the future you will not easily admit those who have come to you from hence and that you will not receive to your communion those who are excommunicate by us seeing the Councell of Nice hath thus defined as you may easily discern Num. 8 By all which put together by the African out of the Nicene and by the Nicene out of the Apostolick Canon it is evident that the Bishop of Rome hath not power to absolve any person excommunicate by any Bishop of another Province and that 't is unlawfull for any such to make appeal to him which certainly will conclude against every the most inferior branch of his pretended authority over the Vniversal Church Num. 9 If this be not enough then adde the 34 Apostolick Canon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Bishops of every nation must know him that is the first among them i. e. their Primate and account him as their head Which sure inferres that the Bishop of Rome is not the one onely head of all Bishops The same is afterward transcribed by the 9 Canon of Antioch Num. 10 But to return to their Corpus Juris so again Decret par 1. dist 99. c. 4. Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus The Pope of Rome is not to be called Vniversal Bishop citing the Epistle of Pope Pelagius II. Nullus Patriarcharum Vniversalitatis vocabulo unquam utatur quia si unus Patriarcha unversalis dicatur Patriarcharum nomen caeteris derogatur No Patriarch must ever use the title of Vniversal for if one be called universal Patriarch the name of Patriarch is taken from all the rest And more to the same purpose the very thing that I was here to prove Num. 11 So again Ch. 5. out of the Epistle of Pope Gregory to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria where refusing the title of Vniversalis Papa Vniversal Pope or Father or Patriarch and calling it superbae appellaetionis verbum a proud title he addes si enim Vniversalem me Papam vestra Sanctit as dicit negat se hoc esse quod me fatetur Vniversum If the Patriarch of Alexandria call the Pope universal Father he doth thereby deny himself to be that which he affirms the Pope to be universally The meaning is clear If the Pope be universal Patriarch then is he Patriarch of Aegypt for sure that is a part of the Vniverse and then as there cannot be two supremes so the Bishop of Alexandria cannot be Patriarch of Aegypt which yet from S. Mark 's time was generally resolved to belong to him and the words of the Nicene Canon are expresse to it that according to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 original Primitive customes the Bishop of Alexandria should have power over all Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis adding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. seeing this is also customary with the Bishop of Rome of Antioch c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the privileges should be preserved to the Churches Num. 12 All which arguing of that Pope yea and that great Councel were perfectly unconcluding inconsequent as mine was said to be if the Bishop of Rome or any other had power over Patriarchs or authority over the universal Church which here this Gentleman is pleased to affirm and so sure must think Gregory more than fallible when he thus protested and disputed the contrary Num. 13 How much higher than this the same Gregory ascended in expressing his detestation of that title is sufficiently known from his Epistle to Mauritius the Emperor In regist 1. 4. Ep 30. I shall not here trouble him with the recitation of it Num. 14 What is after these passages set down in their body of the Law shews indeed that the Popes continued not alwaies of this minde Neither was I of opinion that they did the story being known to all how Boniface III. with much adoe obtained of Phocas the Emperour an Edict for the Primacy and Vniversal jurisdiction of the Church of Rome see Paul Diac de Gest is Romanorum l. 18. which yet is an argument that till then it had no foundation Num. 15 Whether there were antiently any such higher than Patriarchs and whether now there ought to be was the question before me and both those I must think concluded by what I have here set down as farre as relates to any true i. e. original right from any appointment of â—hrist or title of succession to S. Peter Num. 16 Much more might be easily added to this head if it were not evident that this is much more than was necessary to be replied to a bare suggestion without any specifying what that power is which may belong to the Pope over the Vniversal Church though convoking of Councels did not belong to him and without any offer of proof that any such did really belong to him CHAP. IV. An Answer to the Exceptions made to the fourth Chapter Sect. I. The Romanists pretensions founded in S. Peters universal Pastership Of Possession without debating of Right What Power the Pope was possest of here Num. 1 IN the fourth Chap his objections begin to grow to some height they are reducible to three heads the first is by way of Preface a charge of a very considerable default in the whole discourse that I remember not what matters I handle the other two are refutations of the two evidences I use to disprove the Popes claim of universal Trimacie from Christ's donation to S. Peter The first of the three is set down in these words Num. 2 In the fourth Chapter he pretendeth to examine whether by Christ his donation S. Peter had a Trimacie ever the Church where not to reflect upon his curious division I cannot omit that he remembers not what matters he handles when he thinketh the Catholick ought to prove that his Church or Pope hath an universal Primacie for it being granted that in England the Pope was in quiet possession of such a Primacie the proof that it was just belongeth not to us more than to any King who received his Kingdome from his Ancestors time out of minde to prove his pretension to the Crown just for quiet possession of it self is a proof untill the contrary be convinced as who should rebell against such a King were a Rebell untill he shewed sufficient cause for quitting obedience with this difference that obedience to a King may be prescription or bargain be made unnecessary but if Christ hath commanded obedience to his Church no length of years nor change of humane affairs can ever quit us from this duty of obedience so that the charge of proving the Pope to have no such authority from Christ lieth upon the Protestants now as freshly as the first day of the breach and will doe so untill the very last Num. 3 My method in the beginning of Chap 4. is visibly this The Church of England being by the Romanist charged of schism in departing from the obedience of the Bishop of Rome and this upon pretense that
he as successor of S. Peter hath a supremacy over all the Churches in the world I undertake to examine the truth of two branches of this suggestion one whether Saint Peter had this universal Supremacy given him by Christ the second whether this power if supposed to be instated on Saint Peter devolved on the Bishops of Rome The former of these I examined in that Chapter And I must now discern if I can how I have failed in any particle of my undertaking Num. 4 First saith he will not reflect on my curious division And I that know there was no curiosity in any division of mine but on the other side such perspicuity as was agreeable to a desire and indevour to set down the whole matter of debate between us as distinctly and intelligibly as I could that the Reader might be sure to judge whether I answered their charge or no I have no reason in the least to suspect the fitnesse and usefulnesse of my division nor consequently to be impertinently sollicitous in reflecting on it Num. 5 That which he saith he cannot omit I shall make haste to consider with him viz my great mistake in thinking the Catholick ought to prove his Church or Pope hath an universal Primacie Num. 6 To this I answer 1. that there is no manner of foundation or pretense for this exception here For I no where say the least word toward this purpose of requiring the Romanist to prove his pretensions or to prove them by this medium Onely I take it for granted that he doth actually produce arguments to inferre the Pope's universal Primacie and that Christ's donation to S. Peter is one of those arguments And that I was not herein mistaken I shall instead of a larger deduction of evidences from all sorts of Romish writers make my appeal to the objecter himself in several places of this little tract particularly p. 20. where he hath these words we relie on the first as the foundation and corner-stone of the whole building And what that first is appears by the words immediately precedent that the pretensions for the Pope's supremacy in England must be founded as successor to S. Peter in the universal Pastorship of the Church so including England as a member thereof From whence in stead of recriminating and retorting on him the charge of the ill memory I shall onely make this undeniable inference that I was not mistaken in thinking that the Romanist doth actually found his pretensions in the universal Pastorship of Saint Peter and consequently If I prove that to fail I have removed that which in his own style is the foundation and corner stone of his whole building Num. 7 But then 2. because he here pretends that it belongs not to a Romanist to prove his pretension just but that it sufficeth that he hath the possession I desire to propose these three things to his consideration 1. By demanding whether at this time or for these 100 years the Pope hath had the possession of the obedience of this nation I suppose he will say he hath not And if so then by the force of his own argument that possession and all the arguments deducible from thence are now lost to him the prescription being now on our side as before on theirs and there is nothing left him to plead but the original right on his side against the violence of the succeeding possession And if he come to the pleading of the right then that is the very method that I proposed and so did not offend or forget my self in so doing Num. 8 Secondly Concerning their possession before Henry VIII his daies I shall demand how long they had it and how they acquired it If he will not at all think fit to answer this question in either part then I confesse he hath made an end of the dispute and by refusing to give account of the right he had to his possession he will leave every man to catch and hold what he can and then to imitate him and give no account to any how he came by it which as it is an unchristian method every man being obliged to clear his actions from manifest charges of injustice and violence so again 't is an evil lesson against himself and unlesse we will confesse our selves Schismaticks in casting off their obedience 't is impossible for him ever to prove us such this kinde of schism which now we speak of being by all acknowledged to be a separation from our lawfull superiors and no way being imaginable to prove the Pope to be such to this nation without offering some proof to the point of right as well as adhering to his possession Num. 9 To which purpose it is farther observable 1. That even in secular things it is not every possession that gives a right but 1. either the bonae fidci possessio a possession honestly come by or the unjustnesse of whose original is not contested or made to appear And 2. whatsoever privilege by humane laws belongs to prescription yet in divine or Ecclesiasticall matters prescription can be of no force against truth of right and so this Gentleman seems to acknowledge here extending the force of possession no farther than till sufficient cause be shewed to the contrary 3. That though whilst I am in possession I need not be bound to prove my right yet when I am out of possession there is not beside absolute force any way possible to recover a possession but this of contesting and evidencing the right of it and that 't is evident is the present case Num. 10 But if he shall think fit to answer the question in either part of it then by the answer to the first part of it he must be forced to set down the original of it and by answer to the second the right of that original and so he hath been fain to doe as elsewhere so in this very paragraph where he speaks of Christ's commanding obedience to his Church I suppose he must mean the Church of Rome and that is again the very method in which I proposed to debate and consider this matter Num. 11 Thirdly For the power of which the Pope was possest in this Kingdome either it was no more than an Ecclesiastical Primacie such as by the antient Canons belongs to a Primate or Patriarch over Metropolitans and Bishops or else it was a supreme power over the King himself whether in Spiritual or also in Temporal affairs Num. 12 If it pretend onely to be the former of these then the power of Kings to erect or translate Primacies or Patriarchates which is insisted on and evidenced in the Tract of Schisme c 6. § 9. was sufficient then to justifie what here was done no possession being pleadable against the King to restrain or exclude this exercise of his power and so now to free us from schisme by this Gentleman's rule this act of the Kings in translating the Primacie being sufficient cause for quitting
miracle and all the supposed virtue thereof to the confirming the Traditions which Augustine delivered without farther extending it to the asserting the Papal power to which the Abbot of Bangor's answer was particularly confronted for had they once acknowledged themselves convinced of that there had been no place left for the licentia suorum no need of the consent or licence of any other superiors which yet they resolutely adhere to Lastly that at their second meeting the Britains deemed Augustine's pride a more valid convincing argument that the yoke which he designed to impose on them was not the yoke of Christ than the supposed miracle that it was And for the latter that of the slaughter first threatned and then fulfilled upon them 1. If that were indeed a miracle it was not of the complexion which is generally observed in Christ's miracles used for the working of faith but proportionable to the Spirit of the Boanerges which would have the fire from heaven called down upon the Samaritans and were answered by Christ that this was not agreeable to the Spirit of the Gospel And if the example of S. Peter on Ananias and Sapphyra or of S. Paul on Elymas be made use of as a precedent for this severity yet sure the answer of Pope Gregory to Augustine at that time supposing different Churches to enjoy different customes and not imposing the Roman upon all might have directed him to greater moderation See Bed l. 1. c. 27. in his answer to the third Interrogation Secondly it is no very great miracle that a grand Army falling first upon unarmed Monks should obtain the victory against them and afterward against all other their opposers nor consequently is it any whit strange that Augustine that was so provoked and meant to use this bloody revengefull course should thus threaten what he then designed to see performed for that is the full meaning of his foretelling it It is true indeed that either Bede or some Interpolator that copied out the original Latine of that Historie hath thought good to insert some words in the end of that story l. 2. c. 2. in fine quamvis ipso jam multo ante tempore ad coelestia regna sublato which might delude men into a perswasion that this bloody act was a long time after Augustine's death But for this First it is observable that King Alfred's Saxon translation or paraphrase of Bede wholly omits that parenthesis and reads it onely thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 B. A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and so was fulfilled the prediction of S. Augustine that they should feel the revenge of temporal destruction Secondly that the series of the story in Bede gives just prejudice to that parenthesis for this of the slaughter of the Britans being set down in the end of that second Chap the third begins with Augustine's ordaining two Bishops Mellitus and Justus which sure was not after his death and as the Saxon paraphrase of King Alfred begins that Chapter with this form of reference to the former passage 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was after this which plainly defines Augustine to have survived that bloody fact so the Latine Bede which sets down the time of Augustine's ordaining those two Bishops Anno Dominicae incarnationis sexcentefimo quarto In the year 604 doth yet more incline us to suspect that Parenthesis for though Bede who sets down the month and day of Augustine's death sets not down the year of it but leaves it in a latitude to be between the year 596 in which he came to England and the year 613. or as the Saxon reads 616. in which King Ethelbert died yet others commonly affirm that he continued Bishop 15 or 16 years and so died about 612 or 13. whereas Chronologers affirm the slaughter of the Monks of Bangor c. to have been in the year 603 and so the year immediately precedent to Augustine's ordaining those two Bishops Thirdly when in the relation of this slaughter the Latine Bede begins Siquidem posthaec ipse de quo diximus Rex Anglorum For after this i. e. after Augustine's threatning destruction to the British the forenamed King of the Angles gathered an Army the Saxon paraphrase reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and soon rath i. e. very soon after this which again perswades that it was before Augustine's death at least that the jam multo ante in the Parenthesis that Augustine died long before could have no truth in it Lastly as some Writers of these dark times have made a shift to affirm with the Latine Bede that Augustine was first dead so it is known also that others charge it on him that he was not onely the inciter to it but that he met the Kings when they were ready for the fight and was present with them And Trivet in his French Chronicle that saith it was done after Augustine's death yet adds that Ethelbert King of Kent who stirred up Ethelfred King of Northumberland and his Saxons against the Britans and by name against Dinoth Abbot of Bangor forementioned was highly displeased and inflamed that he had despised Augustine All which being considered it is certain that this was no very Christian action whether in Augustine or in Ethelbert and the threats of the one and performances of the other as they bear an exact proportion so are they equally argumentative not for but against that cause which was willing thus unchristianly to support it self Thirdly if the slaughter of these poor Monks shall yet be thought a solid probation as an act of divine vengeance upon them just such as the falling of the towre of Siloe was from which none but a Jew or Turke or the Barbarians Act. 28. or those that make prosperity the speciall mark of the true Church will think fit to conclude any thing there is one part of the story yet behinde which will refute and retort that argument for when Edilfrid had used them so bloodily and in the heat of his rage and victory proceeded to destroy the remainder of those Monks and their Monasterie together the avengers of blood met him three British Commanders with their forces routed his Army killed ten thousand and sixty of them wounded the king and put him and the remainder of his Army to flight which certainly is an argument of as much validity to inferre that God maintained the cause of those innocent Monks against the Saxons and Augustine as the former was argumentative on their side against the British But it is not needfull that I insist on either of these the one thing that from this view of the story in Bede was to be concluded is onely this that upon the relations as in him they lie and are by this Author H. T. vouched against us there can be no doubt of our Conclusion that the Abbot and Monks of Bangor opposed Augustine yeilded him no obedience referred themselves onely to their own Governours without any acknowledgment of obedience to