him as the Bishops Surrogate and convenient time allowed him to endeavour to reconcile the offender and to prevent the Sentence if it may be I see not if that may give any satisfaction Such kind of Alterations perhaps may be admitted without real prejudice to the Church or rather with advantage as well as those made by the Conqueror when he divided the Ecclesiastical from the Civil Courts The Law by which he made that Division is famous the clauses of it concerning this matter may be desired by the Reader therefore I shall take the pains to transcribe them they are these Willielmus Gratia Dei Rex Anglorum c. William by the Grace of God King of England to all that have Land in the Bishoprick of Lincoln know ye all and all others my faithful People in England that the Episcopal Laws that have Non benè not well been exercised nor according to the Precepts of holy Canons even to my time in this Kingdom Concilio Communi with Common Counsel and with the Counsel of the Bishops and Abbots and all the chief men of my Kingdom I judge fit to be amended Moreover I Command and by my Kingly Authority injoyn That no Bishop or Archdeacon de Legibus Episcopalibus hold Placita Pleas any longer in Hundret nor bring any Ecclesiastical Cause to the Iudgment of Secular men but whosoever shall be called or questioned for any Cause according to the Ecclesiastical Laws he shall come to the place which the Bishop shall chuse and there shall answer for his Cause and not secundum Hundret and he shall do right to God and the Bishop not according to the Hundred but according to the Canons and Episcopal Laws But if any through pride will not appear Venire ad Justiciam Episcopalem let him be called the first second and third time and if yet he will not come let him be Excommunicated and if need be let the Strength and Iustice of the King or Sheriff ad hoc Vindicandum adhibeatur This also I defend and by my Authority interdict that no Sheriff or other Minister of the King or any Lay-man do intermeddle with the Laws which belong to the Bishop Give me leave to subjoyn a few Notes upon this Law of the Conqueror and I have done 1. The substance and matters of Ecclesiastical Power and Connusance was the same long before this Law was made and not Altered by it 't was a Law of King Alured Si quis Dei rectitudines aliquas deforciat reddat lathlite cum Dacis witam cum Anglis And the same is afterwards confirmed and renewed by Canutus and other Kings whereby it appeareth that long before the Conquest the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Church was maintained by the setled Laws of the Kingdom and that Ecclesiastical Judges had power so anciently to Excommunicate and had the help of the King and the Sheriff to proceed against the obstinate 2. 'T is yet very remarkable that for the form and manner of their Spiritual Courts and proceedings before the Conquest it was not here in England as it was at Rome and therefore our most Ancient Church-Government was not derived or Received from Rome This Law observes that before the Conqueror the Precepts of holy Canons as to distinct Jurisdictions were not observed in England that is the Canons of the Imperial Church for six or seven Hundred years before the Jurisdiction of that Church was divided from the Civil even by the Emperor Constantine himself but for so many hundred years before the Conquest our Jurisdictions were exercised together in Hundret as the Law acknowledgeth and is confessed 3. We here see a plain Establishment of our Spiritual Courts with power of Excommunication for non-appearance in the letter of this Ancient Law under the Kings defence and enforced with the Secular Arm and 't is observable that the distinction of the Ecclesiastical front the Civil Courts was made in the Kings own Name and not the Pope's by the Kings power and none other with the Counsel of his own Subjects only and not of Rome that we read of and only with respect and not in any obedience to the ancient Canons or foreign methods And thus the Jurisdiction in our Courts Ecclesiastical as distinct from the Civil is as far from being Popish in their Original as it was when they were conjoyned and therein so unlike to the distinct proceedings of the Spiritual power beyond the Seas so many hundred years before And thus our Spiritual Courts both before they were divided and when they came to be divided from our Civil Courts stand firm in the Ancient Laws of this Land 4. There are certain great Epoche's of the Legal Establishment of the Churches power which I shall but touch 1. It was received with Christianity and grew and flourished by our Ancient Laws before the Conquest 2. In the beginning of our Norman Constitution it was thus distinguished and establish'd by the Conqueror So it was in Magna Charta the first Statute 3. Vpon the Reformation in Hen. 8. it was re-establish'd 4. So it was upon the Return of Reformation after Queen Mary by Queen Eliz. And 5. so likewise upon the Return of our present gracious Soveraign King Charles II. 5. Further I hence observe that some Alterations in Ecclesiastical proceedings may be made by Law without any prejudice to the Churches power 'T is observed out of Spelman before that by this Law the Conqueror did not lessen the Churches power indeed some Inconveniences are usually consequent to publick changes and 't is thought by our Civilians that the many prohibitions which interrupt our Ecclesiastical Courts are occasioned by their being divided from the Temporal but may not that inconvenience be accidental to that Division Or if at any time there be just cause for the Church to complain in that respect is it not rather of the Judges than the Laws or the Constitution But to the matter before us admit for Instance that after Summary hearing and Sentence of the Judge in Cases of small Tithes Church rates and such trivial matters a Justice of the Peace or some other person being legally certified were impowered and obliged to grant Warrants of Distress It seems to me a greater inconvenience in exposing Excommunication in such light Causes would be hereby removed than any contracted by such an Alteration and methinks no one should disdain the new Office seeing the Superior Judge hath been ever
such provision that those things which belong to our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Liberties without which we cannot duly discharge c. and taken from us lately by the Iniquity of the times may be again restored and that all Laws which have taken away or do any ways hinder our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and liberties may be made null and void Hence he concludes that in the judgment of the Convocation at that time their Jurisdiction and Liberties were taken away Is this proof sufficient against all the laws and practice of the Kingdom during the Reign of Hen. 8. after the extinguishing Act or do they say that Hen. 8. took away the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction how can Mr. Hickeringill divine that it was not the renouncing the Pope as Head of their Jurisdiction and Liberties that was the very grievance that they complain'd of 3. This is certain that Queen Mary succeeded Edw. 6. that Edw. 6. did require more express Testimonies of the Clergie's Recognition of the Crown in the exercise of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by the Statute of which we shall take more notice presently than Hen. 8. did and 't is past Mr. Hickeringill his skill to prove that the Convocation in their said Petition did not principally if not only intend that severe Act of Edw. 6. However that pass Mr. Hickeringill his argument deserves not the strength of a Convocation to confute it 4. I leave it to Mr. Hickeringill himself for if he think that that Convocation spake that which was not true he hath said nothing to the purpose but if he think they did speak truth then he thinks that the Jurisdiction of the Church of England as derived from the King according to the Statute of Edw. 6. or in Hen. 8's time was no lawful Jurisdiction that is Mr. Hickeringill thinks as the Papists think War Hawk again Mr. Hickeringill and a praemunire too But this brings us to consider the Statute of Edw. 6. CHAP. IV. Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is lawfully exercis'd without the Kings Name or Stile in Processes c. notwithstanding the 1 Edw. 6. 2. THat all Ecclesiastical Processes should be in the Name and Stile of the King c. according to the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. 2. is the great and old Objection not only of Mr. Hickeringill but several others SECT I. Answ But first if this Statute were not repealed as indeed it is there are several things in the body of it very considerable against Mr. Hickeringill and to our advantage 1. The Statute observes in the very foundation of it that it 's justly acknowledged by the Clergy of the Realm that all Courts Ecclesiastical within the Realms of England and Ireland be kept by no other Power or Authority but by the Authority of the King which it seems was then known without the Testimonies thereof then to be required and indeed is so still by the Oaths which all Ecclesiastical persons chearfully take before their Instalment 2. That there was such a thing in practice before the making this Act as Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Church of England for the Statute saith that Archbishops c. do use to make and send out their Summons c. in their own names at that time who yet acknowledged all their Authority from the Crown Sect. 3. 3. The Statute allows the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction it self and that the Archbishops and Bishops shall make admit c. their Chancellors and other Officers and Substitutes which supposeth the Constitution of the Spiritual Courts under their own names and with their own Seals Sect. 6. 4. This Statute also allows that some things are limited by the Laws and Customs of this Realm and if such things are depending in the Kings Courts of Record at Common Law are to be remitted to the Spiritual Courts to try the same Sect. 7. 5. But what is the penalty if they do not use the Kings Name and Stile and put the Kings Arms into their Seals of Office This is considerable 'T is well the Statute provided Sect. 4. a better hand to punish the delinquents than Mr. Hickeringill and a milder punishment than he interprets the Law to do the punishment is the Kings displeasure and imprisonment during his pleasure not the voiding the Jurisdiction as Mr. Hickeringill would have it And while the King knows the Statute is repealed as shall next appear we fear not but his Majesty is pleased with and will defend our Jurisdictions while we humbly acknowledge their dependency on the Crown and exercise the same according to his Laws though we presume not to use his Name and Stile and Arms without the warrant of Law SECT II. 1. FOR that Statute of 1 Edw. 6. 2. was repealed by the first and second of Philip and Mary c. 8. wherein we have these plain words The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Archbishops and Ordinaries are declared to be in the same state for process of suits punishment of crimes and execution of the Censures of the Church with knowledge of causes belonging to the same and as large in these points as the said Jurisdiction was the said twentieth year of Hen. 8. whereby that Statute is also revived as my L. Coke affirmeth Thus by Act of Parliament of which that Queen was the undoubted Head and by the power of the Crown of England and not the Pope the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of this Realm was established by our own Law is the same state wherein it stood before the twentieth of Hen. 8. and then we find that by our ancient Laws and Customs it was dependent on the Crown whatever some Church-men thought to the contrary 2. I have read that this same Queen Mary wore the Title of Head of the Church of England her self though in other points too too zealous for Popery and by this very Statute it is Enacted That nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish the Liberties Prerogatives or Jurisdictions or any part thereof which were in the Imperial Crown of this Realm the twentieth year of Hen. 8. or any other the Queens progenitors before And we have found that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of this Kingdom was subject to and dependent on the Imperial Crown secundum consuetudinem legem Angliae in her Ancestors time We have found also that this was the undoubted Judgment of the whole Kingdom in the Statutes of Hen. 8. Edw. 6. Queen Eliz. King James c. Now let it be shewn that this clause of the Statute of Queen Mary is repealed which is so agreeable to the ancient Customs and Rights of the Crown let this be shown and you do something This Statute of my Lord Coke's is not repealed by the 1 of Eliz. or King James though the 1 of Mary should be granted to be so Also the 25 Hen. 8. 20. being contrary to 1 Edw. 6. 2. is revived by 1 Eliz. and never repealed Rep. Coke 12. p. 9. I. Mr. Hickeringill indeed is bold enough but I find Mr. Cary timerous in
those Courts to give Remedy in those Cases Thus stood Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England by Common Law before our Statutes took so much notice of it and our Statutes since whenever they mention it do generally mention it as a Government supposed upon grounds good and firm in Law to have existed before and also then to be in use and to flourish in its present exercise and proceedings in its proper course and Courts 'T is as idle a thing to look in the Statute-books for the beginning of Ecclesiastical Power and its Courts as for the Beginning of Courts-Baron which are such by Common Law as Coke saith or the Court of Marshalsea which as Coke's words are hath its foundation in Common Law or Courts of Copyholders which are such by Custom And for the same reason to question the lawfulness of these Courts because in their original they were not Established by Act of Parliament as well as the legality of the Courts Spiritual these being equally founded in the Ancient usage Custom and Law of England and all taken care for in Magna Charta that ancient Authentick account of our Common Law And why are Ecclesiastical Judges I mean not Bishops only whom Mr. Hickeringill finds in Scripture but Archdeacons Chancellors Officials c. as well Establish'd in their proper power as Coroners High-Constables c. that have the Origine of their Offices before Statutes Have not Ecclesiastical Officers when lawfully invested power as well as they to Act in their proper Jurisdictions by the same Common Law by long ancient and establisht Custom or as the usual word in our Statutes in this very Case is secundum Consuetudines Leges Angliae My Lord Coke saith The Kings Prerogative is a principal part of the Common Law which also flourisheth in this part of it the Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction as well as in the Civil State and Government Thus we acknowledge the Ecclesiastical State and External and Coercive Jurisdiction derives from and depends upon the Crown of England by Common Law And I am bold to add that the former cannot easily be Abolish'd and destroy'd I do not say altered without threatning the latter I mean the Crown at least some prejudice to it on which it depends Thus Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction stands by Common Law on which also most of our Civil Rights depend but we confess it is bounded as my Lord Coke by the same Common Law and in all reason it must be so it being subordinate to the King as Supream who is supposed to be personally or virtually present in his great Courts of Common Law and is so declared to be by Acts of Parliament Instit p. 1. pag. 344. of my Lord Coke SECT II. The Government Ecclesiastical is Established in the Statutes of this Realm THE Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction being thus found Establisht by Law before the Statute-books were made the Statutes do Establish it as much as any reasonable unprejudic'd man can expect or desire We shall begin with Magna Charta which is Statute as well as Common Law and seems to unite and tye them together This stands at the beginning of our Statute-book and the first thing in this is a grant and establishment for ever of the Rights and Liberties of the Church that must be understood of the Rights and Liberties then in being and among the rest sure the great Right and Liberty of the Churches Power and the free use of her Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Magna Charta it self expounds what it means by holy Church i. e. the Bishops and Ministers of it which King Hen. 8. in the Statute saith is commonly called the Spiritualty and Mr. HIckeringill for all his scoffing knows that the Church of England allows a larger sence of the word Church viz. the Congregation of all faithful men c. And when we call the Clergie or the Governing-part of the Church the Church we use it in a Law-sence and as a term of Law as Acts of Parliament as well as the Civil or Canon-Law do But this by the way 2. When the subsequent Acts of Parliament do so frequently mention the Spiritual Courts and their Jurisdiction this to me is a legal allowance of them and indeed a Tacit or implicit acknowledgment of their more ancient antecedent Power and Common right and liberty by the undoubted Custom i. e. the Common Laws of the Land Yea those very Statutes that look at least obliquely upon them that say they are bounded by the Common Law that do of themselves limit and prohibit the Ecclesiastical Courts in some cases seem plainly to acknowledge them in other cases not excepted from their Jurisdiction But 3. More plainly and directly those Acts of Parliament that appear in the behalf of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in times of its trial and danger and vindicate its Rights and preserve and maintain its Liberties when most in question there have hapned such occasions wherein the Statutes have rescued and replevied the Ecclesiastical Power in all which the Statutes have been thus favourable to it three of late not to mention many formerly 1. Thus when some might imagine that by the alteration made by King Hen. 8. the Bishops and their Power was shaken the Statutes made in his time assure us that it was but to restore the ancient Jurisdiction and not to destroy it that Bishops should be elected and act as formerly especially as Coke noteth by the 25 Hen. 8. c. 20. it is Enacted That every person chosen invested Consecrated Archbishop or Bishop according to this Act shall do and execute every thing and things as any Archbishop or Bishop of this Realm without offending of the Prerogative Royal of the Crown and the Laws and Customs of the Realm at any time heretofore have done Note that this Statute contrary to the 1 Edw. 6. 2. was revived by Queen Eliz. 1. cap. 1. which the Judges thought and judged a full answer to all the Objections against the Churches proceedings contrary to the 1 Edw. 6. 2. and by this very Statute 1 Edw. 6. 2. stands clearly repealed as my Lord Coke observes Rep. 12. 8 9. which caused me to make choice of it for my present purpose 2. The second is observed in the time of Phil. and Mar. when the manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction had been altered by the 1 Edw. 6. the Statute establisheth the same as it was before in these words And the Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions of the Archbishops Bishops and other Ordinaries to be in the same estate for Processe of Suits punishment of crimes and execution of Censures of the Church and knowledge of causes belonging to the same and as large in those points as the said Jurisdiction was the 20 Hen. 8. which Statute of Phil. and Mar. repealed the 1 Edw. 6. 2. and was never repealed since as the Judges resolved in the foresaid Case 4 Jac. but evidently revived by 1 Eliz. 1. Sect. 13. 3. When thirdly the long Parl. 17 Car. 1. had disabled the
Jurisdiction of the Courts Ecclesiastical it was very carefully restored and established by the Stat. 13. Car. 2. in these words Neither this Act shall take away any ordinary Jurisdiction from the said Archbishops c. but that they and every of them may proceed in all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and in all Censures and Coercions belonging to the same as they did and might lawfully have done before the making of the said Act. Vid. 17 Car. 1. 4. 'T is sufficient yet I cannot but subjoyn one notable way more Argumentative enough alone by it self to prove the Ecclesiastical Courts to be allow'd and confirm'd by Statute viz. when the Statutes direct such particulars to be tried in these Courts and require these Spiritual Courts to use their power for the punishment of offenders and the doing Justice And I think there cannot be a better medium or clearer evidence than we have in this matter For if the Spiritual Courts have no power to try such matters and pass Judgment and punish in such cases why do the Statutes direct and remit such matters to them and why do the Statutes enjoyn them to take Connusance and proceed accordingly that so they do is plain In the 18 of Edw. 3. 6. 't is said that Processe in Causes Testamentary notoriously appertaineth to holy Church We must not blemish the Franchize of Holy Church And in the 18 of Edw. 3. 6. parties are to be dismissed from Secular Judges in Cause of Tithes and left to the Church Ordinaries have power to punish Ministers and Priests as in 1 Hen. 7. c. 4. Synodals Proxies Pensions c. are to be recovered in the Spiritual Courts Vid. 15 Hen. 8. c. 7. Sect. 7. The like is known touching Causes Matrimonial and Defamations c. I shall only instance one more viz. in the great Cause of Non-Conformity and that in an Act that is nearer to us and of unquestionable Authority which both directs what we should punish and most solemnly requires by its own Authority to exercise our Ecclesiastical Power by the very rules and proper methods of our Spiritual Courts in these words 1 Eliz. before the Common Prayer Provided always and be it Ordained and Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That all and singular Archbishops and Bishops and every of their Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons and other Ordinaries having any peculiar Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction shall have full power and Authority by vertue of this Act as well to enquire in their Visitatiions Synods and elsewhere within their Jurisdiction at any other time or place to take accusation and informations of all and every the things above mentioned done committed or perpetrated within the limits of their Jurisdictions and Authority as to punish the same by Admonition Excommunication Sequestration or Deprivation and other Censures and Processe in like form as heretofore hath been used in like cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical Laws This doubtless is very plain And hereupon 't is solemnly required in these words a little-before For the due execution hereof they do in Gods name earnestly require and charge all Archbishops Bishops and other Ordinaries that they shall endeavour themselves to the utmost of their knowledges that the due and true execution hereof may be had throughout their Dioceses and Charges as they will answer before God for such evils and plagues whereby Almighty God may justly punish his people for neglecting this good and wholsom Law Now if in like cases it had not been lawful before this Act for the Spiritual Courts so to proceed why are the former Laws and use to be followed by these directions Or if this Act cannot impower us give us reason or Law against it Or if any thing be a greater grievance to you in the Spiritual Courts than the punishment provided for the crimes mentioned in this Act say what it is or say nothing But if these cases be not sufficient Mr. Cary can tell you of at least ten particular matters upon which the Law is to grant the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo and according to a know Act of Parliament made after this viz. 5 Eliz. 23. which sufficiently allows and confirms our Ecclesiastical proceedings to the fences of too many as some complain CHAP. VII Of Canons and Convocations WE see what Reason Mr. Hickeringill had to keep such a pother about the force of Ecclesiastical Canons and the Authority of Convocations Especially 1. Seeing the late mentioned Act of 1 Eliz. supposeth the Ecclesiastical Laws i. e. the Canons to be her own Laws and requires Ecclesiastical Judges so severely to put them in execution 2. Seeing since the Reformation most of the matters of Canons are expressed and enjoyned in Acts of Parliament insomuch that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction might stand and proceed well enough had we no other Canon but Acts of Parliament as Mr. Hickeringill insinuates and 't is worthy his observation that the greatest complaints of Dissenters since the Kings happy return have been upon the execution of Acts of Parliament and that not so much by Ecclesiastical as Civil Ministers Indeed the Statute of Car. 2. that restored the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction hath a Proviso That by vertue of that Act the Canons of 1640. shall not be of force and that no Canons are made of force by that Act that were not formerly confirm'd by Acts of Parliament or by the establish'd Laws of the Land as they stood in Ann. 1639. But 't is evident enough that by the 25 Hen. 8. c. 19. the old Canons not against Law or Prerogative are of force and that the King with the Convocation may make new ones with the same Condition and indeed while the Convocation is so limited by that Act their power seems not very formidable My Lord Coke who was not a Bigot for Spiritual Power declares the Law in both those Cases and tells us That it was resolved by the Judges at a Committee of Lords these restraints of the Convocation were grounded on that Statute 1. They cannot Assemble without the assent of the King 2. They cannot Constitute any Canons without his licence 3. Nor execute them without his Royal assent 4. Nor after his assent but with these four limitations 1. That they be not against the Kings Prerogative 2. Nor against Common Law 3. Nor against Statute Law 4. Nor against any Custom of the Kingdom Rep. 12. p. 720. And my Lord Coke adds That these restraints put upon the Convocation by the 25 Hen. 8. are but an affirmance of what was before the Statute and as he saith in his book of Courts are but declaratory of the old Common Law Pag. 323. consequently the Courts of Common Law are to bound and over-rule all Ecclesiastical executions of Canons and secure the Crown and the Laws against them But what Acts of Parliament have abrogated the Authority of the Synod 1603. and quite annihilated the very beings of Convocations I am yet to learn though Mr. Hickeringill so boldly after his own
and had Power by the Law of the Land to try such Causes as were not to be tried by Common Law so declared and Establish'd by Acts of Parliament Vid. in the time of Edw. 1. and Edw. 2. near four Hundred years since Circumspecte agatis 13 Edw. 1. An. 1285. The King to his Judges sendeth greeting Use your selves circumspectly in all matters concerning the Bishop of Norwich and his Clergy not punishing them if they hold Plea in things as be meer Spiritual as Penance enjoyned by Prelates Corporal or Pecuniary for Fornication Adultery or such like for Tithes and Oblations due and accustomed Reparations of the Church and Church-yard Mortuaries Pensions laying violent hands upon a Clerk Causes of Defamation Perjury All such demands are to be made in the Spiritual Courts and the Spiritual Judge shall have power to take knowledge of them notwithstanding the Kings Prohibition III. Hereupon a Consultation was to be granted 24 Edw. 1. as followeth Whereas Ecclesiastical Judges have often surceased to proceed by force of the Kings Writ of Prohibition in Cases whereas Remedy could not be had in the Kings Courts our Lord the King Willeth and Commandeth That where Ecclesiastical Judges do surcease in the aforesaid Cases by the Kings Prohibition that the Chancellor or the Chief Justice upon sight of the Libel at the instance of the Plaintiff if they can see that the Case cannot be redressed by Writ out of Chancery but that the Spiritual Court ought to determine the Matters shall write to the Ecclesiastical Judge that he proceed therein notwithstanding the Kings Prohibition More particularly Those Cases reserved by Law and Statute against which no Prohibition can be legally granted are enumerated in Articul Cleri 9 Edw. 2. IV. Thus the proceedings of the Spiritual Courts and the Causes belonging to them were supposed directed allowed and Establish'd by these Ancient Statutes And lest those Causes have not been sufficiently specified no Prohibition shall be awarded out of Chancery but in Case where we have the connusance and of Right ought to have as it is in the 18 of Edw. 3. provided Whence 't is a general Rule both in Law and Statute That such cases as have no remedy provided in the other Law belong to the Spiritual Courts and indeed it hence appears they have ever done so because we no where find in our Laws that the Common Law did ever provide for them and because the Kingdom of England is an intire Empire where the King is furnish'd with a Temporalty and Spiritualty sufficient to administer Justice to all persons and in all Causes whatsoever And consequently what Causes are not in the connusance of the Common Law belong to the Spiritual Jurisdiction which is plainly implied in 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. and other Statutes Upon the same ground in Law depend three great truths 1. The Antiquity of Ecclesiastical Courts 2. Their dependance upon the Crown 3. The perfection of the Government to administer Justice in all cases to all persons from the Supream Power exercised in the Temporal and Spiritual Courts all which lie in the Preamble of that Statute according to our Ancient Laws For saith my Lord Coke in the conclusion of Cawdries Case it hath appeared as well by the ancient Common Laws of this Realm by the Resolution of the Judges and Sages of the Laws of England in all succession of Ages as by Authority of many Acts of Parliament ancient and of latter times That the Kingdom of England is an absolute Monarchy and that the King is the only Supream Governour as well over Ecclesiastical persons and in Ecclesiastical Causes as Temporal To the due observation of which Laws both the King and the Subject are sworn V. IF you desire a more full and particular account of such Cases as being not provided for at Common Law are therefore and have been ever under the Spiritual power take this excellent Enumeration of my Lord Cawdries Case Coke Observe good Reader seeing that the determination of Heresies Schisms and Errors in Religion Ordering Examination Admission Institution and Deprivation of men of the Church which do concern God's true Religion and Service of right of Matrimony Divorces and general Bastardy whereupon depend the strength of mens Descents and Inheritances of Probate of Testaments and Letters of Administration without which no debt or duty due to any dead man can be recovered by the Common Law Mortuaries Pensions Procurations Reparations of Churches Simony Incest Adultery Fornication and Incontinency and some others doth not belong to the Common Law how necessary it was for administration of Justice that his Majestie 's Progenitors Kings of this Realm did by publick Authority authorize Ecclesiastical Courts under them to determine those great and important Causes Ecclesiastical exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Common Law by the Kings Laws Ecclesiastical which was done originally for two causes 1. That Justice should be administred under the Kings of this Realm within their own Kingdom to all their Subjects and in all causes 2. That the Kings of England should be furnished upon all occasions either foreign or domestical with Learned Professors as well of the Ecclesiastical as Temporal Laws VI. Ecclesiastical Laws are the Kings Laws though Processe be not in the Kings Name Now albeit the proceedings and Processe of the Ecclesiastical Courts be in the Name Coke Cawdr Case latter end of the Bishops c. it followeth not therefore that either the Court is not the Kings or the Law whereby they proceed is not the King's Law For taking one example for many every Leet or View of Frank-pledge holden by a Subject is kept in the Lords Name and yet it is the Kings Court and all the proceedings therein are directed by the Kings Laws VII Spiritual Causes secured from Prohibitions notwithstanding by Acts of Parliament Lord Coke Cawdries Case in Edw. 2. Albeit by the Ordinance of Circumspecte agatis made in the 13 year of Edw. 1. and N. B. by general allowance and usage the Ecclesiastical Court held Plea of Tithes Obventions Oblations Mortuaries Redemptions of Penance laying of violent hands upon a Clerk Defamations c. yet did not the Clergie think themselves assured nor quiet from Prohibitions purchased by Subjects until that King Edw. the Second by his Letters Patents under the Great Seal in and by consent of Parliament upon the Petitions of the Clergie had granted unto them to have Jurisdiction in those Cases The King in a Parliament holden in the Ninth year of his Reign after particular Answers made to their Petitions concerning the matters abovesaid doth grant and give his Royal assent in these words We desiring as much of right as we may to provide for the state of the Church of England and the tranquillity and quiet of the Prelates of the said Clergie to the honour of God and the amendment of the state of the said Church and of the Prelates and Clergie ratifying and approving all and singular the said