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
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
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
circumstances of affairs It must be supposed that twenty years since this person the supposed subject of discourse living regularly in this Church under his superiours was not then chargeable w th this crime of not communicating with a visible Church § 3. This consequent I shall not be so much my own flatterer as to think it will be allowed me by the Romanist who will I know at another time accuse the whole Church of England ever since the Reformation of schism from the Catholick Church and make the communicating with it 20 years since as dangerous as now the not communicating with any But the reason of my laying this foundation is to shew the vanity of the present objection For if the Church of England 20 years since were not a Church but a society of Schismaticks not a particular Church which if so must be a part or member of the Vniversal and such it is not if it be truly separated from that body in the unity of which it is obliged to remain but a separated and torn off and so a livelesse ejected branch then whatsoever hath now befallen us and the consequence of that the supposed impossibility of cōmunicating with the Church of England will but leave us where we were the impossibility of communicating with a schismatical society being not chargeable on us as a crime by them who make the communicating with all such societies so damnable And therefore I say to the making this any objection 't is necessary that that be supposed which I have for that cause laid as my foundation that 20 years since a member of the English Church was not under this guilt of not communicating with some one visible Church And if then he were not or for discourse sake be by the objecter supposed not to have been then it infallibly and irrefragably follows which is the second proposition that he that 20 years since was not under this guilt of not communicating is either not guilty of it now or else hath voluntarily committed or omitted somewhat which commission or omission hath been the contracting of this guilt For that somewhat which hath not been his choise shall become his crime that what hath been his saddest part of infelicity the evil against which he hath most industriously contended should be accounted his offence when it is his punishment I shall not fear will be affirmed by any § 4. Thirdly then the businesse is brought to this issue that that person which is the subject of our discourse he that 20 years since was a member of the Church of England be now proved by some commission or omission of his voluntarily to have contracted this guilt or else be absolved and freed from it If he have contracted it it must be by some irregularity of actions contrary to the standing rule and Canons of this Church or by disobedience to some commands of his Ecclesiastical superiors And as in neither of these I shall excuse any that hath been guilty so if being not fallen under the actual Censures of the Church for it he now timely and sincerely return with contrition and reformation I shall hope it will not be imputed to him But however this cannot be insisted on by the objecter because I speak and so must he of him that hath lived regularly not of him that hath not And of him 't is apparent that all that he hath done is to adhere to his former principles when others have not to have testified his constancy with not only venturing but actually losing either possessions or liberty and the benefit of Ecclesiastical assemblies rather then he would joyn or appear to joyn with Schismaticks when others have made all worldly advantages by the rupture In a word that he hath been patient and not fainted and never departed from his rule though it have cost him dear to stick fast to it And I hope no body will be so uncharitable as to grieve and gall him whom God hath thus suffered to be chastised upon no other provocation but this his having been thus afflicted and persecuted This is too clear a truth to need confirming and yet this is the utmost that it can be driven to supposing the most that the objection can be imagined to suppose viz that the Church of England is now invisible § 5. But then in the fourth place it must be added that as yet Blessed be God the Church of England is not invisible It is still preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained and multitudes rightly baptized none of which have fallen off from their profession And the only thing imaginable to be objected in this point being this that the schism hath so farre been extended by the force that many if not most Churches parochial are filled by those who have set up a new or a no-form of worship and so that many men cannot any otherwise then in private families serve God after the Church-way that sure will be of little weight when the Romanists are remembred to be the objecters who cannot but know that this is the only way that they have had of serving God in this Kingdome these many years and that the night-meetings of the Primitive Christians in dens and caves are as pertinent to the justifying of our condition as they can be of any and when 't is certain that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the forsaking of the assemblies Heb. 10.25 is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our wilfull fault v. 26. but only our unhappy lot who are forced either not to frequent the assemblies or else to incourage incurre the scandal of seeming to approve the practises of those that have departed from the Church That we doe not decline order or publick communion and consequently are not to be charged for not enjoying those benefits of it which we vehemently thirst after is evident by the extensive nature of our persecution the same tempest having with us thrown out all order and form Bishops and Liturgie together and to that curstnesse of theirs and not to any obstinatenesse or unreconcileablenesse of ours which alone were the guilt of non-communion is all that unhappinesse of the constant sons of the present English Church to be imputed in which alone this whole objection is founded § 6. What this may come to in the future I cannot discern any farther appearance of difficulty in this matter and therefore shall no farther lengthen this Appendage then by offering it to the consideration of the indifferent Reader whether this objection can ever in future times be improveable into a charge against us or our posterity as long as either Bishops stand and continue to ordain among us or it is not our faults that they doe not stand To which purpose it may be remembred what befell the Jewes whether under the Zelots fury or the Romans yoke The former threw out the lawfull successive High Priests and Priests of the sons of Aaron and put into those sacred offices the
may be most fitly branched § 11. 2. What Evidences are producible against the Church of England whereby it may be thought liable to this guilt and withall how it may be cleared from all force of those evidences § 11. Which when we have done we shall not from the office of Advocates proceed to that of the Accuser or Judge but leave all others that are under the same charge to their proper tribunal to stand or fall as they shall appear able or not able upon firm grounds to maintain and vindicate their innocence CHAP. II. What Schisme is together with some general considerations thereon § 1. OUR first enquirie must be what Schism is in the strict proper notion as (a) Non attendisti inter schismaticos haereticos quà m sit magna distantia Optat l. 1. p. 13. distinguished from Heresie the (b) Inter haeresim schisma hoc interesse arbitramur quòd haeresis perversum dogma habeat schisma propter Episcopalem dissensionem ab Ecclesiâ pariter separet Hieron ad Tit c. 3. introducing of some false doctrine into the Church And herein there will be no difficulty the Origination and universal use of the word according and consenting exactly to give us the importance of it The Original of the word Schism § 2. In the origination of it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 scindi it signifies literally scissure or division which being a figurative and withall a relative word referring to some body which is thus cut or divided but that no natural but political body the Church or Congregation of Christians the literal notation of the word in the Ecclesiastical use will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a division in or from the Vnity of the Church of Christ Only the form termination of the word must be farther noted which being not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Reciprocal passion noted by the word but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the use of such passives is observable being of the nature and for want of conjugations designed to supply the place of the Hebrew Hithpaâ—l and so noting reciprocal action or passion where the passion is from and on himself and is most fully expressed by the Latine Neutrals which partake both of active and passive but are strictly neither of them This might be largely exemplified in the use of other words but the advantage of the observation will not be proportionable to the length of such a diversion being no more then this that the distinct notion of the word Schisme is a voluntary dividing Schisme a voluntary recession or in the neutral expression which the Fathers familiarly use a separating or receding of any member from the unity of the body i. e. the Church of Christ and so that the scismatick is he that * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jude 19. divides himself from the Church of God not that is cut off or separated he that (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Joh. 2.19 goes out or (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. 10.38 withdraws or recedes of his own accord not he that is cast out by the Governours of the Church Excommunication no Schisme For whatever blame and vengeance may justly light on such who are by the righteous and charitative Censures of the Church cut off from communion in case they doe not by humiliation confession and reformation and meet fruits of repentance prepare and qualifie themselves for readmission to that Communion yet certainly this punishment of Excommunication is very disparate and distant from the crime of schisme the Judge i. e. Bishop or Governour of the Church being the only actor in the one and that ex officio an act of duty in him when duly executed but in the other the offender or guilty person who is therefore said to (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Laod Can 40. accuse to cast to (d) Propriae conscientiae videtur esse damnatio cùm quispiam suo arbitrio ab Ecclesiâ recesserit Hieron 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Cod Can Afric Can 22. condemn himself throwing himselfe by his voluntary recession from the Church into that very condition into which the adulterer and obstinate offender is cast by the Censures of it § 3. This is so evident a truth that this punishment and so judicial act of the Governour cannot be the guilt of him that is punished and though it be supposed to be founded in some offence is not yet in any propriety of speech the offence it self much lesse the sin of schisme especially when he is punished for heresie or some other crime and not for schisme that I need not farther insist on it Interpretative Excommunication Only as beside the formal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there is also an interpretative excoÌ„munication when he that is not under the Censures of the Church is yet refused admission or reception unto it unlesse he will submit to such such conditions indispensably proposed to him and because both in the one and the other in the formal and in the interpretative excommunication the Governours being men may possibly erre and consequently censure and excommunicate the innocent and in like manner propose those conditions of communion which are not lawful for that man to submit unto Continuance out of actual Communion without Schisme so it is possible in both cases that the person excluded may be absolutely innocent free not only from that of schisme but from all other guilt so that he which is excommunicated may not be obliged to regain the peace nor he that is barred out to force his passage into the communion of the Church and so both sorts of these continuing out of the actual communion neither the one nor the other be guilty of schisme in the least degree by so continuing Unjust excommunication hurts no man § 4. He that is excommunicated unjustly cannot be rendred criminous by that misfortune nor concluded culpable by that argument upon which he is supposed innocent Our Saviour hath pronounced of the anathemaes of the Jews of their bitterest execrations their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their sharpest censures nay the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 casting men out of the Synagogue falsly or unjustly that it is to be looked on as a most auspicious token a matter of the greatest rejoicing to them which fell under it one of the principal ingredients in and forerunners of their blisse and accordingly the Apostles when they were thus cast out and contumeliously used went out of the Temple rejoicing that they were thought worthy to suffer shame for Christ's name To which purpose is that of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople to Michael Metropolitan of Mitylene Ep 116. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. The excommunication of the Jewish Sanhedrim sent out against Christ's disciples brought them so much neerer to their Lord and Master and alien'd the Jews themselves removed them so much farther from the
the Church by God it is both schisme and impiety not to continue regularly under it And so in the inscription of that Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He salutes them in the blood of Christ especially if they be at one with their Bishop and the Presbyters with him as also the Deacons designed by the appointment of Jesus Christ looking upon all as Schismaticks that were not so Thus again in his Epistle to the Ephesians he admonisheth them to obey the Bishop and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an undivided minde making the disobedience an act of schism or division in any And so generally throughout all those Epistles § 8. Against the Bishop In like manner if we ascend to the next higher link that of the Bishop to whom both Presbyters and Deacons as well as the brethren or people are obliged to live in obedience the withdrawing or denying this obedience in any of these will certainly fall under this guilt So the same holy Ignatius in Ep ad Smyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man without the Bishop doe any of those things which belong to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherever the Bishop appears there let the multitude be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that doth any thing without the privity of the Bishop serves the Devil the title by which those foule Gnostick hereticks and schismaticks the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the troublers and dividers of the Church were signified So in the processe of that Epistle having mentioned obedience to their Bishop as a necessary requisite to their sanctification supposing the contrary to be an act of pollution i. e. of the poyson of the schismaticks and again admonishing them as of their duty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to concurre with the sentence of their Bishop he adds that he that doth not so expressed by not being within the altar or sept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falls short of the bread of God is an excommunicate person being rendred such by this act of division from the Bishop So in the Epistle to the Magnesians speaking of those that act without the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these seem not to him to be men of a good conscience the phrase by which he oft expresses Schismaticks whose minde and conscience was defiled by the poyson of the Gnosticks at that time because they assembled not according to that order and establishment which was setled in the Church And again as Christ did nothing without his Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being united to him or all one with his Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so neither must ye doe any thing without the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but assemble together and have but one prayer common to you all where the living out of this regular obedience to the Bishop is the contrary to union and communion and so is formally schisme And to the Philadelphians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as many as are God's and Christ's are with the Bishop excluding them from the unity of Christ's body who are thus separated from the Bishop And in the same Epistle speaking of the repentance of schismaticks and hereticks and God's pardon offered to such the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condition of that pardon and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the syncerity of that repentance is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they return to the unity of God and senate of the Bishop So frequently in S. Cyprian the schisme especially of the five Presbyters of Faelicissimus his faction Ep 40. appears to consist in their disobedience to and breaking off from their †Contra Episcopatum meum c. Ep. 40. Hi tribuebant ne concordarent cum Episcopo suo Ibid. contra sacerdotium Dei partionem ruptae fraternitatis armare voluisse proper Bishop and causing others to doe so and De Vnit Eccl the Schismatick is described to be filius impius qui contemptis Episcopis Dei sacerdotibus derelictis constituere audet aliud altare an impious son which having contemned the Bishops and which is all one forsaken the Priests of God dares constitute another altar and Ep 76. qui schisma faciunt relicto Episcopo alium sibi foris Pseudo-episcopum constituunt the schismaticks are they that having left their Bishop set up for themselves abroad another false Bishop and all their adherents are involved in the same guilt qui se schismaticis contra Praepositos sacerdotes irreligiosâ temeritate miscuerunt who joyn with the schismaticks against their Bishops and Ep 65. Hi sunt conatus schismaticorum ut sibi placeant ut Praepositum superbo tumore contemnant These are the endevours of schismaticks that they may please themselves and proudly contemn their Bishop and Ep 69. Vnum scire debes si quis cum Episcopo non sit in Ecclesiâ non esse One thing you are to know that he that is not with the Bishop is not in the Church the Church being there by him defined plebs sacerdoti adunata Pastori suo grex adhaerens the people united to the Bishop and the flock to their Pastor § 9. This of a lighter a grosser sort And as this disobedience may be of two sorts either of a lower or of a higher kinde the denying obedience in any particular lawful command of the superior or the casting off all obedience together dethroning them or setting up our selves either in their steads or in opposition to them the first parallel to the contumacy of the Levites the sons of Eliab Num. 16.12 14. which said We will not come up the second to their rebellion levelling and equalling themselves to Moses and Aaron v. 3. ◠and both together subjecting them first to that curse of Gods not accepting their sacrifice v. 15. and then to that sudden exemplary destruction v. 31. so will the Schisme be also a lighter and a grosser separation a defection from the Bishop and a rebellion against him the former ordinarily called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schisme the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sedition the latter adding very much to the guilt of the former and uncapable of the alleviating excuses of ignorance or mistake in thinking the commands unlawful and consequently the obedience which may be pretended in the former § 10. Against the Metropolitan From this of Bishops we may further ascend to the higher dignity and authority of Metropolitanes over Bishops themselves which what it is will be fit to be examined a while § 11. The original of Metropolitans In Titus And the first rise may be taken from Scripture it self where the Commission which is given to Titus by S. Paul to ordain Elders Tit. 1.5 that is Bishops v. 7. in every city of Crete demonstrates him to have had Metropolitical authority bestowed on him so saith S. Chrysostome on Tit. 1. Hom. 1. of Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he had not been an approved person
it is evident that there were other Episcopal Sees in that Asia beside those seven named in the Revelation and those afterward appear to have been subject to the Metropolis of Ephesus which alone of all the seven continued till Constantin's time the rest being destroyed § 17. From these manifest footsteps of Metropolitical power in Scripture it is easie to descend through the first times and find the like In Ignatius As when Ignatius the Archbishop of Antioch the Primitive Martyr in his Epistle to the Romans styleth himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastor of the Church which was in Syria that whole region belonging then to that Metropolis of Antioch Agreeable to which is that of the author of the Epistle to the Antiocheni whosoever it was inscribing it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church of God in Syria that belongs as a Province to that of Antioch In the Bishop of Rome what his Province So the Epistle to the Romans is inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church which hath the Presidencie in the place of the Region or Province of the Romans which gives the Bishop of Rome a Metropolitical power over all other the Bishops of that Province the Vrbicarian region as it was styled and * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Sardic Epist ad Alex. ap Athan. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. Epist ad solit vit agent Ex Provinciâ Italiae civ Med ex Prov. Romanâ Civitate Portuensi Syn. Arelat 1. in nominibus Synodo praefixis distinguished from the Province of Italy properly so called confined to the seven Provinces of the civil jurisdiction of the Vicarius Italiae and the Ecclesiastical of the Archbishop of Milan the chief Metropolis thereof Of the circuit or compasse of this Province of the Bishop of Rome many learned men have discoursed excellently out of the Antient Surveys of the Provinces particularly that very learned Frenchman so rarely skilled and judicious in Antiquity Jacobus Leschaserius in his little tract de Region Suburbic but none with more evidence of conviction then our Modest countreyman M r Brerewood who thus describes the antient jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome that it contained all those Provinces of the Diocese of Italy which the old Lawyers term Suburbicarias of which there were ten three Islands Sicily Sardinia and Corsica and the other seven in the firm land of Italy taking up in a manner all the narrow part of it viz. all Italy Eastward but on the West no farther extended then to the River Magra the limit of Tuscanie toward the Tyrrhene sea and to the River Esino antiently Asius toward the Adriatick Sea For at that River Esino met both the Picenum Suburbicarium and Annonarium the former of which belonged to the Prefecture of Rome of which that city was the Metropolis And the later with all the other Provinces in the broader part of Italy seven of them in all to the Diocese of Italy of which Milan was the Metropolis Hist Eccl. l. 1· c. 6. Thus Ruffinus in his Paraphrase rather then translation of the Nicene Canon saith that the Bishop of Rome was thereby authorized Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum Sollicitudinem gerere to take and manage the care of the suburbicarian Churches and there is no reason to doubt but that he that lived so neer after that Councel and was of Italy knew competently what he affirmed of that matter And it being evident that in all other places the Ecclesiastical jurisdictions were proportioned to the temporal of the Lieutenants and that the Suburbicarian region and the so many and no more provinces in them pertain'd to the Praefecture of the city of Rome It must follow that these were the limits of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of that Bishop also But this by the way in passing § 18. In Alexandria Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So when of S. Mark it is affirm'd out of the ancâ—ent records by Eusebius that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first constituted Churches in the plural in Alexandria and under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Province of Alexandria put them all into the hands of Anianus in the 8 th of Nero Ibid. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is evident that Alexandria was a Metropolitical or Patriarchal See to which all Aegypt did belong § 19. In S. Cyprian So S. Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage to which the whole Province of Africk pertained is by the Councel of Constantinople in Trullo Can. 2. called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Archbishop of the Region of Africk And accordingly he often mentions the many Bishops in his Province Vniversis vel in nostrâ Provinciâ to all the Bishops in our Province Ep. 40. And Latiùs fusa est nostra Provincia habet etiam Numidiam Mauritanias duas sibi cohaerentes Our Province is extended farther hath Numidia and the two Mauritania's annexed to it Ep. 45. in each of which there being a Church and consequently a Bishop in every city as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 14.23 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every city Act. 16.4 they were all subject to this Metropolitane § 20. The subjection of Bishops to Archbishops By all this and much more which might be added it is manifest that as the several Bishops had Praefecture over their several Churches and the Presbyters Deacons and people under them such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schisme So the Bishops themselves of the ordinary inferior cities for the preserving of unity and many other good uses were subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropolitanes § 21. Of Archbishops to Primates c. Nay we must yet ascend one degree higher from this of Arch-Bishops or Metropolitanes to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs the division of which is thus cleared in the division and Notitia of the Roman Empire Original of Primates Constantine the Great instituted four Praefecti Praetorio two in the East as many in the West Of the Western one at Rome another at Triers this last then called Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum These Praefects had their several Vicarii who in their power and name judged the Provinces As for example The Praefectus Praetorio placed at Triers had three Vicarii or Lieutenants one placed at Triers a second at Lions a third at Vienna from the greatnesse of whose authority and the resort of all other cities and Provinces to them for justice sprang the splendor and dignity of those cities where they resided and the dependence of large Provinces and many other cities on each of them This whole circuit which was thus subject to or dependent on any such Lieutenant was by the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the style devolving from the civil to the Ecclesiastical divisions as the former both of cities and of Territories and of Metropoles
or Mother cities the chief in every Province had done the Bishop being answerable to the Defensor civitatis and the Archbishop to the Praesident in every Province from thence it came that every such Metropolis which was the seat of any Vicarius or Lieutenant General was over and above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Bishop thereof Primas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patriarcha a Primate Exarch or Patriarch and all that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is larger then a Province the joynt administration of many Provinces with the several Metropoles and Metroplitanes contained in it was subjected to him Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus S. Irenaeus being Bishop of Lyons is by Eusebius affirm'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have the over sight or Government of the Provinces of France either those only that were under that Primate or perhaps of all France Ibid. c. d. of which Lyons was then in the Ecclesiastical account the first Exarchate for so saith the same Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyons and Vienna but first Lyons were famously known to be beyond all others in those parts the principal Metropoles of France And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these were the most splendid illustrious Churches there To which first times I conceive belongs that verse of Guilielmus Brito in Philippeide Et Lugdunensis quo Gallia tota solebat Vt fama est Primate regi placing all France under the Primate of Lyons or affirming it from tradition ut fama est that it was wont antiently to be so placed which was not well understood or taken notice of by the learned Jos Scaliger In Notit Galliae p. 8â—2 when he affirms it nuperum novitium ex beneficio Romani Pontificis indultum a privilege lately granted to the Bishop of Lyons by the Pope quod Primatem sese vocari gaudeat that he calls himself Primate which privilege if not title did so long since belong to Irenaeus the Bishop of that Diocese § 22. I shall not need inlarge on this subject or set down the several Primates and Dioceses belonging to them It is known in the ancient notitiae of the Church that beside the three Patriarchs of Rome Alexandria and Antioch to which title afterward Constantinople and Jerusalem were advanced there were eleven Primates more there being fourteen Dioceses or joynt administrations of many Provinces for so the word anciently signified not in the modern sense of it one city and the territory The Primates power equal to that of the Patriarch the jurisdiction of an ordinary Bishop for which they then used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven in the East and the Praefecture of the city of Rome and six more in the West into which the whole Empire was divided And though the Patriarchs had in Councels the praecedence or deference in respect of place either because these three cities had the honour to disperse Christianity in a most eminent manner to other cities and nations or from the great dignity of the cities themselves * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Chalced. Can penult Rome being the seat and first city of the Empire and thereupon thus dignified saith the Councel of Chalcedon and Alexandria by †Or. 32. ad Alexandrin see Aristid Or. de Rom. Laud. Dio Chrysostome and others affirmed to be the second and Antioch the third saith Josephus yet it is certain that the power and jurisdiction of Primates was as great as of Patriarchs and the Office the same see Anacleâ—us Epist ad Episc Ital. and Gratian Dist 99. and many times in Authors the very titles confounded as appears by Justinian who commonly gives Primates the names of Patriarchs of the Dioceses And if it be now demanded whether there were not anciently some Summum Genus some one Supreme either of or over these Patriarchs I answer that if we respect order or priority of place again then the Bishop of Rome had it among the Patriarchs as the Patriarchs among the Primates that city of Rome being Lady of the World and the seat of the Empire But if we respect power And no power but of the Prince above them or authority there was none anciently in the Church over that of Primates and Patriarchs but only that of the Emperour in the whole Christian World as of every Soveraign Prince in his Dominions as may appear by the ancient power and practice of congregating or convoking of Councels Provincial by the Metropolitan Patriarchal by the Patriarch or Primate National by the Prince for the first 1000 years through the whole West and General by the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. l. 5. Prooem Ex Superioribus habetur Imperatores Sanctos congregationes Synodales Universalium Conciliorum totius Ecclesiae semper â—â—cisse Ita ego perlustrans gesta omnium Universalium usque ad octavum inclusivè Basiliitempore celebratum verum esse râ—peri Cusan de concord Cathol l. 3. c. 16. and c. 13. See S. Hierom in Apol. ad Ruffin l. 2. where speaking of a pretended Synod he adds Quis Imperator hanc Synodum jusserit congregari Emperor when for the conserving the unity or taking care for the necessities of the Church those last remedies appeared seasonable But this of General Councels being extraordinary and such as the Church was without them for the first three hundred yeers and are now morally impossible to be had we need not farther to ascend to these but content our selves with those standing powers in the Church the uppermost of which are Archbishops Primates and Patriarchs to whom the Bishops themselves are in many things appointed to be subject and this power and subjection defined and asserted by the Ancient Canons The Primitive Power of Primates c. and the most ancient even immemorial Apostolical tradition and Custome avouched for it as may appear Concil Nicen. 1. Can. 4.6 Concil Antioch c. 9.20 Concil Chalced. C. 19. In the Sixt Nicene Canon where the jurisdiction of all Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis is affirmed to belong to the Patriarch of Alexandria and order is taken that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or privileges of eminency which belong to the Bishop of Rome of Antioch and Metropolitanes of all other Provinces shall be conserved intire to them the Introduction is made in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Ancient customes be in force The very form which S. Ignatius useth concerning Apostolical customes which were to be solicitously retained in the Church and seems there particularly to refer to those orders which S. Mark had left in Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis subjecting all the Bishops there to the Patriarch by him constituted in Alexandria § 23. So in the 9 th Canon of the Councel of Antioch where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop presiding in the Metropolis is appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to undertake the
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
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
and the dignity of place before all others in Christ's life time even before S. Peter himself which is the plain meaning of his style of the beloved Disciple and of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaning on his breast at supper Joh. 21.20 his having the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first place next to Christ as being in Abrahams bosome plainly signifies being in dignity of place next to the father of the faithful 't is evident that he is one of those that by agreement went to the Circumcision was assigned the Jewes Not the Jewes of Asia for his Province as well as S. Peter and consequently he had the converting and then governing of all the converted Jewes of that Lydian Asia and placing Bishops over them as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap Euseb l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clemens Alexandrinus and b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Eusebius and c Joannes apud Ephesum Ecclesiā sacravit De Prom. Praed impl c. 5. Prosper and others tell us and the d Phot. Bib. num 254. Author of the Martyrdome of Timothy saith of him that being returned from his banishment by Nerva's decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he placed his seat of residence in Ephesus and having seven Bishops with him he undertook the care of that Metropolis that is in effect or by interpretation of all Asia which was under that prime Metropolis as far as extended to the Jewish Christians there As neither the Gentiles there § 15. But then as before was said of the several Churches and Bishops in the same place one of the dispersed Jewes the other of Gentiles so it is evident that through all this Asia the Lydian or Proconsular the faith was by S. Paul planted among the Gentile part and by him S. Timothy constituted Bishop there and so saith S. Chrysostome Hom. 5. in 1 Tim. 5.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a whole intire nation that of Asia was intrusted to him § 16. Where I shall demand of any man of the Romish pretensions or perswasion what can be said in any degree probably for S. Peters Vniversal Pastorship whilst he lived over this Asia whose seven Metropoles and sure there were inferior Churches or Episcopal Sees under them are so early famous being honoured with Christs-Epistle to them in the Revelation was S. Peter the supreme Pastor of these Churches had he any or did he ever exercise or pretend any Jurisdiction over them was not all the Jewish part of that Province ultimately under S. John and the Gentile part under S. Paul and S. Timothy constituted and commissionated by him Doth not S. Paul give him full instructions and such as no other Apostle could countermand or interpose in them leaving no other appeal or place of application for farther directions save only to himself when he shall come to him 1 Tim. 3.14 15. Did not S. Paul by his own single power delegate that Province to him and seat him there as appears by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I exhorted or appointed thee when I went to Macedonia 1 Tim. 1.3 and may it not as reasonably be said that S. Peter was with him in his journey to Macedonia as that he joyned with him in giving that Commission to Timothy § 17. Nor in Crete And so likewise of Titus in Crete was he not by S. Paul peculiarly left in Crete and constituted Primate there Is it imaginable that under Christ there could be any head of that Church of that whole Island save only S. Paul § 18. Nor in Britannie The same may certainly be said of all the Gentile Churches in all other Islands and parts of the world and consequently in this of Britannie wherein our present debate is terminated And therefore if that of * de Petr Paul ad diem 29. Junii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Simeon Metaphrastes should be thought to have truth in it that S. Peter was in Britannie some time and baptized many into the faith of Christ and constituted Churches ordaining Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons in the 12. of Nero in all reason it must be extended no farther then S. Peters line as he was the Apostle of the Circumcision i. e. to the Jewes that might at that time be dispersed here and so not prejudge the other more authentick relations of Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes having planted the faith in this Island § 19. This I suppose is one competent proof of the Negative as it respects the person of S. Peter that he was not could not be as things stood with him Vniversal Pastor of the whole Church constituted by Christ And accordingly we see in Prosper disputing against hereticks which divide from the Church he expresses it by relictâ pace communionis Prospers testimony to this matter panis unius Dei Apostolorum that they leave the Communion of Christ and his Apostles in the plural and adds cum in ipsâ Hierusalem Jacobus Joannes apud Ephesum Andreas caeteri per totam Asiam Petrus Paulus Apostoli in urbe Româ Gentium Ecclesiam pacatam unámque posteris tradentes ex Dominicâ pactione sacrarunt that James in Jerusalem John at Ephesus Andrew and the rest through all Asia Peter and Paul at Rome consecrated the Church of the nations Whereas the Church had the several Apostles for the founders and those independent one from the other So the unity from which hereticks and schismaticks depart is said to have been founded equally in each of them in John and James and Andrew and others as well as in S. Peter nay at Rome not in S. Peter alone but in him and S. Paul together § 20. A second evidence against S. Peters supremacy from the donation of the keyes In the next place another evidence we may have of this in reference again to S. Peters person from that which is visible in the donation of the power of the Keyes set down in Scripture This power Mat. 16.19 is promised to S. Peter I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven But to him that from hence pretends this Donative and consequent power as a peculiarity and inclosure of S. Peters these considerations will be of force to supersede his conclusion 1. That these words here set down by S. Matthew c. 16. are not the Instrument of Christs conveyance the words of his commission but those other Joh. 20.21 As my Father hath sent me Power of the keyes given to all and each so send I you upon which words it is added he breathed on them and said Receive the holy Ghost Whose sins you remit they are remitted And these as also those Mat. 28.19 which are a repetition much to the same purpose are delivered in common and equally to all and every of the eleven Apostles as is evident by the plural style throughout that Commission § 21. Secondly
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
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
one pay an obedience where an obedience is due and no way usefull toward that end that those that are born free should resigne up divest themselves of that privilege and become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 servants or subjects of their own making But I shall not enlarge on this matter but conclude with that of our Bishops in Convocation Anno Chr 1537. in their Book intituled The Institution of a Christian man that it was many hundred years before the Bishop of Rome could acquire any power of a Primate over any other Bishops which were not within his Province in Italie And that the Bishops of Rome doe now transgresse their own profession made in their Creation For all the Bishops of Rome alwaies when they be consecrated and made Bishops of that See doe make a solemn profession and vow that they shall inviolably observe all the Ordinances made in the eight first General Councels among which it is especially provided that all causes shall be determined within the Province where they be begun and that by the Bishops of the same Province which absolutely excludes all Papal i. e. forein power out of these Realms CHAP. VI. Their third plea from the Bishop of Rome having planted Christianity among us § 1. THE next part of the Romanist's arguing against us is taken from a peculiar right or claim that the Bishop or See of Rome hath to our obedience upon the score of having planted Christianity among us § 2. The plea from Planting the Faith unreconcileable with the former But before I proceed to shew the invalidity of this plea I desire it may first be observed that the pleading of this as the title by which the Bishop of Rome hath right to our subjection is absolutely unreconcileable with his former pretensions founded in his oecumenical Pastorship by succession to S. Peter For certainly he that is supposed in grosse to have that original title to all power over all Churches cannot be imagined to acquire it afterward by way of retail over any particular Church He that claims a reward as of his own labour and travail must be supposed to disclaim Donation which is antecedent to and exclusive of the other as the title of descent is to that of Conquest And it is a very great prejudice to the justice of his pretensions who findes it necessary to mix things that are so incompetible § 3. A Dilemma to the Romanist And therefore I am obliged to offer this Dilemma to the Romanist in this place and to demand Which is the Pope's true title to the subjection of this Island the Donation of Christ or conversion wrought by Augustine the Monk If the latter be affirmed to be it then it must be granted by him both that this Island before the time of Pope Gregory was no way subjected to the Romish See and withall that no Christian nation is at this day thus subject but such as doth appear to have been converted by Rome as the Saxons here are supposed to have been And then this concession will lose more subjects to the Apostolick See then the return of these Islands to the desired subjection would ever be able to countervail or recompense and therefore it is reasonable to insist on the terms of this bargain and not to yeild the one till the other be yeilded to us But if the former be affirmed to be it and that indeed the commission from Christ to S. Peter be still the fundamental hold by which our subjection is and alwaies hath been due to his successors then is that other of the conversion by Augustine but a fallacious pretense a non causa pro causâ to amuze us and need not farther be answered or invalidated then by this confession § 4. The Faith planted here before Augustine the Monk But then passing by this advantage and taking the objection as it lies by it self these farther considerations will take off all force from it 1. That this Island was converted to the Faith of Christ long before Augustine's preaching to the Saxons either in or very neer the Apostles times in Tiberius his reign saith Gildas and long before Tertullian's and Origen's time as by them appears Tertull in Apol and Orig in Ezech Hom 4. To this I shall not need to adde the testimony of Eleutherius the Bishop of Rome in the vulgar Epistle to our Lucius the first Christian King of the world styling him vicarium Dei in regno suo God's vicegerent in his own kingdome because as there is some doubt of the authenthenticknesse of that Epistle so the * Suscepistis nuper in Regno Britanniae legem fidem Christi only thing that we have now need to conclude from it is otherwise evident viz that the Nation was in his time converted and so long before Augustine's coming And though by Dioclesian's persecution Christianity were here shrewdly shaken yet I suppose that will not be thought argumentative both because it might be of ill example against other nations where the faith was as bloodily persecuted in that or other times and possibly at some point of time against Rome it self And not quite destroyed by Dioclesian where S. Peter's chair was not alwaies amulet sufficient to avoid the like destructions and especially because it is evident that the British Church survived that calamity three of our Bishops being ten years after that present and their names subscribed Eborius of Yorke Restitutus of London and Adelfius Coloniae Londinensium at the Councel of Arles eleven years before the first Councel of Nice So likewise at the time of that Nicene Councel it appears that as Britaine was one of the six Dioceses of the West Empire see Notitia Provinc Occident so there were in it three Metropolitanes the Bishop of York his Province Maxima Caesariensis the Bishop of London his Province Britannia prima the Bishop of Caeruske his Province Britannia secunda in Monmouthshire * See S. Hen Spelman Concil Anglic pag. 26. out of the Annales of Gisburne which after in King Arthur's time was translated to S. Davids where it continued an Archbishoprick till King Henry I. who subjected it to Canterbury and †à Samsone usque tempus Henrici primi sederunt Meneviae undecim Episcopi usque ad hoc tempus Episcopi Meneviae à suis suâ—fraganeis Wallensibus ibidem fuerunt consecrati nullâ penitus professione vâ—l subjectione factâ alteri Ecclesiae Ibid. all this space of about 500 years after Augustines coming the Bishops thereof eleven in number were all consecrated by the suffragan Bishops of that Province without any profession or subjection to any other Church as the Annales there affirm § 5. To the same purpose is it The Britains rejection of the Bishop of Rome that when Augustine required subjection to the Pope and Church of Rome the Abbat of Bangor is recorded to have returned him this answer Notum sit vobis quòd nos omnes sumus Be it known unto you that
our Kings have the same authority in their Territories that the Roman Emperour had in the Empire § 19. The Reason of all supreme power of Kings And the reason of all this is clear not only from the supreme authority of Kings in all sorts of causes even those of the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King is as it were the common directer and ruler of the Church both in title and reality Demetrii Chomateni Resp ad Const Cab Jur. Graec Rom l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye are Bishops of the Church for those things which are celebrated within it but for external things I am constituted overseer or Bishop by God saith Constantine the Great in an assembly of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am King and Priest saith Leo Isaurus to Gregory the second Nec tamen eo nomine à Pontifice reprehenditur and was not for this reprehended by the Pope see J. C. de lib. Eccl ap Goldast Monarch t. 1. p. 686. So Socrates the historian of the Emperours in general after their receiving the faith of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the affairs of the Church depended on them in Prooem l. 5. And by Optatus l. 2. it is noted and censured as a Schismatical piece of language in the Donatistâ— Quid enim Imperatori cum Ecclesiâ And all this according to the principles of civil policy acknowledged by Aristotle Pol. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King hath power of those things that belong to the Gods and by Diotogenes in Sâ—obaeus that a perfect King ought to be both a good Captain and a Judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea and a Priest also And accordingly among the ancient Roman regal Lawes this is one Sacrorum omniuÌ„ potestas sub Regibus esto Let the power of all sacred things be under the Kings and so in the practice Caius Caesar in Suetonius c. 13. was both Augur and Summus Pontifex Galba tres Pontificatus gerebat Ibid Gal. c. 8. Claudius is by Josephus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatest High-priest and Tacitus makes it his observation Deûm nunc munere summum Pontificem summum hominum esse Annal l. 3. The same appears among the Jewish Kings in Scripture David ordering the courses of the Priests Solomon consecrating the temple Hezekiah 2 Chron 29. 2 Kin 18. and Josiah 2 Kin 22. ordering many things belonging to it And so S. Paul appealed from the judgement of the chief Priests to the tribunal of Caesar see G de Heimberg de usurp Pap so in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole third book is made up of Justinians i. e. the Emperours constitutions de Episcopis Clericis Sacris concerning Bishops Clergy men and sacred offices And the Canons of Councels have mostly been set out and received their authority by the Emperours and accordingly in the Theodosian Code we shall find many of those which are now called Papal decrees Church as well as Civil as might be proved at large if here it were needful and cannot be reasonably so confined as not to belong to a matter of this nature but peculiarly from that which hath been already noted and expressely ordered Can. 17. of the Councel of Chalcedon even now cited of the Ecclesiastical division of Provinces c and Ecclesiastical division of Provinces following the Civil following the civil For 1. it being certainly in the power of the King to place his Praetoria or courts of Assizes where he please and 2. it being the known original of Metropoles and divisions of Provinces as Strabo saith Geogr. l. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Provinces are variously distributed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Romanes divide them not by tribes or families but after another manner in relation to the cities where they set up their courts of Assizes and again it being most reasonable that as any new accident raises one city to a greater populousnesse or depresses another so for the convenience of the people one should be made the seat of Judicature the other cease to be so and no man so fit to passe the judgement when this should be as the King and 3. the very same reasons of convenience moving in the Church as in the State the Bishops and over them Metropolitanes and Primates having their judicatures and audiences which in all reason must be so disposed of as may be most for the convenience of administration that they and all under them may do their duties with most facility and to greatest advantage and lastly there being no obstacle imaginable from any contrary constitution either of Christ or his Apostles against which the Prince can be said to offend either directly or interpretatively as I suppose is already clear from the refutation of the plea from S. Peters universal Pastorship whensoever he shall think fit to make such changes the Conclusion is rational as well as evident just that it should be so as well as cleare that elsewhere it hath oft been so de facto and appointed by the Canon of Chalcedon de jure that the King may erect a Primacy when he please and so it is certain that King Ethelbert at the time of Augustines planting the faith did at Canterbury the seate of his Kingdome Imperit sui totius Metropolis saith Bede l. 1. c 25. conquently remove it from any other place at his pleasure Had it not been for this there is no reason assignable why this nation being in Constantines time under three Metropolitans the Arch-bishop of York and the Primacy belonging to that city as being then the Emperours seat where Septimius Severus and Constantius Chlorus died and the Praetorium of the Diocese of Britannie the Arch-bishop of London and the Arch-bishop of Caerusk in Monmouthshire either 1. there should be as there was an addition of two Provinces more Valentia and Flavia Caesariensis or 2. the Metropolitical power should be removed from London to Canterbury as also from Caerusk to S. David's as hath been said and the Primacie from Yorke to Canterbury § 20. This Power of Kings if taken away by forein laws c. resumable Now what is thus vested in the Regal power cannot be taken away by forein laws or by prescription be so alienated but that it remains perfectly lawful for the Prince to resume it sect 21. That laws made at Rome doe not take away the liberty of another national Church to make contrary laws thereunto and that by such obviation no Schisme is incurred we finde delivered in the Councel of Carthage Can 71. according to Balsamon's division And though the Canon be not set down by Binius yet both he and Baronius acknowledge that what was contain'd in that particular Canon was the main occasion of the Synod And the Antiquity thereof is considerable those Canons being made say Baronius and Binius Anno 401. § 22. So likewise that a Law though made by a General Councel and with the consent of all Christian Princes yet
out of this Island The Praemunire and though the first Act of the Clergie in this were so induced that it is easie to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung over them by a Praemunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it therefore I shall not pretend that it was perfectly an act of their first will and choice but that which the necessity of affairs recommended to them yet the matter of right being upon that occasion taken into their most serious debate in a synodical way and at last a fit and commodious expression uniformly pitch'd upon by joynt consent of both houses of the Convocation there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did professe the fear being the occasion of their debates but the reasons or arguments offered in debate the causes as in all charity we are to judge of their decision § 6. But I shall not lay much weight on that judgment of charity because if that which was thus determined by King and Bishops were falsly determined then the voluntarinesse or freenesse of the determination will not be able to justifie it and on the other side if the determination were just then was there truth in it antecedent to and abstracted from the determination and it was their duty so to determine and crime that they were unwilling to doe it And therefore the whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry Whether at that time of the reign of Henry VIII the Bishop of Rome were supreme head or Governour of this Church of England or had any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other viz to the Archbishop of Canterbury if he pleased § 7. The Right of the Bishop of Rome considered And this is presently determined upon the grounds which have been formerly laid and confirmed to have truth in them For the pretensions for the Popes supremacy of power among us being by the assertors thereof founded in one of these three either in his right as S. Peter's successour to the Vniversal Pastorship that including his power over England as a member of the whole or 2. by the paternal right which by Augustine's planting the Gospel among the Saxons is thought to belong to the Pope and his successours that sent him or 3. in the voluntary concession of some Kings the two former of these have been largely disproved already Chap. 4 5 and 6. in discourses purposely and distinctly applied to those pretensions The concession of Kings And for the third that will appear to have received its determination also I. by the absolutenesse of the power of our Princes to which purpose I shall mention but one passage that of †in Goldast de Mon G. de Heimburg some two hundred years since in the last words of his tract de Injust Vsurp Pap where speaking of the Emperors making oath to the Pope he saith that this is a submission in him and a patience above what any other suffers and proves it by this argument Nam eximius Rex Angliae Franciae Dux Marchio non astringitur Papae quocunque juramento factus Imperator jurare tenetur secundum Decretales eorum fabulosè fictas ita ut supremus Monarcha magis servilis conditionis quà m quilibet ejus inferior fieri censeatur The King of England and France any Duke or Marquesse of that Kingdome is not bound to the Pope by any oath yet the Emperour at his creation is thus bound to swear according to the Popes Decretals fabulously invented so that the supreme Monarch is made to be of a more servile condition then any his inferior Prince And 2. by the rights of Kings to remove or erect Patriarchates and will be farther confirmed in the Negative if answer be first given to this Dilemma § 8. A Dilemma against the plea drawn from that The authority of the Pope in this Kingdome which is pretended to be held by the concession of our Kings was either so originally vested in our Kings that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleased pleased and so did lawfully grant it to the Pope or it was not thus originally vested in our Kings If it were not then was that grant an invalid null grant for such are all concessions of that which is not ours to give presumptions invasions robberies in the giver which devolve no right to the receiver and then this is a pitiful claim which is thus founded But if that authority were so vested in the Kings of England that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleased which is the only way by which the Pope can pretend to hold any thing by this title of regal concession then certainly the same power remains still vested in the King to dispose it from him to some other as freely as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chancellour or any other of his officers from his place and commit it to another this way of arguing is made use of by the Bishops in Convocation Anno Chr 1537. in the Book by them intituled The Institution of a Christian man Or if the same power doe not still remain in the King then is the King's power diminished and he consequently by this his act of which we treat become lesse a King then formerly he was And then we know that such acts which make him so are invalid acts it being acknowledged to be above the power of the King himself to divest himself and his successors of any part of his regal power § 9. Two sorts of gifts To which purpose it must be observed 1. that some things are so ours that we may freely use them but cannot freely part with them as all those things wherein our propriety is not confined to our persons but intailed on our posterity and such the regal power is supposed to be 2. That as some things which are part of our personal proprieties are so freely ours to give that when they are given they are departed out of our selves and cannot justly be by us resumed again in which case that Maxim of the civil law stands good data eo ipso qu◠dantur fiunt accipientis what is given by the very act of being given becomes the goods of the receiver so other things are given to others so as we doe not part with them our selves they are as truly and properly ours after as before the Concession § 10. Some revocable Thus the Sun communicates his beams and with them his warmth and influences and yet retains all which it thus communicates and accordingly withdraweth them again And God the spring of all life and grace doth so communicate each of these that he may and doth freely withdraw them again and when he taketh away our breath we die And thus certainly the King being the fountain of all power and authority as he is free to communicate this power to one so is he equally free to recall
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
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