in whom the Apostle had perfect confidence he would never have committed a whole Island to him never have appointed him to perfect what he had left imperfect never have intrusted to him the jurisdiction over so many Bishops And Theodoret in Arg. Ep. ad Tit. That Titus was ordained by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to ordain Bishops under him for the governing of that whole Province being a very great one and Eccl. Hist l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Titus had the inspection of all the Churches in Crete of which that there was an hundred in number and Gortyna the Metropolis of them all appears by Dionysius bishop of Corinth about the year of Christ 175. who inscribes an Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church about Gortyna together with the rest of the Dioceses in Crete of all which he mentions and commends Philip their Bishop i. e. the Metropolitan under whom they all were as appears by Eusebius l. 4. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 12. In Timothy What hath been thus said of Titus is with the same evidence of the Text affirmable of Timothy when being placed by S. Paul at Ephesus the chief Metropolis of Asia he had by that means the inspection of all the Bishops there and consequently is directed both for the ordaining 1 Tim. 3.2 and exercising jurisdiction over them c. 5.1.19 and so saith S. Chrysostome Hom. 15. in 1. Tim. 5.15 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 T is manifest that Timothy was intrusted with more Churches then one even with a whole nation that of Asia and therefore S. Paul discourses to him of Elders or Bishops Photii lib. num 254. So the Anonymus writer of the Martyrdome of Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Apostle Timothy is ordained by S. Paul and enthroned Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus and accordingly is by Theodoret styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle i. e. chief ruler or Bishop of the Asiaticks Eccl. hist l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and by Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of the Province about Ephesus § 13. In James c. The same might be shew'd of James Bishop of Jerusalem who by that means was evidently Metropolitane of all the cities of all Judea And even of Syria and Cilicia also if we may argue concludently from the sending of that Canon to those regions Act. 15.23 It is likewise the affirmation of Agrippa in Philo of Jerusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was the Metropolis not only of one region Judea but of many more because of the Colonies it had sent out naming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syria and Cilicia among others And thereto agrees again as far as Syria what we find in the letters of Commission which Saul had received from the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem to the Synagogues of Damascus a city of Syria as being supposed under that Metropolis of Judea Act. 9.1 2. And accordingly after the destruction of Jerusalem Tiberias had this privilege as appears both by the Imperial Code tit de Jud. Caelic and by Epiphanius in the heresie of the Ebionites who refers all Syria and Cilicia to that Metropolis in the same manner as the Synagogues in Assyria and Media to the Sanhedrim in Bagdat and in all Aegypt to that in Alexandria But all this doth rather belong to the Jewish Form among themselves and the Jurisdiction of that Great Sanhedrim over their colonies thus far diffused and is not so appliable to the Christian Church at Jerusalem it being affirmed by Joseph de bel Jud. l. 3. c. ◠that Antioch was Metropolis of all Syria but this by the way § 14. Thus Philippi appears to have been the Metropolis of one part of Macedonia as Thessalonica another 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the prime city of a portion or division or province of Macedonia Epist 247. Act. 16.12 and is accordingly so styled by Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the city of Philippi being a Metropolis of a Province of the Macedonians and so Epaphroditus their Bishop in S. Pauls time as * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. in 1. Tim. 3.1 Theodoret and others resolve from his being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their Apostle Phil. 2.25 had under him many Bishops who are accordingly named in the plural Phil. 1.1 and all these subordinate to him as their Metropolitane § 15. So of the seven churches of Asia Rev. 2. and 3. it appears what hath been elsewhere proved that they were all Metropoles Of Ephesus it hath been already clear and S. Chrysostome is expresse In Arg. Ep. ad Eph. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephesus is a Metropolis of Asia and Theod. in Ep. ad Dioscor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Photius the Antient writer of the Martyrdome of Timothy bib num 254. saith of S. John that being returned from his banishment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he resided at the Metropolis of the Ephesians And in Vlpian L. Obser D. de Offic. procons the Proconsul under Antoninus being to go to Asia was to touch upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ephesus one and the chief of the Metropoles of Asia and accordingly Act. 19.38 it is said of that city 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Proconsuls were there and the Assises as in the chief city of that Province Eccl. hist l. 4. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in Eusebius Antoninus Pius his Epistle concerning the Christians is said to have been read and proclaimed at Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the common councel or consessus of Asia Or. ad Afiat and in Aristides it is styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common Magazine of Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whither they applied themselves for all their wants All which are evidences that it was a Metropolis and the chief of Asia § 16. Geogr. l. 5. c. 2. Act. 5. So of Thyatira saith Ptolomee 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was a Metropolis Of Philadelphia the Councel of Constantinople Sub Menâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of the Metropolis of the Philadelphians of the Province of the Lydians i. e. in this Lydian or Proconsular Asia So Laodicea Sardis and Smyrna together with Ephesus are set down by Plinie as cities in which the Roman Proconsuls kept their Assises Nat. Hist l. 5. c. 29. and dispensed justice to all the neighbouring cities which is the character of a Metropolis in the civil notion Ibid. c. 30. and the same he also affirms elsewhere of Pergamus And thus the whole number of the seven Churches appear each of them to have been Metropoles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steph. Byzant 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and accordingly by Ignatius his Epistles to the Trallians and Magnesians the Christians of two neighbour cities of Lydia on the Banks of Meander and so of this Asia and by the mention of their Bishops Damas and Polybius
or practise which their Ancestors at their very departure from them had not discerned and then though those errors subscribed to by them had the Lenitive or Antidote of blameless ignorance yet because those that now really discern that truth which the Ancestors discerned not cannot lawfully professe not to discern it or professe against conscience to believe what they doe not believe it is therefore necessarily consequent that the return of such to the peace of the Roman Church may by this means be rendred impossible though their Ancestors continuance there lying under no such prejudice their separation were acknowledged unlawful CHAP. III. The several sorts of Schisme § 1. THus much hath been necessarily premised for the true notion of Schisme taken from the origination of the word as that includes in the neuter sense a recession or departure in the reciprocal a separating or dividing himself § 2. It is now time to proceed and inquire how many sorts there are of this schisme in the Ecclesiastical sense or by how many waies the guilt of this sin of the flesh may be contracted § 3. In which inquiry it will be first necessary to consider wherein Ecclesiastical unity consists viz Unity Ecclesiastical wherein it consists in the preserving all those relations wherein each member of the whole Church of Christ is concerned one towards another These relations are either of subordination paternal on one side and filial on the other or of equality fraternal Unity of Members subordinate The unity of those members that are subordinate one to the other consists in the constant due subjection and obedience of all inferiors to all their lawful superiors and in due exercise of authority in the superiors toward all committed to their charge Of fellow brethren And the unity of the fellow brethren in the performance of all mutual duties of justice and charity toward one another § 4. The former Of the former sort is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obedience to the Rulers of the Church Heb. 13.17 and back again the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 due feeding i. e. governing the flock of God among them 1 Pet. 5.2 And because there be under the King or Emperor or supreme power to whom all are subject in any his dominions many possible links in that subordination Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops Presbyters Deacons and the brethren or congregation the unity must be made up of the due subordination and Christian i. e. charitative exercise of power in all these § 5. The later Of the later sort there are as many branches as there are varieties of equalities The brethren or believers in every congregation i. e. all beside the Governors of the Church however unequal in other respects are in this respect equalized and comprehended all under the one title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the younger 1 Pet. 5.5 And this whether we respect all other fellow-members of the same or whether of any other congregation whether Parish or City or Diocese or Province or Nation of the West of the East of the whole Christian world as farre as each member is qualified to exercise any fraternal duty toward them So again the several Deacons or Presbyters of any Diocese the several Bishops of any Province the several Metropolitans of any Nation the several Primates or Patriarchs one with another as the several Apostles over the whole world are each of them to be looked on as equals to all others of the same sort And proportionably and together with the Pastors the flocks the several communities or congregations of Christian men considered in complexo the Parishes Dioceses Provinces Nations Climes of the whole Christian world And according to these so many equalities there are or ought to be so many sorts of unities so many Relations of that mutual fraternal charity which Christ came to plant in his Church § 6. Communion Having seen what the unity is to which Communion superadds no more but the relation of external association whether by assembling for the worship of God in the same place where the matter is capable of it or whether by letters communicatory by which we may maintain external Communion with those which are most distant from us It will be easie to discern what Schisme is viz the breach of that Vnity and Communion and what be the sorts or species of it either those that offend against the subordination which Christ hath by himself and his Apostles setled in his Church or those that offend against the mutual charity which he left among his disciples § 7. The branches of Schisme as it is an offence against Subordination For the first of these those that offend against the due subordination they are possibly of as many sorts as there be distinct links in the subordination As first those brethren or people which reject the ministerie of the Deacons or Presbyters in any thing wherein they are ordained and appointed by the Bishop and as long as they continue in obedience to him and of their own accord break off and separate from them Schism against the Deacons or Presbyters refuse to live regularly under them they are by the Antient Church of Christ adjudged and looked on as Schismaticks So Ignatius the holy Bishop and Apostolical person and Martyr of Antioch in Ep ad Trall admonishing them to beware of the poyson of seducers i. e. the Schismaticks of those times he directs them this one way to doe it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This ye shall doe saith he if ye be not puffed up and if ye be not separated from God from Christ from the Bishop He that continues within the sept is pure He that doth ought without the Bishop and Presbyterie and Deacon is not of a pure conscience accounting all that live out of this obedience to be so far infected and defiled with schisme So again in the former part of the same Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all revere the Deacons as the ministers of Jesus Christ and in like manner the Bishop as Jesus Christ the son of the Father the Presbyters as the Senate of God and College of Apostles without these it is not called a Church Where every particular Church being administred by these no man is farther deemed a member of the Church then he lives regularly within this obedience And the same is the importance of his exhortation to the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observe the Bishop and the Presbyters and the Deacons intimating this to be the only way of preserving unity against schisme as appears by that which had gone before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is one altar or sept as there is one Bishop together with his Presbyters and Deacons and the living in union with obedience to these is the only way to doe whatsoever ye doe according to the will of God Where this subordination being looked on as that which is placed in
care of the whole Province and all the inferior cities and Bishops in them and the Bishops commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is straight added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the ancient Canon of the Fathers which hath continued in force from the first times also unto that Councel Where if it be demanded what is the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive the word to be best explained by Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should doubtlesse be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the meaning of the Canon to be agreeably to the expresse words of other Canons that as any ordinary Bishop hath full power in his own Church which he may in all things wherein that alone is concerned exercise independently from the commands or directions of any So in any thing of a more forein nature wherein any other Church is concerned equally with that and so falls not under the sole cognizance or judgement of either there the Bishop of that Church is to do nothing without directions from the Metropolitane and that is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that no Bishop must do any thing but what belongs particularly to him ratione officii any thing that another is concerned in as well as he without the Metropolitane § 24. Act. 15 Can. 9. So in the Councel of Chalcedon the direction is given for appeals in this order from the Bishop to the Metropolitane from the Metropolitane to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primate of the Diocese or Province as where there are more Metropolitanes then one as was shewed of Ephesus in Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ulp. Obser D. de Offic. Procons and elsewhere frequently there some one is Primate or Patriarch among them and to him lyes the appeal in the last resort and from him to no other see Justinian Novel 123. c. 22. and Cod. l. 1. tit 4. leg 29. who speaking of this calls it an ancient decree § 25. That which we find in the eighth Canon of the Great Councel of Ephesus shall conclude this matter when upon some claim of the Patriarch of Antioch for an interest in the ordaining of the Patriarch of Cyprus the Bishops of Cyprus deny his claim and deduce their privilege of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or independence from any forein Bishop from the very Apostles times A sanctis Apostolis say they nunquam possunt ostendere quòd adfuerit Antiochenus ordinaverit vel communicaverit unquam insulae ordinationis gratiam neque alius quisquam From the very Apostles times they can never shew that the Patriarch of Antioch or any other was present and ordained or being absent sent the grace of ordination to this Island but that the Bishops of Constantia the Metropolis of that Island by name Troilus Sabinus and Epiphanius and all the orthodox Bishops from the Apostles times ab his qui in Cypro constituti sunt have been constituted and ordained by their own Bishops of the Island and accordingly they required that they might continue in the same manner Sicut initio à temporibus Apostolorum permansit Cypriorum Synodus as they had done from the times of the very Apostles still appealing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the ancient manner the ancient custome the privileges which from their first plantation they had enjoyed and that from the Apostles themselves And accordingly that Councel condemned the pretension of the Patriarch of Antioch as that which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an innovation against the Ecclesiastical Lawes and Canons of the holy Fathers and orders not only in behalf of the Cypriots that the Bishops of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall continue to enjoy their right inviolate according to the ancient custome but extended their sentence to all other Dioceses in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same shall be observed in all other Dioceses and Provinces wheresoever that no Bishop shall lay hold of another Province which hath not been formerly and from the beginning under their or their Ancestors power And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This holy and Oecumenical Synod hath decreed that the privileges and rights of every Province shall be conserved pure and inviolate as they have enjoyed them from the beginning according to the custome that hath anciently been in force All deducing this power of Primates over their own Bishops and together excluding all forein pretenders from the Apostles and first planters of the Churches and requiring all to remain as they were first thus constituted Wherein as there be many things of useful observation which will be more fitly appliable in the progresse of this discourse so that which is alone pertinent to this place is only this that there may be a disobedience and irregularity and so a Schisme even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitanes and of the authority which they have by Canon and Primitive custome over them which was therefore to be added to the several Species of Schisme set down in the former chapters CHAP. IV. The pretended evidences of the Romanist against the Church of England examined and first that from the Bishop of Romes Supremacy by Christs donation to S. Peter § 1. THE Scene being thus prepared and the nature and sorts of Schisme defined and summarily enumerated our method now leads us to inquire impartially what evidences are producible against the Church of England whereby it may be thought lyable to this guilt of Schisme And these pretended evidences may be of several sorts according to the several Species of this sort of Schisme described and acknowledged by us § 2. The first charge against us Our casting out the Popes Supremacy The first evidence that is offered against us is taken from a presumed Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as Successor to S. Peter over all Churches in the world which being in the dayes of Henry VIII renounced and disclaimed first by both Vniversities and most of the greatest and famous Monasteries of this kingdome in their negative answer and determination of this question An aliquid Authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuiquam Episcopo extero Whether the Pope of Rome have of right any authority in the Realme of England more then any other forein Bishop hath and that determination of theirs testified under their hands and scales and after by Act of Convocation subscribed by the Bishops and Clergy and confirmed by their corporal oaths and at last the like imposed by Act of Parliament 35 Hen. VIII c. 1. all this is looked on and condemn'd as an Act of Schisme in this Church and Nation in renouncing that power of S. Peters Successors placed over all Christians by Christ § 3. This objection against us consisting of many branches every of which must be manifested or granted to have truth in it or else the objection will be of no
of the two swords or from Thou art Peter they have so little apparence of strength in them and have so often been answered by those of our perswasion that I cannot think it useful or seasonable to descend to any farther survey of them his other pretensions are at an end for the Vniversal Pastorship of the Pope his successor whose power and authority over all other Bishops cannot farther be extended upon this account of succession then S. Peter's was over all other Apostles the several Bishops of the world holding from as succeeding some Apostle or other as certainly as the Bishop of Rome can by any be supposed to succeed S. Pe-Peter according to that of * De Praescript c. 32. Tertullian Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia Polycarpum à Joanne collocatum refert Sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit perinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habent As the records of the Church of Smyrna deduce Polycarp their Bishop from S. John and as the Church of Rome relates that Clement their Bishop was ordained by S. Peter in like manner the rest of the Churches shew us the Bishops which they have had constituted by the Apostles and who have brought down and derived the Apostolick seed unto them § 2. What therefore I shall now adde in return to the second branch of this argument concerning the power of S. Peters successor as such will be perfectly ex abundanti more then needs and so I desire it may be looked on by the reader whose curiosity perhaps may require farther satisfaction when his reason doth not and in compliance therewith I shall propose these few considerations * The privileges attending S. Peters successor belonging rather to the Bishop of Antioch then of Rome First whether S. Peter did not as truly plant a Church of Jewish believers at Antioch and leave a successor Bishop there as at Rome he is supposed to have done 2. Whether this were not done by him before ever he came to Rome 3. Whether the Concession of these two unquestioned matters of fact doe not devolve all power and Jurisdiction on the Bishop of Antioch S. Peters successor there which by that tenure and claim of succession from S. Peter can be pretended to by the Bishop of Rome S. Peters successor also Nay Whether the right of Primogeniture be not so much more considerable on this side then any circumstance on the other side which can be offered to counterbalance it that he which succeeded him in his first seat Antioch is if there be force in the argument of succession to be looked on as the chief of his strength partaker of more power by virtue of that succession then he that afterward succeeded him at Rome § 3. This we know that anciently there were three Patriarchates and Antioch was one of them as Rome was another and though I who lay not that weight on the argument of succession from S. Peter am not engaged to affirme that Antioch was the chief of these yet this I contend that there is much lesse reason that any precedence which is afforded Rome by the ancient Canons should be deemed imputable to this succession from S. Peter when 't is evident that claim belongs to Antioch as well as to Rome and first to Antioch and afterwards to Rome and no otherwise to Rome then as it was first competible to Antioch § 4. The Primacy belonged to Rome upon another score Of Rome it is confessed that the primacy of dignity or order belonged to that the next place to Alexandria the third to Antioch which is an evidence that the succession from S. Peter was not considered in this matter for then Alexandria which held only from S. Mark must needs have yeelded to Antioch which held from S. Peter The original of this precedence or dignity of the Bishop of Rome is sure much more fitly deduced by the fourth General Councel holden at Chalcedon Can. penult confirming the decree of the Councel of Constantinople that that See shall have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges and dignities and advantages with Rome upon this account that Constantinople was New Rome and the seat of the Empire at that time which say they was the reason and not any donation of Christs to S. Peter or succession of that Bishop from him that Rome enjoyed such privileges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Fathers at Constantinople being moved with the same reasons had rightly judged that now the same privileges should belong to that Church or City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that this being next to Old Rome should in all Ecclesiastical affaires have the same dignity or greatnesse that Old Rome had Where as the Original of the dignity of that See is duly set down and which is observable in the whole contest never so much as quarelled at by the Legats viz. the residence of the Imperial Majesty there a thing very remarkable in the several degrees of dignity in the Church that of Patriarchs Primates Archbishops Bishops which generally observed their proportions with the civil state as hath been shewed so is the nature of it also no supremacy of power over all the Bishops of the world for that monarchical power is not at once competible to two equals or rivals and withall the moveablenesse or communicablenesse of that dignity as that which may follow the Imperial seat whithersoever it is removeable and is not fixed at Rome by any commission of Christ or succession from S. Peter § 5. The Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon rejected by the Romanists But because I shall suppose that a Canon though of an Vniversal Councel when it is found thus derogatory to the height which Rome now pretends to shall not by the Romanist be acknowledged to be authentick as wanting that which the Romanist makes absolutely necessary to the validity of Councels or Canons the suffrage of the Bishop of Rome and consent of his Legates and because I mean not here to goe out of my way to vindicate which I could very readily doe the authority of that Canon or to shew the strangenesse of this dealing not to admit any testimony against them but wherein they have given their own suffrage a method of security beyond all amulets if no man shall be believed against me till I have joyned with him to accuse and condemne my self I shall therefore lay no more weight on this then will without this support be otherwise upheld and is in some measure evident by the Romanists rejecting this Canon and adding that the Church of Antioch rejected it also which argues that that which the Church of Constantinople was willing to acquire by this decree was as derogatory to the dignity of Antioch as of Rome And as that concludes that Antioch had professedly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome the dignity of a
Patriarchate and the attendants and pompes of that So it proceeds on a concession that all that Constantinople wanted or in which this New came short of the Old Rome was only the dignity of a Patriarchate without any ordinary jurisdiction over other Churches Which again shewes us what was the nature of the preeminence of the Roman See at that time no supreme authoritative power over other Primates The dignity of Patriarchs reconcileable with the independency of Primates but only a precedence or priority of place in Councels an eminence in respect of dignity which is perfectly reconcileable with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and independence the no-subordination or subjection of other Primates § 6. The Canon of Ephesus against encroaching on any others Province This hath formerly been manifested when we discoursed of the original and power and dignity of Primates and Patriarchs and is put beyond all controll by that Canon of the Councel of Ephesus in the cause of the Archbishop of Cyprus over whom the Patriarch of Antioch though Patriarch of all the Orient was adjudged to have no manner of power And this independency of Cyprus not only from the Patriarch of Antioch but from all others whomsoever was contested then as from the Apostles times and asserted and vindicated by that Councel and order given indefinitely against all invasions for time to come in whatever Diocese that no Bishop shall encroach upon anothers Province or usurp a power where from the Apostles times he had not enjoyed it which how directly it is applicable to and prejudgeth the pretensions of Rome as well as of Antioch is so manifest that it cannot need farther demonstrating § 7. Instances of Independent power in Archbishops Of the same kind two farther instances I shall here adde first of the Archbishop of Carthage who being the chief Primate or Metropolitan for these two words in the African style different from the usage of other Churches are observeable to signifie the same thing in Africk i. e. in one of the thirteen Dioceses of the Empire appears to have been independent from all other power an absolute Primate subject to no superiour or Patriarch whether of Alexandria or Rome This is evident by Justinian in the 131 Novel where the Emperour gives the same privileges to the Archbishop of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Carthage which he had formerly given to the Bishop of Justiniana prima which being the second example I meant to mention I shall briefly shew what that Prerogative was which equally belonged to these two § 8. Justiniana Prima was the head of a Caetera Provinciae sub ejus sint authoritate i. e. tam ipsa mediterranea Dacia quà m Dacia Ripensis nec non Mysia Secunda Dardania Praevalitana Provincia secunda Macedonia pars secunda etiam Pannoniae quae in Bacenâ—i est civitate Justin de Privileg Archiep Just Prim ed à Gothofred Dacia the new a Diocese as that signifies more then a Province a b Volumus ut Primae Justinianae patriae nostrae pro tempore sacrosanctus Antistes non solùm Metroplitanus sed etiam Archiepiscopus fiat Ibid. Primat's a Patriarch's dominion erected by Justinian the Emperour and that city thus dignified as the c Multis variis modis nostram patriam augere cupientes in qua Deus praestitit nobis ad hunc modum So Gothofred reads but certainly it should be ad or in hunc mundum quem ipse condidit venire Ibid. Necessarium duximus ipsam gloriosissimam Praefecturam quae in Pannoniâ erat in nostrâ foelicissimâ patriâcollocare Ib. place where he had been born and the Archbishop thereof made Primate of all that Diocese This is thus expressed in the Imperial Constitutions Nov. 11. that he shall have omnem censuram Ecclesiasticam summum Sacerdotium summum fastigium summam dignitatem all power of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction the supreme Priesthood supreme honour and dignity And in the Constitutions set out by Gothofred out of an old MS. Copy Tu omnes Justinianae primae Antistites quicquid oriatur inter eos discrimen ipsi hoc dirimant finem eis imponant nec ad alium quendam eatur sed suum agnoscant Archiepiscopum omnes praedictae Provinciae that all the Provinces shall in the last resort make their appeal to him for all controversies And Nov. 131. c. 3. that in all that Diocese he shall have locum Apostolicae sedis the place or dignity of an Apostolical seat which gave Nicephorus occasion in his relation of this matter to affirme that the Emperour made it a free city and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an head unto itself with full power independent from all others And though the first Bishop thereof was consecrated by Vigilius Bishop of Rome as by some Bishop it is certain he must yet that is of no force against the conclusion to which I designe this instance it being evident that being consecrated he was absolute and depended not on any and his * Quando autem te ab â—âc luce decedere contigerit pro tempore Archiepiscopum ejus à venerabili suo Concilio Metropolitanorum ordinari sancimus quem ad modum decet Archiepiscopum omnibus honoratum Ecclesiis provehi Ibid. successors were to be ordained by his Councel of Metropolitanes and not by the Pope § 9. Which as it makes a second instance of the point in hand so when it is remembred that all this independent absolute power was conferred upon this city the Emperors favorite only by his making it a Primate's or chief Metropolitane's See and that Carthage's being the Prime Metropolis of Africk is expressed by having the same privileges that Justiniana Prima had It will follow what is most certain and might otherwise be testified by innumerable evidences that every Primate or chief Metropolitane was absolute within his own circuit neither subject nor subordinate to any forein Superiour whether Pope or Patriarch And that was all which was useful much more then was necessary to be here demonstrated And being so there remains to the See of Rome no farther claim to the subjection of this Island nor appearance of proof of the charge of schisme in casting off that yoke upon this first score of S. Peter's or his successors right to the Vniversal Pastorship § 10. The unreasonablenesse of confining the Catholick Church to the number of those that live in the Roman subjection Upon this head of discourse depends also all that is or can be said for the confining the Catholick Church to the number of those who live in obedience to the Roman Church or Bishop For if there have been from the Apostles times an independent power vested in each Primate or chief Metropolitane as hath been evidently shown then how can it be necessary to the being of a member of the Catholick Church to be subject to that one Primate 'T is certainly sufficient to the conservation of the unity of the whole Church that every
it being thus farre evident that it is our avowed wish and our care should it be denied to be our lot a special mark of the Church of England's Reformation to preserve the Vnity of the Apostolical Faith and Primitive practises as intire as we would have done Christ's body or garment and the probability being not weak on our side that the fact of the crucifying souldiers which hath so much of our abhorrence and detestation shall never be our choice our known or wilfull guilt or if it be that we so farre recede from our Profession CHAP. IX The Second species of this Schisme examined as it is an offence against external peace or Communion Ecclesiastical § 1. This Church free from breach of Communion Ecclesiastical NOW for the second branch of this second sort of Schism as it is an offence against external peace or communion Ecclesiastical This cannot with any colour be charged on us As appears by six Considerations of whom these 6 things are manifest and that by the tenure of our Reformation 1. The first that we have alwaies retained the form of Government in and under which the Apostles founded Ecclesiastical assemblies or Communion viz that of the Bishop and his inferiour officers in every Church and so in that respect are in Ignatius his phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 within the altar have no part of that breach of Ecclesiastical communion upon us which consists in casting out that order 2. The second That as we maintain that Order so we regularly submit to the exercise of it acknowledge the due authority of these Governors profess Canonical obedience to them submit to their Censures and Decrees and give our selves up to be ruled by them in all things that belong to their cognizance secundum Deum according to God 3. The third That the circumstances which are necessary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the assembling our selves together for the publick worship whether 1. that of place our Churches consecrated to those offices or 2. that of time the Lords day and other primitive festivals and Fasts and in their degree every day of the week or 3. that of forms of Prayer and Praises celebration of Sacraments and sacramentals Preaching Catechizing c. or 4. that of Ceremonies such as the practise of the Primitive Church hath sent down recommended to us or lastly that of Discipline to binde all these performances upon every member of the Church in his office or place are all entered into our Confessions setled by Article as part of our establishment and so the want of either or all of those are not imputable to our Reformation § 2. The fourth Fourthly That in every of these three whatsoever the Romanist requires us to adde farther to that which we voluntarily and professedly receive 1. the supreme transcendent monarchick power of the Pope 2. the acknowledgment of and obedience to his supremacy 3. the use of more ceremonies festivals c. is usurpation or imposition of the present Romanists absolutely without Authority or Precedent from the antient Primitive Church from whom we are so unwilling to divide in any thing that we choose a conformity with them rather then with any later modell and if by receding from the Ordo Romanus in any particular we doe not approve our selves to come neerer to the first and purest times it is the avow'd Profession of our Church the wish and purpose of it which I may justly style part of our establishment to reduce and restore that whatsover it is which is most pure and Primitive in stead of it § 3. The fift Fiftly That as we exclude no Christian from our communion that will either filially or fraternally embrace it with us being ready to admit any to our assemblies that acknowledge the Foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles so we as earnestly desire to be admitted to the like freedome of external Communion with all the members of all other Christian Churches as oft as occasion makes us capable of that blessing of the one heart and one lip and would most willingly by the use of the antient method of literae Communicatoriae maintain this Communion with those with whom we cannot corporally assemble and particularly with those which live in obedience to the Church of Rome § 4. The sixt Sixtly that the onely hindrances that interpose and obstruct this desired freedome of external Communion are wholly imputable to the Romanists § 5. First their excommunicating and separating from their assemblies all that maintain communion with the Church of England which we know was done by Bull from the Pope about the tenth year of Q. Elizabeth before which time those English which had not joyned in our Reformation might and did come to our assemblies and were never after rejected by us but upon their avowed contumacie against the orders of our Church which consequently brought the censures on them and to that it is visibly consequent that we that were cast out cannot be said to separate as in the former part of this discourse hath been demonstrated § 6. Secondly their imposing such conditions on their Communion belief of doctrines and approbation of practises which we neither believe nor approve of and are ready to contest and maintain our Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by that we cannot without sinning or seeming to sin against conscience without wilfull falling on one side or dissembling and unsound confession on the other side or at least the scandal of one of these accept of their communion upon such conditions as hath formerly been demonstrated also § 7. A consideration concerning our Church And in this matter it were very well worthy our considering how farre the Articles of our Church of England proceed in accord with the present Roman doctrines and practises and in what particulars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot perswade our selves to consent to them and then to offer it to the Vmpirage of any rational arbitrator whether we that unfeignedly professe to believe so much and no more nor to be convinced by all the reasons and authorities proofs from Scripture or the first Christian writers those of the first three hundred years or the four General Councels produced by them being in full inclination and desire of minde ready to submit upon conviction are in any reason or equity or according to any example or precept of Christ or his Apostles or the antient Primitive Church to be required to offer violence to our mindes and to make an unsound profession or else for that one guilt of not doing so to be rejected as hereticks and denied the benefit of Christian Communion which we heartily desire to extend and propagate to them which deny it to us All this thus put together and applied to this present matter will certainly vindicate us from all appearance of guilt of this second branch of the second sort of Schisme CHAP. X. The third species of this Schism as
OF SCHISME A DEFENCE OF THE Church of England Against the EXCEPTIONS OF the Romanists By H. HAMMOND D. D. LONDON Printed by J. Flesher for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivie-lane M. DC.LIII· Of SCHISME A Defence of the Church of England against the Objections of the Romanist CHAP. I. An Introduction the danger and sin of Schisme § 1 Two concernments of al Christians TWO wishes rather then hopes there are wherein all Christians are very much concerned First That all that have given up their names to that holy profession would sincerely betake themselves to the discharge of all those duties Practise of Christianity as well more common one towards another as more particular of each single man toward God and toward himself which Christ came on purpose to plant in or reduce into the world The Second Propagating of it That the Faith of Christ might gain an amicable universal reception in the hearts of all men over the whole world and that all mankinde by an uniform obedience to those divine precepts which are most agreeable to our rational i. e. humane nature and which are able to advance us to the highest pitch of moral excellency and dignity that any created substance is capable of might attain the great end of our creation a paradise or blisful beeing here in this world only with the mixture of some allayes to that blisse and those necessary both to the exercise of some most eminent virtues and such as the Angels are not for want of passible bodies capable of and also to the inhaunsing of our crown and then a state of infinite reward and uncompounded felicity hereafter What is to be done toward the latter § 2. That the later of these may in Gods good time be effectually attempted by all Christian Kings and Bishops and advance more successfully then of late it hath done ought to be the indevour of all those whose eminencie in the world hath given them capacities or qualifications to contribute some considerable degree of assistance to so glorious a work And for others whose inferiority of condition or sphere of motion and the improbability consequent to that of advancing so magnificent a designe is their just excuse for not entertaining any such hopeless thoughts it is yet their certain duty by constant fervent prayers to solicite the good hand of God who alone can accomplish so divine a work and by the diligent strict observance of all Christs precepts to exemplifie to all others the power and real energie of the faith of Christ where it is admitted into the heart thereby to attract all others to the imbracing of that which hath such admirable virtues in it § 3. The chief branches of the former considered in society As for the former That is in proportion to his condition the known duty of every single Christian much more of every congregation and community of such who are therefore associated into one body that each supplying the defects and infirmities of others they may by so advantagious an instrument as union of forces is be enabled to doe what without it they are justly supposeable to want means or strength to doe and so are deprived of all excuse if they be found culpable § 4. In this kinde 1. Charity The duty of Charity and peace to all 2. Obedience of ready and filial obedience of those under authority to their lawful authorized superiours and 3. Paternal exercise of Ecclesiastical power of charitative paternal exercise of their power in all those that are invested with it by Christ may be justly looked on as virtues of the first magnitude which have the most lively characters and impresses of the Law-giver Christ's image and superscription upon them accordingly deserve the first fruits of our care and diligence that they be most diligently conserved where they are and industriously reduced where by the malignity or infelicity of the times they are torn or escaped from us The contrariety of Schisme to the Doctrine of Christ § 5. For that malices and rancors and animosities among single Christians but especially seditious mutinous spirits that divisions and schismes and ruptures and preparative thereto causless anathematizing and tyrannizing over the Faith of Christ's flock are most scandalously contrary to Christ's platform to the prophecie of the plough-shares and the pruning-hooks the happy exchange for the sanguinary hostile instruments is a truth so eminently and signally visible in the practise and doctrine of Christ and his Apostles that it cannot be doubted or questioned on either side And agreeably there is no one vice which hath fallen under so much of the displeasure and correption and severest discipline of the holy Fathers of the Antient Church as this of Schisme and the ingredients and preparatives to it have done § 6. The Fathers Censures of it It is but a small part of the character thereof that from S. Paul and S. Jude they tell us that it is a special piece of (a) 1 Cor. 3.4 Jude 19. See Fulgentius ad Mon l 2. carnality an (b) Quisquis in Ecclesiâ gratiam consecutus ab Ecclesiâ exierit reus sibi futurus est i. e. ipse sibi quod pereat imputaturus Quod Apostolus explanat docens haereticum vitandum esse ut à semetipso damnatū Cypr Ep 76. Poenas quas meruerant pependerunt ut à nobis non ejecti ultro se ejecerent de ecclesiâ sponte se pellerent Ep 40. Quomodo te à tot gregibus scidisti Exscidisti enim teipsum Firmilian ad Cypr Ep 75. excommunicating and condemning i. e. voluntary inflicting of that punishment on ones self which the Governours of the Church use to inflict on the most scandalous sinners that (a) Sciat se postea ad Ecclesiam redire cum Episcopis plebe Christi communicare non posse Ep 40. Aversandus est talis atque fugiendus quisquis fuerit ab Ecclesiâ separatus Ibid. De Unit Eccles they that so divide on their own presumption may not at their own will return to the Church and communicate again with the Bishop and his Christian people that (b) Hanc Ecclesiae unitatem qui non tenet tenere se fidem credit Cypr de Unit Eccles Dum conventicula sibi diversa constituunt veritatis caput atque originem reliquerunt Ibid. Fidem destruit pro Fide perfidus Ibid. it is contrary to the Faith (c) Schisma non faciendum etiamsi in unâ fide eâdem traditione permaneat qui recedit Cypr Testim l. 3. c. 86. even when it hath not in respect of doctrinal points any heresie joyned with it (d) Quam ver◠dilectionem custodit cogitat qui discordiae furore vesanus Ecclesiam scindit pacem turbat charitatem dissipat Cypr de Unit Eccles Arma ille contra Ecclesiam portat Ibid. Contrary to charity yea to all the (e) Quisquis ab Ecclesia segregatus adulterae jungitur à promissis Ecclesiae separatur Cypr de Unit
force 1. the matter of fact that thus it was in England 2. the consequence of that fact that it were Schisme supposing these Successors of S. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ 3. the matter of fact again that S. Peters Successors were thus constituted Vniversal Pastors by Christ This again of two branches 1. that S. Peter was so constituted 2. that the power instated on S. Peter devolved on the Bishops of Rome I shall endevour to expedite this matter by granting and not requiring the pretenders farther to prove the two first branches and leave the issue of the debate to their manifesting the truth or our manifesting the falshood of the last mentioned but indeed the principal fundamental part of the contention as it consists of two branches one as it respects S. Peter the other as it respects his Successor in the See of Rome wherein if the Romanists pretensions shall appear to have truth in them we must be acknowledged by breaking off from our submission to that See to be formally Schismaticks according to the grounds allready laid and acknowledged by us But on the other side if their pretensions herein shall appear to be false or unsufficiently proved and manifested there is no other branch of the argument be it never so true which can give the conclusion any authority with any pondering rational man it being in the power of any weak link to destroy the usefulnesse of the whole chain and consequent to the falsenesse or inevidence of any one proposition that the conclusion shall not be inferred by that arguing § 4. The Supremacy of S. Peter examined And first for the pretension as far as it respects S. Peter and must be managed by evidences and so concluded either on one side or the other I shall begin with offering my evidences for the Negative § 5 Evidences against it First from his being Apostle of the Circumcision peculiarly And first it is evident by Scripture that this Apostle was the Apostle of the circumcision or Jewes exclusively to the uncircumcision or Gentiles which were generally anothers Province By Apostle here I understand a Commissioner of Christs endued with authority by him and this Commission given to him as to all the other Apostles indefinitely and unlimitedly not restrained by Christs words to any particular Province but extending equally to the whole world what therefore is done in this kind is by Subsequent act of the Apostles themselves who are testified to have done that which it had been very unskilful and improvident and consequently unreasonable not to have done viz. distributed their Vniversal great Province inro several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1.25 distributions or Lots or lesser Provinces one or more to goe one way the other another which is there called by S. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to go to his own or proper place or assignation for the witnessing the Resurrection and proclaiming the faith or Doctrine of Christ to the world § 6. Now if the circumcision or Jewish Christians were peculiarly S. Peters Province the lot or division assigned unto him agreeable unto which it is that both his preaching in the Acts is to the Jewes in Judaea and Samaria and his Epistles are both of them addressed to the Jewes of the dispersion and none else then it is not imaginable how he should be the Vniversal or Supreme Pastor or Bishop of the whole world For the Christians of that age of the world being either Jewes or Gentiles the Jewes again either those that remained in their countrey or those that were dispersed in other regions there was but one portion of one of these which can reasonably be placed under S. Peters Jurisdiction The Jewes that were in Judaea were all immediately subject to the several Bishops in each city and all they to their Metropolitane James the Bishop of Jerusalem Of this James the brother or neer kinsman of Christ many a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. in 1 Cor 15.7 ex Sentententiâ Chrysostomi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Photius Epist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Nicephorus l. 2 c. 38. of the Ancients affirm that he was by Christ after his resurrection constituted Bishop there b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others that it was done by Christ and his Apostles c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb ex Clement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesippus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap Euseb l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vide Athan. in Synops Epiph. Haer. 78. Nyssen de Resur Or. 2. Hieron in Gal. 1. in Catal. Euseb in Chron. p. 43. others the more ancient that the Apostles constituted him in that See Peter James and John the three most honoured by Christ conferring this honour upon him whereupon in this his See he is named before Peter and John Gal. 2.9 and hath the Principal place in the Councel at Jerusalem where S. Peter is present and accordingly gives the Sentence Act. 15.19 upon which the Rescript is grounded v. 22. From all which as it appeareth that the Jurisdiction in that Metropolis which had extended very far among the Jewes not only to all Judaea but even to Syria and Cilicia and other regions saith Agrippa in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo as hath formerly been mentioned belonged to James the Just and not to S. Peter So it is as evident that it was not by S. Peter alone intrusted to him which might conclude some peculiar transcendent power of S. Peter there but by S. James and S. John together with S. Peter which quite takes off all pretension of his to the singular Supremacy there § 7. The Gentiles were not S. Peters Province So again for the uncircumcision or Gentile Christians they were not S. Peter's Province but peculiarly S. Paul's by S. Peter's own confession and acknowledgment Gal. 2.7 who is therefore styled the Apostle of the Gentiles Rom. 11.13 and that without any commission received or consequently dependence from S. Peter as he declares and contests it Gal. 1.12.17 having his assignation immediately from Christ v. 16. Accordingly whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same city the one constantly applied himself to the Jewes received disciples of such formed them into a Church left them when he departed that region to be governed by some Bishop of his assignation and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles § 8. Thus we know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted the Jewes and S. Paul the Gentiles and certainly S. Paul no way Subordinate or dependent on him as appears by his behaviour toward him avowed Gal. 2.11 and acordingly in Ignatius his Epistle to the Magnesians we read of the Church of Antioch that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 founded by S. Peter and S. Paul not by one or
other but by both and in the ancient if not Ignatian Epistle to the Antiochians You saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have been the disciples of Peter and Paul i. e. converted and ruled by them the Jewish part by one and the Gentile by the other and the Church of the Gentiles at Antioch and Syria of which Antioch was the chief city and Cilicia is it to which peculiarly the decrees of the Councel at Jerusalem are sent Act. 15.23 and inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the brethren at Antioch those of the Gentiles and that separately from the Jewish Church in that city or region as is evident both by the contents of that Rescript or Decretal Epistle in which only the Gentiles were concerned v. 28 29. and also by that which we read of S. Peter and the Jewish proselytes Gal. 2.11 that they withdrew from all communion and Society with the Gentile Christians upon which S. Paul reproved him publickly v. 12. According to this condition of disparate not subordinate Churches at Antioch it is that the writer of the Apostolical constitutions tells us that Euodius and Ignatius at the same time sate Bishops of Antioch one succeeding S. Peter the other S. Paul one in the Jewish the other in the Gentile congregation and so continued a while till both the Churches the wall of Separation being by compliance and Christian Charity removed joined and united together under Ignatius who therefore as by a Hom. 4. in Luc. Origen and b l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius he is called the Second so by S. Hierome is called the third Bishop of Antioch and yet as truly by c de Syn. Arim. Seleuc. Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said to be constituted Bishop after the Apostles and by d Ex com Ignat. S. Chrysostome to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the blessed Apostles hands were laid upon him whil'st yet Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affirms him to have received the Archisacerdotal honour from the hands of S. Peter § 9. The same is as evident at Rome where these two great Apostles met again and each of them erected and managed a Church S. Peter of Jewes S. Paul of Gentiles So saith e l. 3. c. 3. Euseb l. 4. c. 6. S. Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the blessed Apostles founded and built the Church there and f l. 1. adv Carpocrat Epiphanius more expressely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter and Paul were Apostles and Bishops in Rome So the Inscription on their Tombes which saith a l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius continued to his time mentions them both as founders of that Church So Gaius an Ecclesiastick writer of great antiquity coaetaneous to Pope Zephyrynus speaking of the monuments of S. Peter and S. Paul calls them b Euseb Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the monuments of them that founded that Church § 10. So Dionysius the Bishop of Corinth who lived about 20 years after their death affirms both of the Church of Rome and of Corinth c Euseb Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was each of them the plantation of Peter and Paul And d De Prom. Praedict implend c. 5. Prosper Petrus Paulus Apostoli in urbe Româ Peter and Paul the Apostles consecrated or constituted a Church in the city of Rome And the very Seales of Popes are an irrefragable evidence of the same as they are set down by Mathew Paris in the year of our Lord 1237. In bullâ Domini Papae saith he stat imago Pauli à dextris crucis in medio bullae figuratae Petri à sinistris In the Bull of the Pope stands the image of S. Paul on the right hand of the Crosse which is graven in the midst of the Seal and the image of S. Peter on the left hand and this only account given for S. Pauls having the nobler place Quia Paulus credidit in Christum quem non vidit à dextris figuratur because he believed on Christ without seeing him here on earth And all this very agreeable to the story of Scripture which as according to the brevity of the relations there made it only sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the circumcision and of his being so at Rome we make no question So it affirms of S. Paul that he preached at Rome in his own hired house receiving them which came unto him Act. 28.30 which will most fitly be applied to the Gentiles of that city the Jewes having solemnly departed from him v. 29. § 11. Accordingly in Ignatius Ep. ad Trall we read of Linus and Clemens that one was S. Paul's the other S. Peter's Deacon both which afterward succeeded them in the Episcopal chaire Linus being constituted Bishop of the Gentile Clemens of the Jewish Christians there And hence growes unquestionably that variety or difference observed among writers some making S. Peter others S. Paul the founder of that Church but others as hath been shewed both of them some making Clemens others Linus the first Bishop after the Apostles both affirmers speaking the truth with this Scholion to interpret them Linus was the first Bishop of the Gentile Christians after S. Paul Clemens the first of the Jewish after S. Peter and after Linus his death Cletus or Anacletus succeeding him and dying also both congregations were at length joyned in one under Clemens by which one clew I suppose it easie to extricate the Reader out of the mazes into which the ancient writers may lead him in rehearsing the first Bishops of Rome so very diversly but this is not a place to insist on it § 12. By all which it appears that even in those Churches whereof S. Peter is acknowledged the founder as that of Rome and the like yet he cannot be deemed the sole founder but coequal to him S. Paul of the Gentile as he of the Jewish Proselytes and if the sole government of that Church be devolved to the original it will be found to have begun in Clemens in whom the union of the Jewish and Gentile congregations there was first made and not in S. Peter § 13. But then for another great part of the Christian world it is manifest that S. Peter had never to doe either mediately or immediately in the planting or governing of it and consequently that from him that power can never descend to any other Not to mention the travailes and labours and plantations of the other Apostles which certainly had each their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently their Provinces by Apostolical joynt consent assigned them Act. 1. though that short History written by S. Luke S. Paul's attendant mention them not I shall only insist on the beloved Disciple his fellow-Apostle of the Circumcision and that abundant Labourer S. Paul § 14. Nor all the Circumcision For S. John who had the favour of Christ
The words Mat. 16. are only a promise in the future what Christ will afterward do and so the donation there set down only by way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or anticipation and if the making this promise to him peculiarly seem to make any thing for him then the repetition of that promise Mat. 18.18 which is made to all the Apostles indefinitely will take off that appearance where it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say unto you to all of them equally and without any peculiarity of restriction whatsoever ye shall bind c. The applying the words particularly to S. Peter hath one special energie in it and concludes that the Ecclesiastical power of oeconomy or stewardship in Christ's house of which the keyes are the token Isa 22.21 belongs to single persons such as S. Peter was and not only to Consistories or assemblies that whatsoever S. Peter acted by virtue of Christs power thus promised he should be fully able to act himself without the conjunction of any other and that what he thus did clave non errante no one or more men on earth could rescind without him which is a just ground of placing the power Ecclesiastical in Single persons and not in Communities in the Prelate of each Church and not in the Presbytery But still this is no confining of this power to S. Peter any more then to any other single Apostle who had this power as distinctly promised to each of them as here S. Peter is pretended and acknowledged to have To which purpose as the words of Scripture are most clear Mat. 18.18 and accordingly Mat. 19. the promise is again made of twelve thrones for each Apostle to sit on one to judge i. e. to rule or preside in the Church and when that promise was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit Act. 2. the fire that represented that Spirit was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sat upon every one of them without any peculiar mark allowed S. Peter and they were all filled with the holy Ghost and so this promise equally performed as it was made to all so is this exactly the notion which the ancient Fathers of the Church appear to have had of them in Mat. 18. Thus Theophylact according to S. Chrysostomes sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though the words I will give thee were delivered to S. Peter alone yet the power hath been conferred on all the Apostles Epist 27. S. Cyprian hath an eminent place to this purpose Dominus noster Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio loquitur dicit Petro Ego tibi dice Quia tu es Petrus tibi dabo claves Inde per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernetur Christ meaning to set down the way of ordering his Church saith unto Peter I will give thee the keyes From this promise of his the ordination of Bishops and course of the Church hath continued by all successions and vicissitudes So that the Church is built upon Bishops in the plural and every Ecclesiastick act is governed by them So S. Ambrose De Dign Sacerd c. 5. 6. Claves illas regni Coelorum in beato Petro cuncti suscepimus Sacerdotes All we Bishops have in S. Peter received those keyes of the kingdome of heavens Ep. ad Dracont And accordingly S. Athanasius mentions the office of Bishop as one of those things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ effigiated or formed in or by the Apostles And S. Basil the great calls Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presidency of the Apostles the very same that Christ bestowed upon all and not only on one of them § 23. By all which it is evident again that the power which Christs commission instated on S. Peter was in like manner intrusted to every other single Apostle as well as to him and consequently that this of universal Pastor was no personal privilege or peculiarity of S. Peters § 24. The Romanists argument from Tu es Petrus evacuated Thirdly that argument which is taken by learned Romanists from the name of Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rock or foundation stone bestowed on him by Christ as if that were sufficient to found this pretended Supremacy is presently evacuated and retorted on the pretenders when 't is remembred 1. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directly the same signifies vulgarly a stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Homers Iliad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of it self denotes no more but by the context Mat. 16.18 being applied to a building must needs signifie a foundation stone and then 2. that all the 12 Apostles are in like manner and not he only or above any other styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twelve foundations Apoc. 21.14 each of which stones having the name of an Apostle on it in respect of the power and dignity that belonged to every one is severally compared to a precious stone And it being there in vision apparent that the wall of the city i. e. of the Church being measured exactly and found to be an hundred fourty four i. e. twelve times twelve cubits 't is evident that that mensuration assignes an equal proportion whether of power or province to all and every of the Apostles which is again a prejudice to the Vniversal Pastorship of any one of them CHAP. V. The Evidences from the Bishop of Romes succeeding S. Peter examined § 1. No privilege by succession from S. Peter but such as S. Peter is proved to have himself FRom this argument of the pretenders as it respects S. Peters person and hath thus been manifested to be utterly incompetent to inferre the designed conclusion It is now very easie but withall very unnecessary to proceed to the other part of it as it concerns S. Peters successors in his Episcopal or which is all one as to this matter his Apostolical seat and power at Rome For certainly what he had not himself he cannot devolve to any of his successors upon that one skore of succeeding him and therefore as this of S. Peters personal power and eminence is the principal So it is in effect the only ground of the Romanists pretension this other of derivative power in his successor being like water that flowes from a spring apt to ascend no higher then the fountain stood and therefore I again think fit to remind the Romanist and peremptorily to insist on this exception that if he cannot make good S. Peters Oecumenical power and Pastorship over all the rest of the Apostles from the donation of Christ which I suppose hath been evidenced he cannot do and for any proofs made use of by any to that purpose and drawn either from Feed my sheep and lambs or from the mention
we are all subject and obedient to the Church of God and the Pope of Rome but so as we are also to every pious and good Christian viz to love every one in his degree and place in perfect charity and to help every one by word and deed to attain to be the sons of God †Concil Anglic p. 188. Et aliam obedientiam quà m istam non scio debitam ei quem vos nominatis esse Papam nec esse Patrem Patrum vendicari postulari And for any other obedience I know none due to him whom you call the Pope and as little doe I know by what right he can challenge to be father of fathers Bishop of Bishops or Vniversal Bishop Praeterea nos sumus sub gubernatione Episcopi Caerlegionensis super Oscâ As for us we are under the rule of the Bishop of Caerlegion upon Vsk who is to overlook and govern us under God § 6. The invalidity of the argument from conversion when the Britains were certainly not converted by Augustine From hence the result is clear that whatever is pretended from Augustine the Monk or supposed to have been then pressed by him for the advancing of the Popes interest in this Island and concluding us guilty of Schisme in casting off that yoke yet the British Bishops still holding out against this pretension and that with all reason on their side if the title of conversion which the Romanist pleads for our subjection may be of any validity with him it must needs follow that the whole Island cannot upon this score of Augustine's conversion be now deemed schismatical it being certain that the whole Island particularly the Dominion of Wales was not thus converted by Augustine nor formerly by any sent from Rome or that observed the Roman Order as appears by the observation of Easter contrary to the usage received at Rome but either by Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes as our Annals tell us most probably And this in the first place must needs be yeilded to by those that expect to receive any advantage to their cause by this argument And if they will still extend their title equally to those parts of Britannie which Augustine did not as to those which he did convert to Wales as well as to Kent it is evident they must doe it upon some other score whatsoever the pretense be and not upon this of conversion § 7. But then 2 dly for as much of this Island as was really converted to the Faith by the coming of Augustine No title from conversion for subjection there is no title for their subjection and the perpetual subjection of their posterity from this § 8. To examine this a while by other known practises of the Christian world S. Paul by himself or his Apostles or Procurators was the great Converter of the Gentiles Concerning him I shall demand whether all those nations converted by him and his ministers are to all ages obliged to be subject to that chair where S. Paul sat whether in the Church at Antioch or Rome or the like at the time of his sending out or going himself to convert them If so then 1. there cannot be a greater prejudice imaginable to S. Peter's Vniversal Pastorship And 2. it will in the story of the fact appear to have no degree of truth in it Timothie that was placed over Asia in Ephesus and Titus over Crete being as hath formerly appeared supreme in those Provinces and independent from any other See And generally that is the nature of Primates or Patriarchs to have no superior either to ordain or exercise jurisdiction over them but themselves to be absolute within their Province and their successors to be ordained by the suffragan Bishops under them which could not be if every such Church where such a Primate was placed were subject to that Church from which they received the Faith § 9. The power of Kings to erect Patriarchates To put this whole matter out of controversie It is and hath alwaies been in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchates or to translate them from one city to another and therefore whatever title is supposeable to be acquired by the Pope in this Island upon the first planting of the Gospel here this cannot so oblige the Kings of England ever since but that they may freely remove that power from Rome to Canterbury and subject all the Christians of this Island to the spiritual power of that Archbishop or Primate independently from any forein Bishop § 10. For the erection of Primacies or Patriarchates that of Justiniana Prima †Examples in Justiniana Prima c. 5. §. 8. forementioned and set down at large is an evident proof Justinian erecting that long after the rest of the Primates seats in the Empire to be an Archiepiscopal See absolute and independent and subjecting all Dacia the new to it And though the Pope Vigilius was by the Emperour appointed to ordain the first Bishop there yet were his successors to be ordained by his own Metropolitanes and the Bishops under him not to appeal to any others as hath in each particular formerly been evidenced § 11. Carthage The same also hath in like manner been shewn of Carthage which was by the same Justinian not originally dignified but †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 131. after the rescuing it out of the Vandales hands restored to a state of Primacie after the pattern or image of Justiniana Prima and two Provinces more annexed then had antiently belonged to that Bishops jurisdiction § 12. Ravenna Before either of these the Emperour Valentinian the 3 d Anno Christi 432. by his Rescript constituted Ravenna a Patriarchal seat And from his time that held the Patriarchate without any dependence on the Bishop of Rome to the time of Constantinus Pogonatus And though at that time the Greek Emperors Vicarii or Exarchs being not able to support the Bishop of Ravenna against the Longobards he was fain to flie for support to the Bishop of Rome and so submitted himself unto him and after Reparatus the next Bishop Theodorus did the like to Pope Agatho whether upon the score of great friendship with him or in despite to his own Clergie with whom he had variance saith Sabellicus yet the people of Ravenna thought themselves injured hereby and joyned with their next Bishop Foelix to maintain their privilege though Pope Constantine stirring up Justinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against them they were worsted and defeated in their attempt § 13. Other examples there are of this kinde * de privileg Patriar Balsamon points at some which from the †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Emperours charter had this privilege not to be subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were Archbishops independent So under Phocas the Patriarchate of Grado in Italie was erected saith * l. 4. c. 34. Grado Warnefridus de gestis Longobard Others as
1. § 16. In this matter as much as concerns the Ordination of those new Bishops that it was performed regularly according to the Antient Canons each by the Imposition of the hands of three Bishops hath been evidently set down out of the Records and vindicated by M r Mason in his Booke de Minist Anglic and may there be view'd at large if the Reader want satisfaction in that point § 17. The Creation of new Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time vindicated As for the second remaining part of the objection which alone is pertinent to this place it will receive answer by these degrees First that the death of Cardinal Pool Archbishop of Canterbury falling neer upon the death of her Predecessor Queen Mary it was very regular for Queen Elizabeth to assigne a successor to that See then vacant Archbishop Parker 2 dly that those Bishops which in Queen Mary's daies had been exiled and deprived and had survived that calamity were with all justice restored to their dignities 3 dly that the Bishops by her deprived and divested of their dignities were so dealt with for refusing to take the oath of Supremacy formed and enjoyned in the daies of Henry the VIII and in the first Parliament of this Queen revived and the statutes concerning it restored to full force before it was thus imposed on them So that for the justice of the cause of their deprivation it depends Immediatly upon the Right and power of the Supreme Magistrate to make laws to impose oathes for the securing his Government and to inflict the punishments prescribed by those laws on the disobedient but Originally upon the truth of that decision of the Bishops and Clergie and Vniversities in the reigne of Henry the VIII that no authority belonged in this Kingdome of England to the Bishop of Rome more then to any other forein Bishop The former of these I shall be confident to look on as an undoubted truth in the maintenance of which all Government is concerned and hath nothing peculiar to our pretensions which should suggest a vindication of it in this place And the second hath I suppose been sufficiently cleared in the former chapters of this discourse which have examined all the Bishop of Romes claims to this Supremacy And both these grounds being acknowledged or till they be invalidated or disproved supposed to have truth and force in them the conclusion will be sufficiently induced that there was no injustice in that Act of the Queens which divested those Bishops which thus refused to secure her Government or to approve their fidelity to their lawful Soveraign § 18. Fourthly that those Bishops being thus deprived it was most Regular and Necessary and that against which no objection is imaginable that of their due Ordination being formerly cleared that other Bishops should be nominated and advanced to those vacant Sees and that what should be for the future acted by those new Bishops in Convocation was regular Synodical and valid beyond all exception in respect of the formality of it § 19. Fiftly that as by the Vniform and joynt consent of these Bishops thus constituted a Declaration of certain Principal Articles of Religion was agreed on and set out by Order of both Archbishops Metropolitans and the rest of the Bishops for the Vnity of doctrine to be taught and holden of all Parsons Vicars and Curates c. and this not before the third year of that Queens reigne So before this time there had not been as farre as appears any debate in any former Convocation of that Queens reigne concerning Religion only an offer of a disputation betwixt eight Clergie-men on each side which came to nothing but all done by the Parliaments restoring what had been debated and concluded by former Synods in the reigns of King Henry the eight and Edward the sixt without any new deliberation in any present Synod By this means were revived the Statutes for the Regal Supremacy as also of the book of Common-prayer as it was in the time of Edward the sixt with few alterations which included the abolition of the Romish Missalls And so all this again as farre as it concerned Queen Elizabeth's part in the Reformation is regularly superstructed on the forementioned foundation of Regal Supremacy with the concurrence and advise of Synods which hath been in the former part of this discourse I hope sufficiently vindicated § 20. And that being granted it cannot be here necessary or pertinent to descend to the consideration of each several matter of the Change thus wrought in this Church either as branches of the Reformation or under the name or title of it For our present enquirie being no farther extended then this whether the true Church of England as it stands by Laws established have in Reforming been guilty of Schisme as that signifies in the first place a recession and departure from the obedience of our lawful Superiours and this being cleared in the Negative by this one evidence that all was done by those to whom and to whom only the rightful power legally pertained viz the King and Bishops of this Nation supposing as now regularly we may having competently proved it and answered all the colours that have been offered against it that the Pope had no right to our obedience and consequently that our departure from him is not a departure from our obedience to our superiours it is presently visible that all other matters will belong to some other heads of Discourse and consequently must be debated upon other principles All variation from the Church of Rome in point of Doctrine if it should as I believe it will never be proved to be unjust falling under the head of Heresie not of schisme and for acts of sacrilege and the like impieties as certainly Henry the eighth and some others cannot be freed from such they are by us as freely charged upon the actors as by any Romanist they can be But yet sacrilege is no more schisme then it is adulterie and the Church on which one sin hath been committed cannot be from thence proved to be guilty of every other CHAP. VIII Of the Second sort of Schisme as that is an Offence against mutual Charity This divided into three species and the first here examined § 1. BUT beside that first species of schisme as it is an offence against the subordination which Christ hath by himself and his Apostles setled in the Church from the guilt of which I have hitherto indevoured to vindicate our Church another was taken notice of as it signifies an offence against the mutual unity and peace and charity which Christ left among his Disciples And to that I must now proceed as farre as the Accusations of the Romanist give us occasion to vindicate our innocence § 2. Three branches of the second sort of Schisme And for method's sake this branch of Schisme may be subdivided into three species The first is a breach in the doctrines or Traditions a departure from the
unity of the Faith which was once delivered to the saints under that head also comprehending the institutions of Christ of his Apostles and of the Vniversal Church of the first and purest ages whether in Government or other the like observances and practises The second is an offence against external peace and Communion Ecclesiastical The third and last is the want of that charity which is due from every Christian to every Christian Beside these I cannot foresee any other species of schisme and therefore the vindicating our Reformation from all grounds of charge of any of these three will be the absolving the whole task undertaken in these sheets § 3. 1. A departure from the Unity of Doctrines or Traditions Apostolical For the first it may be considered either in the Bullion or in the coyn in the grosse or in the retail either as it is a departure from those rules appointed by Christ for the founding and upholding his truth in the Church this Vnity of Doctrine c. or else as it is the asserting any particular branch of Doctrine contrary to Christs and the Apostolical pure Churches establishment § 4. Our Church vindicated from this in two branches And here it is first suggested by the Romanist that by casting out the authority of the Bishop of Rome we have cast off the head of all Christian Vnity and so must needs be guilty of Schisme in this first respect To which the answer is obvious 1. In the first Christs Rules for upholding the truth that that Bishop of Rome was never appointed by Christ to be the head of all Christian unity or that Church to be the conservatory for ever of all Christian truth any more then any other Bishop or Church of the Apostles ordaining or planting and whatever can be pretended for the contrary will be easily answered from the grounds already laid and cleared in the former part of this discourse concerning the Vniversal Pastorship of S. Peter's successors which must not be here so unnecessarily repeated § 5. 2 dly That the way provided by Christ and his Apostles for the preserving the unity of the faith c. in the Church is fully acknowledged by us and no way supplanted by our Reformation That way is made up of two acts of Apostolical providence First their resolving upon some few heads of special force and efficacie to the planting of Christian life through the world and preaching and depositing them in every Church of their plantation 2. Their establishing an excellent subordination of all inferior officers of the Church to the Bishop in every city of the Bishops in every Province to their Metropolitanes of the Metropolitanes in every region or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Patriarchs or Primates allowing also among these such a Primacie of Order or dignity as might be proportionable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the scripture and agreeable to what is by the antient Canons allowed to the Bishop of Rome And this standing subordination sufficient for all ordinary uses and when there should be need of extraordinary remedies there was then a supply to be had by congregating Councels Provincial Patriarchal General as hath formerly been shewed And all this it is most certain asserted and acknowledged by every true son of the Church of England as zealously as is pretended by any Romanist And from hence by the way that speech of the learned and excellent Hugo Grotius which I discern to be made use of by the Romanists and look'd on with jealousie by others will I suppose receive its due importance and interpretation in his Rivet Apologet Discuss p. 255. Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idémque corpus c. § 6. As for the subjection and dependence of this Church to the Monarchick power of the Bishop of Rome this will never be likely to tend to the unity of the whole body unlesse first all other Churches of Christians paid that subjection too and were obliged and so by duty morally ascertain'd alwaies to continue it which it is evident the Eastern Churches had not done long before the time of our pretended departure and 2. unlesse the Bishop of Rome were in probability able to administer that vast Province so as would be most to the advantage of the whole body For which whether he be fitly qualified or no as it is not demonstrable in the causes so is it to be looked on as a Politick Probleme the truth of which belongs to prudent persons and and such as are by God intrusted with the Flock to judge of i. e. to the Princes the nursing Fathers of every Church who are prudentially and fatherly to determine for themselves and those that are under them what is most ordinable to that end and cannot be obliged to conclude farther then the motives or premises will bear to decree what they doe not reasonably and cordially believe § 7. In the Second Particular doctrines Lastly for the particular doctrines wherein we are affirmed by the Romanists to depart from the Vnity of the Faith and so by departing from the unity to be schismatical as heretical by departing from the faith this must be contested by a strict survey of the particular doctrines wherein as we make no doubt to approve our selves to any that will judge of the Apostolical doctrine and traditions by the Scriptures and consent of the first 300 years or the four General Councels The Church of Englands temper in respect of particular doctrines the most competent witnesses of Apostolical traditions so we shall secure our selves of our innocence in this behalf by that principle acknowledged in our Church and owned as the rule by which we are concluded in any debate or controversie That whatever is contrary to the doctrine or practises of those first and purest ages shall by us assoon as it thus appears be renounced and disclaimed also Which resolution of rulinesse and obedience will I suppose conserve us in the unity of the Faith and render us approveable to God though our ignorance thus unaffected should betray us to some misunderstandings of those first times and be an instrument much more probable to lead us into all truth then the supposed infallibility of the Church of Rome can be imagined to be which as it leaves the proudest presumer really as liable to error as him that acknowledgeth himself most fallible so it ascertains him to persevere incorrigible whether in the least or greatest error which by fault or frailty he shall be guilty of § 8. This consideration of the humble docible temper of our Church together with our professed appeal to those first and purest times to stand or fall as by those evidences we shall be adjudged as it necessarily renders it our infelicity not our crime if in judging of Christ's truth we should be deemed to erre so may it reasonably supersede that larger trouble of the Reader in this place which the view and examination of the severals would cost him