Selected quad for the lemma: church_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
church_n	canon_n	council_n	nice_a	2,852	5	10.4936	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A40720	Roma ruit the pillars of Rome broken : wherein all the several pleas for the Pope's authority in England, with all the material defences of them, as they have been urged by Romanists from the beginning of our reformation to this day are revised and answered ; to which is subjoyned A seasonable alarm to all sorts of Englishmen against popery, both from their oaths and their interests / by Fr. Fullwood ...	Fullwood, Francis, d. 1693.	1679 (1679)	Wing F2515; ESTC R14517	156,561	336

's Evasion p. 195 Sect. 3. Concil 2 gen Constantinop An. 381. p. 196 Sect. 4. Concil Ephesin 3 gen An. 431. p. 197 Sect. 5. Concil Calced 4 gen An. 451. p. 199 Sect. 6. Concil Constantin 2. the fifth gen Council An. 553. p. 202 Sect 7. Concil Constant 6 gen An. 681. v. 685. Concil Nic. 7 gen An. 781. p. 203 Sect. 8 Concil gen 8 Constant An. 870. p. 204 Seuen Conclusions from Councils p. 205 Sect. 9. Of the Latine Church the Councils of Constance Basil c. An. 1415. 1431. p. 206 Sect. 10. The Greek Church African Canons Synod Carthag Concil Antiochen the faith of the Greek Church since in the Point p. 208 c. Sect. 11. The Sardican Canons No Grant from their matter manner or Authority No Appendix to the Council of Nice Zozimus his Forgery they were never Ratified nor received asVniversal and were contradicted by after Councils p. 212 CHAP. XX. The Pope 's Title by Divine Right The Question Why not sooner 'T is their last Refuge p. 217 Sect. 1. Whether the Government of the Church be Monarchical Jure Divino Bellarmine Reason Scripture p. 218 Promises Metaphors and Example of the High Priest in Scripture p 221 Sect. 2. Of St. Peter 's Monarchy Tu es Petru. p. 223 Fathers Expressions of it p 228 Fathers corrupted and Council of Calcedon by Thomas p. 230 c. CHAP. XXI Of the Pope's Succession p 237 Sect. 1. Whether the Primacy descended to the Bishop of Rome as such by Succession from Saint Peter Neg. Bellar 28 Prerogatives of Saint Peter personal or false p. 238 239 c. Application of this Section p. 241 By three great Inferences the Pope's Ancient Primacy not that of Saint Peter not Jure Divino not to descend to succeeding Popes Sect. 2. Whether the Pope have Supremacy as Successor to Saint Peter Neg. not Primate as such Peter himself not Supreme the Pope did not succeed him at all p. 244 Sect. 3 Arg. 1. Peter Assign'd it to the Pope answered p. 245 Sect. 4. Arg. 2. The Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter because Antioch did not answered p. 246 Sect. 5. Arg. 3. Saint Peter died at Rome answered question de facto not de fide p. 247 Sect. 6. Arg. 4. From Councils Popes Fathers p. 249 Sect. 7. Arg. 5. For prevention of Schism Saint Hierom. p. 250 Sect. 8. Arg. 6. The Church committed to his care Saint Chrysostom p. 251 Sect. 9. Arg. 7. One Chair Optatus Cyprian Ambrase Acatius ibid. Sect 10. The Conclusion touching the Fathers Reasons why we are not more particular about them A Challenge touching them there cannot be a Consent of the the Fathers for the Papacy as is evident from the General Councils Reasons for it Rome 's contradiction of faith the Pope 's Schism Perjury c. p 255 c. The Sum of the whole matter a Touch of another Treatise the material Cause of Separation p. 261 THE POSCRIPT Objections touching the first General Councils and our Arguments from them answered more fully SECT 1. THE Argument from Councils drawn up 't is conclusive of the Fathers and the Catholick Church p. 263 SECT 2. Obj. Touching the Council of Nice answered p. 267 SECT 3. Obj. Touching the Council of Constant Second General p. 269 SECT 4. The third General Council viz. Ephesin p. 272. SECT 5. Of the Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth General Councils Binius his quotations of Ancient Popes considered p. 274 Conclusion p. 279 AN APPENDIX A Serious Alarm to all sorts of Englishmen against Popery from Sense and Conscience their Oaths and their Interests p. 281 The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy p. 289 ERRATA PAge 6. line 7. for and the read and though p. 136. l. 13. add 't is observed that p. 137. l. 23. blot out and the abundant p. 138. l. 5. add of before the grievances p. 147. l. 17. before the word evacuate add not p. 164. l. 24. for is r. are p. 175. l. 10. for his messenger r. the Popes messenger p. 177. after Sentence add with the Fathers was ever taken p. 205. l. 22. after the word Faith add of the Church p. 213. l. 31. for they r. these Canons p. 227. l 34. for Kingdoms r. the Kingdom p. 235. l. 1. for are r. are not The Printer to the Reader THe absence of the Author and his inconvenient distance from London hath occasioned some lesser escapes in the Impression of this Book The Printer thinks it the best instance of pardon if his Escapes be not laid upon the Author and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary understanding may amend and a little charity may forgive BEATAM ETERNAM CLARIOR E TENEBRIS CAELI SPECTO ASPERAM AT LEVEN CHRISTI TRACTO SPLENDIDAM AT GRAVEM MUNDI CALCO In verbo tuo Spes mea Alij diutius Imperium tenuerunt nemo tam fortiter reliquit Tacit. Histor Lib. 2. c. 47. p. 417. R. White sculp Augustissimi CAROLI Secundi Dei Gratia ANGLIAE SCOTIAE FRANCIAE ET HIBERNIAE REX Bona agere mala pati Regium est Page 1. HONI SOIT QVI MAL Y PENSE THE INTRODUCTION The Design The Controversie Contracted into one Point viz. SCHISM THE Church of England hath been long possest both of her self and the true Religion and counts it no necessary part of that Religion to molest or censure any other Church Yet she cannot be quiet but is still vext and clamour'd with unwearied outcries of Heresie and Schism from the Church of Rome provoking her defence The Ball hath been tossed as well by cunning as learned Hands ever since the Reformation and 't is complained that by weak and impertinent Allegations tedious Altercations unnecessary Excursions and much Sophistry needlesly lengthening and obscuring the controversie it is in danger to be lost After so great and so long exercises of the best Champions on both sides 't is not to be expected that any great Advance should be made on either Yet how desirable is it that at length the true difference were clearly stated and the Arguments stript of their said Cumber and presented to us in their proper Evidence and the controversie so reduced that the World might perceive where we are and doubtful inquirers after Truth and the safest Religion might satisfie their Consciences and fix their Practice This is in some measure the Ambition of the present Essay In order to it we have observed that the Shop out of which all the Arms both Offensive and Defensive on both sides are fetched is Schism and the whole Controversie is truly contracted into that one Point which will appear by two things 1. By the State of the allowed Nature of Schism 2. By the Application of it so explain'd CHAP. I. The Definition of SCHISM SECT I. Of the Act of Schism THat we may lie open to their full Charge we lay the Notion in as great a Latitude as I think our Adversaries themselves would have it Schism

Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem And that these had all their Jurisdictions limited to them and no one of them had any thing like a Vniversal Monarchy is evident both from Canons and History and also by this undeniable Observation that several Parts of the World had their own Primates independent and exempt from all these in the height of their power as Africk at Carthage the rest of Italy at Millain France at Arles or Lions Germany at Vienna and Britain also had the same priviledge 4. The sixth Canon of the Council of Nice C. Nice saith thus expresly Let Ancient Custom prevail according to which let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them of Egypt Libia and Pentapolis because this was likewise the Custom for the Bishop of Rome and accordingly in Antioch and other Provinces let the priviledges be preserved to the Churches The occasion of this Canon is said to be this Miletius a Bishop of Egypt ordained Bishops and others in Egypt without the Consent of the Bishop of Alexandria the Case heard in the Council they pronounce such Ordinations Null depose Miletius and by this Canon the more venerable because the first in such Cases confirm the Ancient Customs of that and all other Churches Object The Romanists object the Council did not assign any limits to those Jurisdictions Answ But 't is fully answered that the Council supposed such limits and proceed upon that supposition to allow of them and to enjoyn the observation of them and that is so much the more than a present limitation as it is a proof of the greater Antiquity of such limitation Object Sure Bellarmine was hard put to it when the words because the Roman Bishop hath so accustomed must be forced to speak against all Sence of Words and Scope of the Matter thus i. e. saith he the Roman Bishop hath so accustomed to let the Alexandrian Bishop govern them Answ The occasion of the Canon we had before the Words themselves are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who but Bellarmine seeth not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports a like Custom in the Church of Rome as the excellent and learned Doctor Stinlingfleet observes The Bishop of Rome had such Jurisdiction over the Churches under him and therefore ought the Bishop of Alexandria over the Churches under him upon this Consideration the Council concludes that so it should be If it be replied the Pope had limits as a Metropolitan but not as Head of the Church this grants the thing in present question that as a Patriarch the Pope's Jurisdiction was limited What Power he had as Head of the Church shall be examined in its due place What Power the Pope had anciently in confirming deposing and restoring Patriarchs will hardly be found so Ancient as the Council of Ephesus and indeed was challenged by him not as a private Patriarch but as Head of the Church and therefore is to be considered under that Head also PROP. III. The Ancient Patriarchate of Rome did not include Brittain excluded Brittain But according to Ruffinus a Roman who lived not long after the Council of Nice it Ruffinus was limited to the Suburbicary Cities i. e. a part of Italy and their Islands Sicily Sardinia and Corsica much less did it ever pretend to Brittain either by Custom Canon or Edict of any of our Princes Consequently we say the Papal Power over us was an after-encroachment and usurpation and a plain violation of the general Council of Ephesus Our Argument is this the General Council Par 2. Act. 7. of Ephesus declare that no Bishop should occupy any Province which before that Council and from the Beginning had not been under the Jurisdiction of him or his Predecessors and that if any Patriarch usurped any Jurisdiction over a free Province he should quit it for so it pleased the holy Synod that every Province should enjoy its Ancient Rites pure and inviolate But it is evident the Bishop of Rome had no Power in Brittain from the Beginning nor yet before that general Council nor for the first six hundred years after Christ as will appear when we speak of the next claim viz. Possession Now if the Pope had no Patriarchal Power in Brittain before the six hundredth year of Christ he could not well have any since for Pope Boniface Pope Boniface three years after Saint Gregorie's death disclaimed this Power by assuring an Higher Title so that had we been willing to admit him our Patriarch contrary to what Augustine found time had been wanting to settle his Power as such in England From the whole we conclude either the Pope is none of our Patriarch or if such he stands guilty of Contempt of a general Council and hath done so many hundred years i. e. he is no Patriarch at all or a Schismatical one PROP. IV. To be a Patriarch and Vniversal Bishop in the Inconsistent with Head of the Church Sence of the Romanist is inconsistent Therefore the Pope must let fall his Claim as a Patriarch if he pretend to be Vniversal Bishop Thus the great Arch-Bishop Bramhall reasons wisely and strongly but S. W. gives no answer to it only that he argues weakly and sillily The Lord Primate proves the inconsistency by Arguments not yet answered the Patriarch saith he professeth Humane the Vniversal Pastor challengeth Divine Institution the one hath a limited Jurisdiction over a certain Province the other pretendeth an Vniversal Jurisdiction over the World the one is subject to the Canons of the Fathers and a mere Executor of them and can do nothing either against or besides them the other challengeth an absolute Sovereignty above the Canons to make abrogate suspend them at his pleasure with a Non-obstante when where and to whom he pleaseth Therefore the Claim of this absolute Power disclaimeth the limited and the donation and acceptance of a limited Power convinceth that there was no such absolute Power before had the Pope been unlimited before by divine donation who can imagine that he would ever have taken gradum Simeonis in this Sence by stooping so low to receive from the hand of Just Vind. p. 282. man the narrower dignity of a Patriarch Besides it is fully proved by Doctor Hammond Patriarchs subject to Civil Power in his Book of Schism beyond all the little exceptions of the Romanists as more at large hereafter that the See of a Patriarch is disposable by the Civil Power and therefore what ever Power the Pope may be thought to have had heretofore in Brittain is now lawfully otherwise disposed of by the Kings of England as well as evidently rejected by the Vsurpation of an higher and an higher kind of Title inconsistent with it and justly forfeited many other ways as will appear hereafter But though our Adversaries would seem to say something in favour of this Title they dare not stand to it as indeed it is not convenient they should if they

do Alledging That none of his Predecessors had ever admitted any such neither would he suffer it And therefore willed him at his own Peril to forbear Hence 't is evident there was neither Tradition nor Belief either of the Popes ancient and necessary Government and therefore not of his Infallibility much less that anciently and from the beginning the Pope had exercised his Jurisdiction more in Scotland than in England We have that Kings word for it None of his Predecessors had ever admitted any such SECT III. In Canons Apost Nice Milev c. This Belief could have no Ground Sardia VVHat could possibly sway the first Ages to such a belief of the Popes universal Vid. c. 20. Jurisdiction Certainly nothing from the Councils nor the practice of the Church in other places nor indeed the declared Judgment of the Pope himself nor the words of the Laws 1. Nothing to be found in the Canons of the Not Councils Apostles Ancient Councils could invite to such belief In the Apostles Canons we find the quite contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first or primate among the Bishops of every Nation shall be accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as their Head and that every one of those Primates shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do those things only which belong to his Province and the Regions under it and in pursuance of those Canons the first Nicene Council decreed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nice c. that they that are cast out by some shall not be received by other Bishops and that this must be observed by the Bishops through every Province and in further Harmony the Milevetan Council prohibits all appeal from their own Bishops but to the African Councils and Mileve Primates of their own Provinces and that they which shall appeal to any Foreign whether Bishop or Council shall not be received into Communion with any in Africk And lastly the Practice of all this is visible in the very Synodical Epistle of the African Council to Pope Celestine where Vid. v. Dr. Ham. at larg dispat disp 397 398 399 c. they beseech him for the future that he will receive none such because he may easily find it defined in the Council of Nice These Canons are all in the Roman Codex and cannot be pretended to be invalid neither can they possibly oblige any man to believe that the Pope had universal Jurisdiction as is now pretended Moreover as Dr. Hammond Notes to some of these Canons the Pope himself makes Oath Disp disp p. 178. Pope swears to the Canons that he will inviolably observe them see Corp. Juris can decret part 1. dist 16. c. 8. and from that Oath of the Pope our Bishops made this very conclusion that the Popes that Exercised a primacy over any other Bishops but those of their own province in Italy transgress'd their own profession made in their Creation as further appears by the institution of a Christian man in the year 1538. But more largly of this in the last Chapters Therefore the Brittains could not believe that they then owed Subjection to the papacy but they must charge the writers of the Apostolick Cannons whether by Apostles or Apostolical men and the Councills for enacting Sacriligious decrees and the Pope also for swearing the Inviolable observation of them These things are plain and S. W. by pretending in general that Words admit of Various interpretations without applying his Rule to the Case gives but too just occasion to Dr. Hammond to expose him as he doth See disp disp p. 181 182 183 184. Eadmer speaks plain and home too it was p. 58. 43. inauditum in Britannia quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere nisi solum Archiepiscopum Cantuariae it was a thing unheard of no practice of it no Tradition for it therefore no such thing Could be believ'd that any other not the Pope himself did Apostolically Govern the affairs of Brittaine but only the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury SECT 4. Conc. Sard. Calced Constantinop IT may be said the Brittains might hear Vid. Cap. 20. Sict 9. of the Canon of the Council of Sardica where it was decreed that Bishops grieved might Sardica appeal to the Bishop of Rome Sol. The words of the Council are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. In Case any Bishop thought himself unjustly Condemned if it seem good to you let us honour the Memory of Peter the Apostle that it be written by those who have Judged the Cause to Julius the Bishop of Rome and if it seem good let the judgment be renew'd and let them appoint such as may take Cognizance of of it hereupon t is plain 1 These Fathers did not acknowledge the Popes Supremacy who thus laid it at the feet and pleasure of others if it seem good to you 2. Here is no peremptory Order neither and it might not Seem good to Civil Princes to suffer such Appeals 3. No absolute appeal it seems was intended but only the Bishop of Rome might review the Case and how much a review differs from Apeal and that nothing but power to revew is More of Conc. Sar. hereafter here given to the Bishop of Rome are both fully manifested by the Arch-Bishop of Paris Petr. de Marc. de Concord l. 7. c. 3. sect 6 7. c. 4. The Decree such as it is is not grounded upon any prior right from Scripture tradition or possession or any former Council hath no other Argument but the honour of Saint Peter and that not in his Authority but his Memory who first sat in that See where Julius was now Bishop but we may have leave to ask where was the Supremacy of the Church of Rome before or how should the Brittains dream of it before or why did not these Canons take notice of the undoubted Canon of Nice to the contrary made two and twenty years before either to null or explain it But that these Sardic Canons neither established the Pope's Supremacy nor were acknowledged to bind the Church afterwards nor could be accounted an Appendix to the Council of Nice and what weakness and falsness has been practised upon this Argument is so largly ingenuously and satisfactorily manifested by Doctor Sillingfleet that I shall for his fuller satisfaction refer the Reader to him in his Ration acc p. 419 420 421. c. It is strongly argued in the last reasonings of my Lord Bramhall that after the Eastern Bishops were departed this Council of Sardica was no general Council because the presence of five great Patriarchs were ever held necessary to the being of a general Council as Bellarmine confesseth de Conc. Lï c. 17. If this Council had been general Why do Saint Gregory Isiodore and Bede leave it out of the Number of general Councils Why did Saint Austine Alipius and the African Fathers slight it and wbich is more why doth the Eastern Church not reckon it among their Seven

nor the Western Church among their Eight first general Councils Why did the English Church omit it in their Number in the Synod of Hedifeld in the year 680. and embrace only unto Apud Spel. An. 680. l. 169. this day the Council of Nice the first of Constantinople the first of Ephesus and the first and second of Calcedon The five first general Councils were therefore incorporated into our English Laws but this Council of Sardica never was Therefore contrary to this Canon of Appeal 't is the Fundamental Law of England in that Famous Memorial of Clarendon All Appeals in England must proceed Regularly from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and if the Arch-Bishop failed to do justice the last Complaint must be to the King to give Order for redress 'T is evident the great Council of Calcedon P. 2. ac 14. c. 9. contradicted this Canon for Appeals to Rome where Appeals from the Arch-Bishop are directed to be made to every Primate or the Holy Calcedon See of Constantinople as well as Rome from which Evidence we have nothing but silly Evasions as that Primate truly observs v. Sch. guarded p. 374. Besides if our Fore-fathers had heard of rhe Canons of the Councils truly general as no doubt they had how could they possibly believe the unlimited Jurisdiction of Rome the Council of Calcedon is not denied to give equal Priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome And the Council of Constantinople conclude thus for the Nicene Fathers did justly give Priviledges to the Se●● of Constantinople old Rome because it was the Imperial City and the 150 godly Bishops moved with the same consideration did give equal Priviledges to the See of new Rome that that City which was the Seat of the Empire and Senate should enjoy equal Priviledges with the Ancient Imperial City of Rome and be extolled and magnified in Ecclesiastical Affaires as well as it being the Second in order from it and in the last Sentence of the Judges upon Review of the Cause the Arch-Bishop of the Imperial City of Const or new Rome must enjoy the same Priviledges of Honour and have the same Power out of his own Authority to ordain Metropolitans in the Asiatick Pontick and Thracian Diocess Are these the Words of a General Council could these Fathers imagine the Pope at that time Monarch of the whole Church or could this be acknowledged by England at first and they yet give up their Faith to the Pope's Universal Power Can these things consist Yea is there not something in all the Councils allowed by the Ancient Brittains and the Ancient English Church sufficient to induce a Faith quite contrary to the Roman Pretensions Object But as to this Canon of Constantinople S. W. quits his hands roundly telling us that it was no free Act but voted Tumultuously after most of the Fathers were departed Sol. S. W. had been safer if he had been wiser for that which he saith is altogether false and besides such a cluster of Forgeries as deserves the Whet-stone to purpose as my Lord Bramhall manifests against him Sch. guard p. h. 4. 1. False the Act was made before the Bishops had license to depart it had a Second Hearing and was debated by the Pope's own Legates on his behalfe before the most glorious Judges and maturely Sentenced by them in the Name of the Council This was one of those four Councils which Saint Gregory honoured next to the four Gospels This is one of those very Councils which every succeeding Pope doth swear to observe to the least tittle 2. For his Forgeries about it he is sufficiently shamed by the Primate in the place cited 't is pity such shifts should be used and 't is folly to use them when the Truth appears what remains but both the Person and the Cause reproach'd See more of the Councils at the latter end SECT V. Arabic Canons forged no Canons of the Council of Nice Object YEt 't is a Marvellous thing that the Romanist should dare to impose upon so great and learned a Primate as the late Arch-Bishop Laud that by the third Canon of the Council of Nice the Patriarch is in the same manner over all those that are under his Authority as he who holds the See of Rome is Head and Prince of the Patriachs resembling Saint Peter and his Equal in Authority Answ When 't is most evident to the meanest capacity that will search into it that that is no Canon of the true Council of Nice and that in stead of the third it is the thirty ninth of the suppositious and forged Canons as they are set forth in the Arabick Editions both by Pisanus and Turrianus In these Editions there are no less than eighty Canons pretended to be Nicene whereas the Nicene Council never passed above twenty as is evident from such as should know best the Greek Authors who all reckon but twenty Hist Ecl. l. 1. c. 7. Canons of that Council Such as Theodoret Nicephorus Calistus Gelasius Cricenus Alphonsus Ecl. Hist l. 8. c. 19. Act. Conc. Nic. lib. 2. Pisanus and Binnius himself confesseth that all the Greeks say there were no more but twenty Canons then determined Yea the Latins themselves allowed no more for although Ruffinus make twenty two 't is by splitting of two into four And in that Epitome of the Canons which Pope Hadrian sent to Charles the Great for the Government of the Western Churches Anno 773. the same Number appears and in Hincmarus's M. S. the same is proved from the Testimonies of the Tripartite History Ruffinus the Carthaginian Council the Epistles of Ciril of Alex. Atticus of Constant and the twelfth Action of the Council of Calcedon and if we may believe a Pope viz. Stephen in Gratian saith the Roman Church did allow of no more Gra. dis 16. c. 20. than twenty The truth is put beyond all question lastly both by the proceedings of the African Fathers in the case of Zosimus about the Nicene Canons when an early and diligent search made it evident and also by the Codex Canonum Eccl. Afric p. 58. where it is expresly said there was P. 363. but twenty Canons But this matter is more than clear by the P. 391 392 elaborate pains of Dr. Still defence of the late Arch-Bishop Laud to whom I must refer my Reader Obj. Yet Bellarmine and Binius would prove there were more than twenty Sol. But their proofs depend either upon things as suppositions as the Arabick Canons themselves such as the Epistles of Julius and Athanasius ad Marcum or else they only prove that some other things were determined by that Council viz. Concerning Rebaptization and the keeping of Easter c. which indeed might be Acts of the Council without putting them into the Ad an 325. P. 108. Canons as Baronius himself confesseth and leaves the patronage of them and Spondanus

especially when that fails him yet methinks the jus Ecclesiasticum is not at all unbecoming his pretences who is sworn to govern the Church according to the Canons as they say the Pope is If it be pleaded that the Canons of the Fathers do invest the Pope with plenary Power over all Churches And if it could be proved too yet one thing more remains to be proved to subject the Church of England to that his power viz. that the Canon Law is binding and of force in England as such or without our own consent or allowance And 't is impossible this should be proved while our Kings are Supreme and the constitution of the Kingdom stands as it hath always stood However we decline not the examination of the plea viz. that the Popes Supremacy over the whole Church is granted by the Canons of Councils viz. general But when this is said it is but reasonable to demand which or in what Canons It is said the Pope receives his Office with an Oath to observe the Canons of the eight first general Councils in which of these is the grant to be found Sure so great a conveyance should be very legible and Intelligible We find it very plain that in some of those Councils and those the most ancient this Power is expresly denyed him and that upon such reason as is eternal and might justly and effectually prevent any such grant or usurpation of such power for ever if future Grants were to be just and reasonable or future Popes were to be governed by Right or Equity by the Canons of the Fathers or fidelity to the Church to God or their own solemn Oaths at their Inaugurations But we are prepared for the examination of the Councils in this matter by a very strong presumption That seeing Justinian made the Canons to have the force of Laws and he had ever shewed himself so careful to maintain the Rights of the Empire in all causes as well as over all persons Ecclesiastical even Popes themselves 't is not credible that he would suffer any thing in those Canons to pass into the body of the Laws that should be agreeable to the pretended donation of Constantine or to the prejudice of the Emperor 's said Supremacy and consequently not much in favour of the Supremacy claimed by later Popes Justinian's Sanction extended to the four Justin Sanction of four first great Councils Nic. Constant Ephes 1. and Calcedon in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sancimus Vicem Legum obtinere Sanctos Ecclesiasticos Canones qui à Sanctis quatuor Conciliis constituti sunt confirmati hoc est Niceno c. praedictorum enim Consdiorum dogmata sicut divinas Scripturas accipimus Canones sicut Leges observamus Perhaps it may be doubted why he did not Apostles Canons not mention reason confirm those Canons which were then well known by the Title of the Canons of the Apostles whether because their Authority was suspected especially many of them or because Vid. Bin. To. 1. p. 17. a. they were not made by a truly General Council or because they were Confirmed in and with the Council of Nice and Ephesus c. or lastly whether because the first fifty had before a greater Sanction from the general Reception of the whole Ibid. Church or the greater Authority of the Sacred Names of the Authors the Apostles or Apostolical men I venture not to declare my opinion But truly there seems something considerable for the later for that the Council of Nice do not pretend to confirm the Apostles Canons but their own by the Quotation of them taking Authority from them as Laws founded in the Church before to build their own and all future Canons and Decrees of Councils upon in such matters as were found there determined A great Instance of the probability of this Conjecture we have full to our present purpose given us by Binius Nicena Synodus Can. 6. c. the Nicene and Ephesine Synods followed those Bin. To. 1. p. 20. Canons of the Apostles appointing that every Bishop acknowledge suum primum their Chief and Metropolitane Can. Ap. allowed by C. Nice and Ephesus and do nothing without their own Diocess but rather the Bishop of Alexandria according to the Canons understand saith Binius those 35 36 of the Apostles must govern the Churches of Egypt the Bishop of the East the Eastern Churches the Ephesine Synod also saith it is besides the Canons of the Apostles that the Bishop of Antioch should ordain in the Provinces of Cyprus c. Hence it is plain that according to Apostles Canons interpreted and allowed as Authentick so far at least by the Synods of Nice and Ephesus the Metropolitan was Primate or Chief over the Churches within his Provinces and that he as such exclusive of all Forreign Superior Power was to govern and ordain within his own Provinces not consonant to but directly against the pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome But let us consult the Canons to which Binius refers and the matter is plainer SECT I. Can. Apostol THere is nothing in the Canons of the Apostles to our purpose but what we find in Can. 35 36. or in the Reddition as Binius gives it Can. 33 and 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. let the Bishops of 35 33. every Nation know or they ought to know who among them is accounted or is chief and esteem him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut caput and do nothing difficult aut magni momenti praeter ejus Conscientiam vel Sententiam but what if the matter were too hard for the Primate is no direction given to go to the Infallible Chair at Rome here was indeed a proper place for it but not a word of that In the 36 aliàs 34. it is added that a Bishop should not dare to ordain any beyond the bounds of his own Jurisdiction but neither of these Canons concern the Pope unless they signifie that the Pope is not Head of all Churches and hath not power in any place but within the Diocess of Rome or that Binius was not faithful in leaving out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Head in his Note upon these Canons SECT II. Concil Nicen. Gen. 1. Bellar. Evasion VVE find nothing in the true Canons of the Nicene Synod that looks our way except Can. 6. and 7. They are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let ancient Custom be kept through Can. 6. Egypt Libia and Pentapolis so as the Bishop of Alexandria may have power over all these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because also the like Custom is for the Bishop of the City of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as likewise at Antioch and other Provinces let the Priviledges be kept in their own Churches but suppose differences arise is no Liberty or Remedy provided by going to Rome no more than if differences arise in the Roman Church they may have

Remedy from any other a Remedy is indeed provided by the Canon Sin duo aut tres c. if two or three do contradict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not go to Rome but obtineat Sententia plurimorum let the major Vote carry it In the seventh Canon Custom and Tradition Can. 7. both are the Grounds upon which the Council confirmed the like priviledge of the Church of Hierusalem because Custom and Ancient Tradition ut Aeliae Episcopus honoretur let him have have the consequence of Honour with a Salvo for the proper Dignity of the Metropolis but not a word of Rome Note that in Can. 6. the Power of the Alexandrian Bishop is grounded upon Ancient Custom Antiqua consuetudo servetur and not upon the Concession of the Roman Bishop as Berlarmine would force it and that the like manner or Custom of Rome is but another Example of the same thing as Antioch was and the rest of the Provinces but this ungrammatical and illogical Evasion was put off before SECT III. Concil Constantinop Gen. 2. An. 381. THe next Council admired by Justinian as one of the Gospels is that Famous Council of Constantinople adorned with 150 Fathers Hath this made any better provision for the Pope's Supremacy certainly no for the very Can. 1. Bin. p. 660. Alter Editio Bin. p. 664. Can. 2. first Canon chargeth us not to despise the Faith of the 318 Fathers in the Synod of Nice which ought to be held firm and Inviolate The Second Canon forbids the confusion of Diocesses and therefore injoyns Secundum Regulas constitutas i. e. the Rules of the Apostles and Nicene Fathers to be kept the Bishop of Alexandria must govern them in Egypt only and so the rest as are there mentioned more particularly than in Nicene Canons In the Third is reinforced the Canon of the former Council against Ordinations by Bishops Can. 3. out of their own Jurisdictions and adds this Reason that casts no countenance upon any Forreign Jurisdiction 't is manifest that the proper Provincial Synod ought to administer and govern all things per quasquc singulas Provincias within their peculiar Provinces secundum ea quae sunt in Nicaea definita This third Canon honours the Bishop of Constantinople next after the Bishop of Rome as Binius renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Binius is very angry that such a Canon is found there and urgeth many reasons against it and therefore we shall conclude that as none of the rest Bin. To. 1. 672. so neither doth this Canon confer the universal government of the Church upon the Bishop of Rome SECT IV. Concil Ephesin Gen. 3. An. Christi 431. THe third general Council whose Canons Justinian passed into Laws is that of Ephesus and this so far abhors from the grant that it is a plain and zealous contradicter of the Popes pretensions In Act the seventh 't is agreed against the invasion of the Bishop of Antioch that the Cyprian Prelates shall hold their Rights untouched and unviolated according to the Canons of the holy Fathers before mentioned and the ancient custom ordaining their own Bishops and let the same be observed in other Diocesses and in all Provinces that no Bishop occupy another Province or subject it by force which formerly and from the beginning was not under his power or his Predecessors Or if he have done so let him restore it that the Canons of the Fathers be not slighted nor Pride creep into the Church nor Christian Liberty be lost Therefore it hath pleased the holy Synod that every Province enjoy its Rights and Customs unviolated which it had from the beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice repeated whereby we are to learn a very great Rule that the bounds of primacies were settled very early before this Council or any other general Council before this even at the beginning and that those bounds ought to be observed to the end according to the Canons of the Fathers and ancient custom and consequently that such as are invaders of others Rights are bound to make restitution Now 't is evident we were a free Province in England in the beginning and when St. Augustine came from Rome to invade our Liberties 't is evident this Council gave the Pope no power or priviledge to invade us Yea that what power the Pope got over us in after times was a manifest violation of the Rights we had from the beginning as also of the Canons of the ancient Fathers in the three mentioned sacred and General Councils of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus all grounded upon the ancienter Canons called the Apostles Lastly such Usurpers were always under the obligation of the Canon to restore and quit their incroachments and consequently the Brittanick Churches were always free to vindicate and reassume their Rights and Liberties as they worthily did in Hen. 8. SECT V. Concil Calcedon Gen. 4. An 451. S. W's Gloss THere is little hope that this Council should afford the Pope any advantage seeing it begins Canones c. with the confirmation of all the Canons made by the Fathers in every Synod before that time and consequently of those that we have found in prejudice to his pretensions among the rest The Ninth Canon enjoyns upon differences Can. 9. betwixt Clerks that the Cause be heard before the proper Bishop betwixt a Bishop and a Clerk before the Provincial Synod betwixt a Bishop or Clerk and the Metropolitan before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the See of the Royal City of Constantinople To the same effect we read Can. 17. Can. 17. Si quis a suo c. If any one be injured by his Bishop or Metropolitan apud Exarchum seu Primatem Dioceseos vel Constantinopolitam sedem litiget But Where is any provision made for Remedy at Rome Indeed that could not consist with the sence of this Synod who would not endure the Supremacy or so much as the Superiority of Rome above Constantinople This is evident in Can. 28 the Fathers gave Can. 28. priviledge to the See of old Rome Quod Vrbs illa imperaret eadem consideratione saith the Canon and for the same reason an hundred and fifty Bishops gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal Priviledges to the Seat of new Rome recte judicantes rightly judging that that City that hath the Empire and the Senate should enjoy equal Priviledges with old Royal Rome etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus ac illa extolli ac magnifieri secundam post illam existentem Now to what purpose doth S. W. to Dr. Hammond trifle on the Canon and tell us that S. W's Gloss these Priviledges were only Honorary Pomps when the Canon adds in Ecclesiastical matters and names one the Ordination of Bishops and Metropolitans within themselves as before was declared by the divine Canons We conclude that this Bar against the Popes universal Pastorship will never be removed These are the four first general Councils honoured by

Right or any right at all seeing they opposed it 2. That they did not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome 3. That they had no Tradition of either that Supremacy or Infallibility 4. That 't is vain to plead Antiquity in the Fathers or Councils or Primitive Church for either 5. That the Judgment of those 8 general Councils was at least the Judgment and Faith not only during their own times but till the contrary should be decreed by a following Council of as great Authority and how long that was after I leave to themselves to answer 6. That the Canons of those 8 first general Councils being the sence both of the ancient and the professed Faith of the present Church of Rome the Popes Authority stands condemned by the Catholick Church at this day by the ancient Church and the present Church of Rome her self as she holds Communion at least in profession with the Ancient 7. That this was the Faith of the Catholick Church in opposition to the pretended Supremacy of the Pope long after the eight first General Councils is evident by the plain Sence of it in the said Point declared by several Councils in the Ages following as appears both in the Greek and Latin Church a word of both SECT IX The Latin Church Constance Basil Councils c. THe Council of Constance in Germany long after of almost a thousand Fathers An. 1415 Say they were inspired by the Holy Ghost and a General Council representing the whole Church and having immediate power from Christ whereunto obedience is due from all Persons both for Faith and Reformation whether in the Head or Members this was expresly confirmed by Pope Martin to be held inviolable in Matters of Faith vid. Surium Concil Const 99. 4. Tom. 3. Conc. Their great Reason was the Pope is not Head of the Church by Divine Ordinance as the Council of Calcedon said a thousand years before Now where was necessary Union and Subjection to the Pope where was his Supremacy Jure divino where was Tradition Infallibility or the Faith of the present Church for the Pope's Authority Concil Basil Bin. To. 4. in Conc. Basil initio The Council of Basil An. 1431. decreed as the Council of Constance Pope Eugenius would dissolve them the Council commands the contrary and suspend the Pope concluding that who ever shall question their power therein is an Heretick the Pope pronounceth them Schismaticks in the end the Pope did yield and not dissolve the Council this was the Judgment of the Latine Church above 1400 years after Christ and indeed to this day of the true Church of France and in Henry the Eighth's time of England as Gardner said the Pope is not a Head by Dominion but Order his Authority is none with us we ought not to have to doe with Rome the Common Sence of all in England Bellarmine saith that the Pope's Subjection to De Conc. li. 2. c. 14. General Councils is inconsistent with the Supreme Pastorship 't is Repugnant to the Primacy of Saint Peter saith Gregory de Valentiâ yet nothing Anal. fid l. 8. c. 14. is more evident than that General Councils did exercise Authority over Popes deposing them and disposing of their Sees as the Council of Constance did three together and always made Canons in opposition to their Pretensions Yea 't is certain that a very great Number if not the greater of the Roman Church it self were ever of this Faith that General Vid. Dr. Hammond's dispute p. 102. Councils are Superior have Authority over give Laws unto and may justly censure the Bishop of Rome Pope Adrian the Sixth and very many other Learned Romanists declared this to be their Judgment just before or near upon the time that Henry the Eighth was declared Supreme in England So much for the Latine Church SECT X. The Greek Church African Can. Synod Carth. Concil Antiochen The Faith of the Greek Church since THat the Greek Church understood the first General Councils directly contrary to the Pope's Supremacy is written with a Sun-beam in several other Councils 1. By the Canons of the African Church Can. 27 The 27th Canon forbids all Transmarine Appeals threatens such as make them with Excommunication makes order that the last Appeal be to the proper Primate or a General Council to the same effect is the 137 Canon and the Notes of Voel upon these Canons put it beyond question that in the Transmarine Appeals Tom. 1. p. 425. they meant those to Rome as it is expressed the Church of Rome and the Priests of the Roman Church 2. Const Concil Antiochen This Council is more plain it saith if any Bishop in any Crime be judged by all the Bishops in the Province he shall be judged in no wise by any Other the Sentence given by the Provincial Bishops shall remain firm Thus the Pope is excluded even in the case of Bishops out of his own Province contrary to the great pretence of Bellarmine ibid. 3. Syn. Carthag Can. 4 This Synod confirmed the twenty Canons of Nice and the Canons of the African Councils and then in particular they decreed ab Vniversis Si Criminosus est non admittatur again if any one whether Bishop or Presbiter that is driven from the Church be received into Communion by another even he that receives him is held guilty of the like Crime Refugientes sui Episcopi regulare Judicium Again if a Bishop be guilty when there is no Synod let him be judged by twelve Bishops Secundum Statuta Veterum Conciliorum the Statutes of the Ancients knew no reserve for the Pope in that Case Further no Clergy-man might go beyond the Seas viz. to Rome without the Advice of his Metropolitan and taking his Formatam vel Commendationem The 28 Canon is positive that Priests and Deacons shall not Appeal ad Transmarina Judicia viz. to Rome but to the Primates of their own Provinces and they add Sicut de Episcopis saepè constitutum est and if any shall do so none in Africa shall receive them and Can. 125. 't is renewed adding the African Councils to which Appeals are allowed as well as to the Primates but still Rome is Barr'd The Sence of the Greek Church since Now when did that Church subject it self to Rome in any Case our Adversaries acknowledg the early contests betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches in the point of Supremacy where then is the Consent of Fathers or Vniversality of time and place they use to boast of Bellarmine confesseth that An. 381. to the time of the Council of Florence viz. 1140 years the Greek Church disclaimed subjection to the Pope and Church of Rome and he confesseth they did so in several general Councils And he doth but pretend that this Church submitted it self to Rome in the Council of Florence An. 1549. for the contrary is evident in that they would not yield that the Pope should choose them a Patriarch as Surius

himself observes Tom. 4. p. 489. So true is it that Maldonate and Prateolus Mald. in Math. 10. 2. Prate in Haer. Tit. Grae. Vid St. Aug. To. 2. Epist 162. acknowledge and Record the Greek Church always disliked the Supreme Dignity of the Pope and would never obey his Decrees To conclude the Law of the Greeks hath always been against the Pope's Supremacy the Fundamental Law was a prohibition of Appeals to Rome therefore that Church acknowledged no absolute Subjection to Rome 2. They excommunicate all African Priests Appealing to Rome therefore they held no necessity of Vnion with Rome 3. They excommunicate all such qui putaverint as should but think it lawful to Appeal to Rome therefore they had no Faith of the necessity of either Vnion or Subjection to the Church of Rome Enough to the Pope's prejudice from the Councils of all sorts we must in the foot of the account mind our Adversaries that we have found no colour for the pretence of a Grant from any one General Council of the Pope's Authority much less over the Church of England which their Plea from the Canons expresly requires at their hand For my Lord Bramhall with invincible Reason affirms We were once a free Patriarchate Independent on any other and according to the Council of Ephesus every Province should enjoy its Ancient Rights pure and inviolate and that no Bishop should occupy any Province which did not belong to him from the beginning and if no true General Council hath ever since Subjected Brittain under the Roman Court then saith he the case is clear that Rome can pretend no Right over Brittain without their own consent nor any further nor for any longer time then they are pleased to oblige themselves We must expect therefore some better Evidence of such Grant to the Pope and such Obligation upon England by the Canons of some truly General Council and we may still expect it notwithstanding the Canons of Sardice which yet shall be considered for it is their faint colour of Antiquity SECT XI The Sardican Canons No Grant from the Matter manner or Authority No Appendix to Council of Nice Zozimus his Forgery never Ratified nor thought Universal after contradicted by Councils THe Pope at length usurped the Title and pretended the Power of Supreme and the Canons in time obtained the Name of the Pope's Decrees but the question is what General Council gave him either Doctor Stillingfleet observes that nothing is more apparent than that when Popes began to pirk up they pleaded nothing but some Canons of the Church for what they did then their best and only Plea when nothing of Divine Right was heard of as Julius to the Oriental Bishops Zozimus to the African and so others but still what Canons Arg. The Romanist against Arch-Bishop Laud argues thus it was ever held lawful to Appeal to P. 193. Rome from all Parts therefore the Pope must be Supreme Judge this saith he is evidenced by the Sardican Canons accounted anciently an Appendin to the Council of Nice this he calls an unanswerable Argument Answ But it is more than answered if we consider either the Matter or the Manner or the Authority of these Canons 1. The Matter said to be granted appears 1. For the matter of these Canons in the words themselves Can. 3. it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it seem good to you let us honour the Memory of Saint Peter and by those Bishops that are Judges Scribatur Julio Romanorum Episcopo and by the next Bishops of the Province if need be let the Judgment be revoked cognitores ipse praebeat But 1. here is no Grant so much as of Appeal only of a Review 2. 'T is not pretended to be according to any former Canons 3. The Judgment is to be revoked by a Council of Bishops chosen for the purpose 4. The request seems to terminate in the Person of Julius and not to extend to his Successors for else why should it be said to Julius Bishop of Rome and not to the Bishop of Rome absolutely 2. The Manner of the Motion spoils all if Manner it please you did the Vniversal Pastorship then lie at the feet or depend upon the pleasure of this Council did no Canons evidence the Pope's Power and Right till then eleven years after the death of Constantine besides how unworthily was is said let us honour the Memory of Saint Peter did the Pope's Succession of Saint Peter depend upon their pleasure too 3. But lastly the main exception is against the Authority of this Council or at least of Authority this Canon as Cusanus questions Concord Cathol lib. 2. c. 15. 1. 'T is certain they are no Appendix to the No Appendix to Nice Can. Council of Nice wherein their strength is pretended to consist though Zozimus fraudulently sent them under that Name to the African Bishops which can never be excused for they are now known to have been made twenty two years after that Council Upon that pretence of Zozimus indeed a Zozimus's Forgery Temporary Order was made in the Council of Africk that Appeals might be made to the Pope till the true Canons of Nice were produced which afterwards being done the Argument was spoiled and that Pope if possible was put to shame hereupon that excellent Epistle was written to Pope Caelestine of which you had account before 2. This Council was never ratified by the Reception Not received of the Catholick Church for the Canons of it were not known by the African Bishops when Zozimus sent them and Saint Augustine discredits them saying they were made by a Synod of Arrians 3. It is evident that this Council was never Or thought Universal accounted truly Vniversal though Constance and Constantius intended it should be so for but seventy of Eastern Bishops appeared to three hundred of the Western and those Eastern Bishops soon withdrew from the other and decreed things directly contrary to them So that Balsomon and Zonarus as well as the Elder Greeks say it can only bind the Western Churches and indeed it was a long time before the Canons of it were received in the Western Church which is the supposed reason why Zozimus sent them as the Nicen and not as the Sardican Canons 4. After the Eastern Bishops were departed there were not Patriarchs enough to make a General Council according to Bellermine's De Conc. L. 1. c. 17. own Rule Consequently Venerable Bede leaves it out of the Number the Eastern Churches do not reckon it among their Seven nor the Western among their Eight first General Councils The English Church in their Synod at Hedifield An. 680. left it out of their Number and embrace only the Council of Nice the first of Constantinople the first of Ephesus the first and second of Calcedon to this day Therefore Arch-Bishop Bramhall had reason to say that this Council was never incorporated into the English Laws

or two or more passages out of single Fathers are sufficient to bear away the Cause in so great a Point seeing they themselves will not suffer the Testimony of many of the same Fathers to carry it for us in a Point of the least Concernment In the mean time I most confidently conclude that the Pope's Supremacy hath not the Consent of the Primitive Fathers as Bellarmine boasts and that what ever he would have them say they did not believe and therefore not intend to say that the Pope was absolute Monarch of the Catholick Church and consequently that there was no such Tradition in the Primitive Ages either before or during the time of the eight first General Councils is to me a Demonstration evident for these Reasons Reas 1 The eight first General Councils being all Called and Convened by the Authority of Emperors stand upon Record as a notable Monument of the former Ages of the Catholick Church in prejudice to the Papal Monarchy as Saint Peter's Successor in those times the first eight General Councils saith Cusanus were gathered Concord Cathol l. 2. c. 25. by Authority of Emperors and not of Popes insomuch that Pope Leo was glad to entreat the Emperor Theodosius the younger for the gathering of a Council in Italy and non obtinuit could not obtain it Reas 2 Every one of these Councils opposed this pretended Monarchy of the Pope the first by stating the limits of the Roman Diocess as well as other Patriarchates the second by concluding the Roman Primacy not to be grounded upon Divine Authority and setting up a Partriarch of Constantinople against the Pope's Will the third by inhibiting any Bishop whatsoeve to ordain Bishops within the Isle of Cyprus the fourth by advancing the Bishop of Constantinople to equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome notwithstanding the Pope's earnest opposition against it the fifth in condemning the Sentence of Pope Vigilius although very vehement in the cause the sixth and seventh in condemning Pope Honorius of Heresie and the eight and last by imposing a Canon upon the Church of Rome and challenging obedience thereunto Reas 3 This must pass for the unquestionable Sence of the Catholick Church in those Ages viz. for the space of above 540 years together from the first General Council of Nice for our Adversaries themselves stile every one of the General Councils the Catholick Church and what was their Belief was the Faith of the whole Church and what their belief was hath appeared viz. that the Pope had not absolute power over the Church Jure Divino an Opinion abhorred by their contrary Sentences and practises Reas 4 'T is observed by a Learned man that the Fathers which flourished in all those eight Councils were in Number 2280. how few Friends 2280 Fathers had the Pope left to equal and Countermand them or what Authority had they to do it yea name one eminent Father either Greek or Latine that you count a Friend to the Pope and in those Ages whose name we cannot shew you in one of those Councils if so hear the Church the Judgment of single Fathers is not to be received against their Joint Sentences and Acts in Councils 't is your own Law now where is the Argument for the Pope's Authority from the Fathers they are not to be believ'd against Councils they spake their Sence in this very Point as you have heard in the Councils and in all the Councils rejected and condemned it Reas 5 The belief of these eight General Councils is the professed Faith of the Roman Church Therefore the Roman Church hath been involved Rome's contradiction of Faith and entangled at least ever since the Council of Trent in the Confusion and Contradiction of Faith and that in Points necessary to Salvation For the Roman Church hold it necessary to Salvation to believe all the eight General Councils as the very Faith of the Catholick Church and we have found all these Councils have one way or other declared plainly against the Pope's Bull. Pii 4. Supremacy and yet the same Church holds it necessary to Salvation to believe the contrary by the Council of Trent viz. that the Pope is Supreme Bishop and absolute Monarch of the Catholick Church Some Adversaries would deal more severely Rome's Heresie with the Church of Rome upon this Point and charge her with Heresie in this as well as in many other Articles for there is a Repugnancy in the Roman Faith that seems to infer no less than Heresie one way or other he that believes the Article of the Pope's Supremacy denies in effect the eight first General Councils at least in that Point and that 's Heresie And he that believes the Council of Trent believes the Article of the Pope's Supremacy therefore he that believes the Council of Trent does not believe the eight first General Councils and is guilty of Heresie Again he that believes that the Pope is not Supreme denies the Council of Trent and the Faith of the present Church and that 's Heresie and he that believes the eight first general Councils believes that the Pope is not Supreme therefore he denies the Council of Trent and the Faith of the present Church and is an Heretick with a witness 'T is well if the Argument conclude here c. Infidelity and extend not its Consequence to the charge of Infidelity as well as Heresie upon the present Roman Church seeing this Repugnancy in the Roman Faith seems to destroy it altogether for He that believes the Pope's Supremacy in the Sence of the Modern Church of Rome denies the Faith of the Ancient Church in that point and he that believes it not denies the Faith of the present Church and the present Church of Rome that professeth both believes neither These contrary Faiths put together like two contrary Salts mutually destroy one another He that believes that doth not believe this he that believes this doth not believe that Therefore he that professeth to believe both doth plainly profess he believes neither Load not others with the crimes of Heresie and Infidelity but Pull the beams out of your own eye Reas 6 But the charge falls heavier upon the Head of Popes Schism and Perjury the present Roman Church For not only Heresie and Infidelity but Schism and the foulest that ever the Church groaned under and such as the greatest Wit can hardly distinguish from Apostacy and all aggravated with the horrid crime of direct and self-condemning Perjury fasten themselves to his Holiness's Chair from the very constitution of the Papacy it self For the Pope as such professeth to believe and sweareth to govern the Church according to the Canons of the 8 first general Councils yet openly Greg. ● Bin. To. 3. p. 1196. Innoc. 3. Bo●if 8. Catechis Ro. Nu. 10 11 and 13. claims and professedly practiseth a Power condemned by them all Thus Quatenus Pope he stands guilty of separation from the Ancient Church

and as Head of a new and strange Church draws the Body of his Faction after him into the same Schism in flat contradiction to the essential Profession both of the ancient and present Church of Rome and to that solemn Oath by which also the Pope as Pope binds himself at his Inauguration to maintain and communicate with Hence not only Vsurpation Innovations and Tyranny are the Fruits of his Pride Ambition and Perjury but if possible the guilt is made more Scarlet by his Cruelty to Souls intended by his formal Courses of Excommunications against all that own not his usurped Authority viz. the Primitive Churches the 8 first general Councils all the Fathers of the Latine and Greek Churches for many hundred years the greater part of the present Catholick Church and even the Apostles of Christ and our Lord himself The Sum of the whole matter A touch of another Treatise The material Cause of Separation THe Sum of our defence is this If the Pope have no Right to Govern the Church of England as our Apostle or Patriarch or as Infallible if his Supremacy over us was never grounded in but ever renounced by our Laws and Customs and the very constitution of the Kingdom If his Supremacy be neither of Civil Ecclesiastical or Divine Right if it be disowned by the Scriptures and Fathers and condemned by the Ancient Councils the Essential Profession of the present Roman Church and the solemn Oaths of the Bishops of Rome themselves If I say all be certainly so as hath appeared what reason remains for the necessity of the Church of England's re-admission of or submission to the Papal Authority usurped contrary to all this Or what reason is left to charge us with Schism for rejecting it But it remains to be shewn that as the claim of the Popes Authority in England cannot be allowed so there is cause enough otherwise of our denial of obedience actually to it from Reasons inherent in the Vsurpation it self and the Nature of many things required by his Laws This is the second Branch of our defence proposed at first to be the Subject of another Treatise For who can think it necessary to communicate with Error Heresie Schism Infidelity and Apostacy to conspire in damning the Primitive Church the Ancient Fathers General Councils and the better and greater part of the Christian World at this day or willingly at least to return to the infinite Superstitions and Idolatries which we have escaped and from which our blessed Ancestors through the infinite mercy and providence of God wonderfully delivered us Yet these horrid things cannot be avoided if we shall again submit our selves and enslave our Nation to the pretended Powers and Laws of Rome from which Libera nos Domine THE POSTSCRIPT Objections touching the First General Councils and our Arguments from them answered more fully SECT I. The Argument from Councils drawn up and Conclusive of the Fathers and the Cath. Church IN this Treatise I have considered the Canons of the ancient Councils two ways as Evidence and Law As Evidence they give us the undoubted sence and Faith both of the Catholick Church and of single Fathers in those times and nothing can be said against that As Law we have plainly found that none of them confer the Supremacy pleaded for but every one of them in special Canons condemn it Now this latter is so great a proof of the former that it admits of no possible reply except Circumstances on the by shall be set in opposition and contradiction to the plain Text in the body of the Law And if neither the Church nor single Fathers had any such faith of the Popes Supremacy during the first General Councils then neither did they believe it from the Beginning For if it had been the Faith of the Church before the Councils would not have rejected it and indeed the very form and method of proceeding in those Ancient Councils is sufficient Evidence that it was not However why is it not shewn by some colour of Argument at least that the Church did believe the Popes Supremacy before the time of those Councils why do we not hear of some one single Father that declared so much before the Council of Nice or rather before the Canons of the Apostles Or why is there no notice taken of such a Right or so much as Pretence in the Pope either by those Canons or one single Father before that time Indeed our Authors find very shrewd Evidence of the contrary Why saith Casaubon was Dionysius so utterly silent as to the Vniversal Head of the Church Reigning Dionysius at Rome if at that time there had been any such Monarch there Especially seeing he professedly wrote of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Government Exerc. 16. in Bar. an 34. Nu. 290. The like is observable in Ignatius the most Ignatius Epist ad Tral Ancient Martyr and Bishop of Antioch who in his Epistles frequently sets forth the Order Ecclesiastical and dignity of Bishops upon sundry occasions but never mentions the Monarchy of St. Peter or the Roman Pope Ibid. he writing to the Church of Trallis to obey Bishops as Apostles instanceth equally in Timothy St. Paul's Scholar as in Anacletus Successor to St. Peter The Prudence and Fidelity of these two prime Fathers are much stained if there were then an Vniversal Bishop over the whole Church that professedly writing of the Ecclesiastical Order they St. Paul should so neglect him as not to mention Obedience due to him and indeed of St. Paul himself who gives us an enumeration of the Primitive Ministry on set purpose both in the ordinary and extraordinary kinds of it viz. Some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers and takes no notice of the Vniversal Bishop but we hence conclude rather there was no such thing For who would give an account of the Government of a City Army or Kingdom and say nothing of the Mayor General or Prince This surpasseth the fancy of Prejudice it self Irenaeus is too ancient for the Infallible Chair and therefore refers us in the point of Tradition Ireneus lib. 2. c. 3. p. 140 141. as well to Polycarp in the East as to Linus Bishop of Rome in the West Tertullian adviseth to consult the Mother-Churches Turtullian praescr p. 76. immediately founded by the Apostles and names Ephesus and Corinth as well as Rome and Polycarpus ordained by St. John as well as Clemens by Peter Upon which their own Renanus notes that Tertullian doth not confine the Catholick and Apostolick Church to one place for which freedom of Truth the Judex expurgatorius corrected him but Tertullian is Tertullian still These things cannot consist either with their own knowledge of an Vniversal Bishop or the Churches at that time therefore the Church of Egypt held the Catholick Faith with the chief-Priests naming Anatolinus of Constant Basil of Antioch Juvenal of Jerusalem as well as Leo Bishop of Rome Bin. To.

universal Pastor But we leave these advantages to give the argument its full liberty and we shall soon see either its Arms or its Heels The Argument must run thus If the Bishop of Rome was the means of the English Churches Conversion then the English Church oweth obedience to him and his Successors We deny both propositions The Minor that the Pope was the means of our first Conversion and the consequence of the Major that if he had been so it would not follow that we now owe obedience to that See For the Minor Bishop Jewel knock'd it down so perfectly at first it was never able to stand since he saith it is certain the Church of Britain We were converted 9 years before Rome Baron An. 35. n. 5. Marg. An. 39. n. 23. Suarez c. 1. 1 Contr. Angl. Eccl. Error now called England received not first the Faith from Rome The Romanists proof is his bare assertion that Eleutherius the Pope was the first Apostle of the Britains and preached the Faith here by Damianus and Fugatius within little more than an hundred years after Christs death Bishop Jewel answers that King Lucius was baptized near 150 years before the Emperor Constantine and the same Constantine the first Christian Emperor was born in this Island and the Faith had been planted here long before either by Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes or the Greeks or some others which is plain because the King being Christian before requested Pope Eleutherius to send hither those Persons Damianus and Fugatius to Reform the Bishops and Clergy which were here before and to put things into better Order They also urged that as Pope Elutherius in Britain So Saint Gregory in England first planted the Faith by Austin But Bishop Jewel at first dashed this Argument out of Countenance plainly proving out An. 210. An. 212. An. 334. An. 360. An. 400. An. 367. of Tertullian Origen Athanasius Const Emp. Chrisost Theod. that the Faith was planted in England long before Austin's coming hither See his Defence of his Apol. p. 11. Some would reply that the Faith was utterly rooted out again upon the Invasion of Heathen English 't was not so saith he for Lib. 1. c. 26. lib. 2. c. 2. Beda saith that the Queen of England was christened and that there were then in this Realm Seven Bishops and one Arch-Bishop with other more great Learned Christian men and Galfridus saith there were then in England Seven Lib. 82. 24. Bishopricks and one Arch-Bishoprick possessed with very many godly Prelates and many Abbies in which the Lord's People held the Right Religion Yet we gratefully acknowledge that Saint Gregory was a special Instrument of God for the further spreading and establishing the Gospel in England and that both Elutherius and this Gregory seem to have been very good men and great Examples both of Piety and Charity to all their Successors in that See and indeed of a truly Apostolical spirit and care though not of Authority but if all History deceive us not that Austin the Monk was far enough from being Saint Augustine But what if it had been otherwise and we were indeed first converted by the means of The Consequence these Popes will it therefore follow that we ought for ever to be subject to the Papacy This is certainly a Non-sequitur only fit to be imposed upon easie and prepared Understandings it can never bear the stress and brunt of a severe Disputation and indeed the Roman Adversaries do more than seem to acknowledge as much However the great Arch-Bishop and Primate of Armach hath slurred that silly Consequence Bramhall with such Arguments as find no answer I refer the Reader if need be to his Just Vindication p. 131 132. Where he hath proved beyond dispute that Conversion gives no Title of Jurisdiction and more especially to the prejudice of a former Owner dispossessed by violence or to the subjecting of a free Nation to a Forreign Prelate without or beyond their own consent Besides in more probability the Britains were first converted by the Eastern Church as appeared by our Ancient Customs yet never were subject to any Eastern Patriarch And sundry of our English and Brittish Bishops have converted Forreign Nations yet never pretended thence to any Jurisdiction over them Lastly what ever Title Saint Gregory might acquire by his deserts from us was meerly Personal and could not descend to his Successors But no more of this for fear of the scoffing rebukes of such as S. W. who together with the Catholick Gentleman do plainly renounce this Plea asking Doctor Hammond with some shew of Scorn what Catholick Author ever affirmed it There is no doubt though some other Romanists have insisted upon this Argument of Conversion some reason why these should think fit to lay it aside and we have no reason to keep it up having otherwise work enough upon our hands An end therefore of this first Plea CHAP. IV. Of the Pope's supposed Claim as Patriarch THis Point admits likewise of a quick dispatch by four Propositions and the rather for a reason you will find in the close of our Discourse upon the last of them PROP. I. The Pope was anciently reputed the Western Patriarch Pope a Patriarch To this Dignity he proceeded by degrees the Apostles left no Rule for a Forreign jurisdiction from one Nation to another But according to the 33 Cannon of the Apostles if they were indeed theirs it behoved the Bishops of every Nation to know him who is their first or Primate and to esteem him as their Head The Adventitious Grandeur which the Ancient Patriarchs afterwards obtained is judged to arise three ways by the Canons of the Fathers the Edicts of Princes or Ancient Custom Upon the last ground viz. of Custom the ● Nice c. 6. Council of Nice setled the Privileges of those three Famous Patriarchal Sees Rome Alexandria and Antioch Saying let Ancient Custom prevail which Custom proceeded from the honour such Churches had as being founded by the Apostles if not rather from the Eminency of the Cities Therefore the Council of Calcedon gives this as a reason of the greatness of the Sees of Rome and Constantinople because they were the Seats of the Emperours PROP. II. The Pope as Patriarch had but a limited Jurisdiction Limited Jurisd 1. A Patriarchate as such is limited especially if the Title restrain it to the West for East North and South are not the West in the same respect 2. It is further evident from the first Number of Patriarchs for if there were more than one of the same Dignity and Jurisdiction they must be threfore limited for a Patriarch as such could have no Jurisdiction over a Patriarch as such for so they were equal par in parem non c. 3. But indeed the first time we hear of three and then of five Patriarchs at once viz. Five Patriarchs of Rome Constantinople

in his contraction of Baronius relates it as his positive Ad an 325. n. 42. Opinion that he rejected all but twenty whether Arabick or other as spurious So that it will bear no further contest but we may safely conclude the Arabick Canons and consequently this of the Popes Authority is a mere Forgery of later times there being no evidence at all that they were known to the Church in all the time of the four first general Councils Vid. c. 20. SECT VI. Practice interpreted the Canons to the same Sence against the Pope Disposing of Patriarchs Cyprian Aug. VVE have found nothing in the Canons of the ancient Councils that might give occasion to the belief of the Popes Jurisdiction in England in the Primitive Ages of the Church but indeed very much to the contrary But the Romanist affirms against my Lord of Canterbury that the Practice of the Church is always the best Expositor and Assertor of the Canons We are now to examine whether the ancient practice of the Church was sufficient to persuade a belief of the Popes Jurisdiction as is pretended In the mean time not doubting but that it is a thing most evident that the Pope hath practised contrary to the Canons and the Canons have declared and indeed been practised against the Pope But what Catholick Practice is found on Record that can be supposed a sufficient ground of this Faith either in England or any part of Christendom Certainly not of Ordinations or Appeals or Visitations Yea can it be imagined that our English Ancestors had not heard of the practice of the Brittains in maintaining their liberty when it was assaulted by Austin and rejecting his demands of Subjection to the See of Rome No doubt they had heard of the Cyprian Priviledge and how it was insisted on in barr of the universal Pastorship by their friends the Eastern Church from whom they in likelihood received the Faith and with whom they were found at first in Communion about the observation of Easter and Baptism and in practice divers from the Church of Rome Obj. But one great point of practice is here pitcht upon by Baronius and after him by T. C. It is the Popes Confirmation of the Election deposing and restoring of Patriarchs which they say he did as Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs and consequently of the whole Church Sol. But where hath he done these strange feats Certainly not in England And we shall find the instances not many nor very early any where else But to each Branch 1. 'T is urged that the Popes Confirmation Confirm Patriarchs is required to all new elected Patriarchs Admit it but the Arch-Bishop of Paris Petrus Dr. Still de Marca fully answers Baronius and indeed every body else that this was no token of Jurisdiction but only of receiving into Communion De conc l. 6. c. 5. s. 2. and as a Testimony of Consent to the Consecration If any force be in this Argument then the Bishop of Carthage had power Cypr. Ep. 52. p. 75. over the Bishop of Rome because he and other African Bishops Confirm'd the Bishop of Rome's Ordination Baronius insists much upon the Confirmation of Anatolius by Leo I. which very instance answers it self Leo himself tells us that it was Ep. 38. to manifest that there was but one entire Communion among them throughout the World Yet it is not to be omitted that the practice of the Church supposeth that the Validity of the Patriarchs Consecration depended not upon Consec depends not on Confirmation the Confirmation or indeed Consent of the Pope of Rome Yea though he did deny his Comunicatory letters that did not hinder them from the Execution of their Office Therefore Flavianus the Patriarch of Antioch though opposed by three Roman Bishops successively who used all importunity with the Emperor that he might be displaced yet because the Churches of the Orient did approve of him and Communicate with him he was allowed and their consent stood against the Bishops of Rome At last the Bishop of Rome severely rebuked for his Pride by the Emperor yielded and his Consent was given only by renewing Communion with him But where was the Popes power either to make or make void a Patriarch while this was in Practice 2. Doth Practice better prove the Popes Deposing Patriarchs power to depose unworthy Patriarchs The contrary is evident for both before and after the Council of Nice according to that Council the practice of the Church placed the power of deposing Patriarchs in Provincial Councils and the Pope had it not till the Council of Sardica decreed in the case of Athanasius as P. de Marca abundantly proves Vid. de Concord l. 7. c. 1. Sect. 6. Also that the Council of Sardica it self did not as is commonly said decree Appeals to Rome but only gave the Bishop of Rome power to review their Actions but still reserving to Provincial Councils that Authority which the Nicene Council had established them in Obj. But T. C. urgeth that we read of no less than eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome Sol. Where doth he read it In an Epistle of Pope Nicolaus to the Emperor Michael Well chosen saith Doctor Still a Popes Testimony in his own Cause And such a one as was then in Controversie with the Patriarch of Constantinople and so late too as the Ninth Century is when his power was much grown from the Infancy of it Yet for all this this Pope on such an occasion and at that time did not say that the Patriarchs mention'd by him were depos'd by the Popes sole Authority but not Ejected Sine Consensu Romani Pontificis without his Consent and his design was only to shew that Ignatius the Patriarch ought not to have been deposed without his Consent v. Nic. 1. 8. Mich. Imp. Tom. 6. Con. p. 506. Obj. Did not Sixtus the third depose Policronius Bishop of Jerusalem Sol. No. He only sent eight Persons from a Synod at Rome to Jerusalem who offered not by the Popes Authority to depose him as should have have been proved but by their means seventy Neighbour Bishops were Called by whom he was deposed besides Binius himself Tom. 2. Con. p. 685. Condemns those very acts that report this story for Spurious 3. But have we any better proof of the Popes power to restore such as were deposed Restoring Patriarchs The only Instance in this Case brought by T. C. is of Athanasius and Paulus restored by Julius and indeed to little purpose T is true Athanasius Cndemned by two Synods goes to Rome where he and Paulus are received into Communion by Julius not liking the decree of the Eastern Bishops Julius never pleads his Power to depose Patriarchs but that his consent for the sake of Vnity should also have been first desired and that so great a Matter in the Church required a Council both of the Eastern and

to put an eternal end to this Controversie and consequently to the claim of the universal Pastor in this Age but an account of the Judgment of this Council when they had received the Copy of the Nicene Canons on which the point depended out of the East This you have in that excellent Epistle of theirs to Pope Celestine who succeeded Boniface and the elaborate Dr. Stillingfleet who searcheth R. ac p. 410 411. all things to the bottom hath transcribed it at large as a worthy Monument of Antiquity and of very great light in the present Controversie To him I shall refer the Reader for the whole and only note some few expressions to the purpose We say they humbly beseech you to admit no more into your Communion those whom we have cast out For your Reverence will easily perceive that this is forbid in the Council of Nice For if this be taken care for as to the inferior Clergy and Laity how much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops The Decrees of Nice have subjected both the inferior Clergy and Bishops to their Metropolitans for they have most wisely and justly provided that every business be determined in the place where it begun Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one if he be offended to appeal to the Council of the Province or even to an universal Council Or how can a Judgment made beyond the Sea be valid to which the Persons of necessary Witnesses cannot be brought by reason c. For this sending of men to us from your Holiness we do not find it commanded by any Synod of the Fathers And as for that Council of Nice we cannot find it in the truest Copies sent by holy Cyril Bishop of Alexandria and the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople which also we sent to your Predecessor Boniface Take heed also of sending any of your Clerks for Executors to those who desire it lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ and concerning our brother Faustinus Apiarius being cast out we are confident that our brotherly Love continuing Africa shall no more be troubled with him This is the sum of that famous Epistle the Pope and the African Fathers referred the point in difference to the true Canons of the Nicene Council The Canons determine against the Pope and from the whole story 't is inferred evidently 1. That Pope Boniface himself implieth his Jurisdiction was limited by the general Council of Nice and that all the Laity and Clergy too except Bishops that lived beyond the Seas and consequently in England were exempted from his Jurisdiction by that Council 2. Pope Boniface even then when he made his claim and stood upon his terms with the African Fathers pleads nothing for the appeals of transmarine Bishops to Rome but the allowance of the Council of Nice no tu es Petrus then heard of 3. Then it seems the practices of Popes themselves were to be ruled and judged by the ancient Canons and Laws of the Church 4. The African Fathers declared the Pope fallible and actually mistaken both to his own power and sense of the Council Proving substantially that neither Authority from Councils nor any foundation in Justice Equity or order of Government or publick Conveniency will allow or suffer such Appeals to Rome and that the Pope had no authority to send Legates to hear causes in such cases All these things lye so obviously in prejudice both of the Popes Possession and Title as universal Pastor at that time both in his own the Churches sence that to apply them further would be to insult which I shall for bear seeing Baronius is so ingenious as to confess there are some hard things in this Epistle And Perron hath hereupon exposed his Wit with so much sweat and so little purpose but his own Correction and Reproach as Dr. Still notes Yet we may modestly conclude from this one plain instance that the sence of the Nicene Council was defined by the African Council to be against the Popes Supremacy and consequently they did not submit to it nor believe it and a further consequence to our purpose is that then the Catholick Church did not universally own it i. e. the Popes Supremacy then had not Possession of the faith of the whole Church For as A. C. p. 191. maintains the Africans notwithstanding the contest in the sixth Council of Carthage were always in true Communion with the Roman Church even during the term of this pretended Separation And Caelestine himself saith that St. Augustine one of those Fathers lived and dyed in the Communion of the Roman Church SECT IX The Conclusion touching Possession Anciently VVE hope it is now apparent enough that the Popes Supremacy had no possession in England from the beginning or for the first six hundred years either de facto or in side Our Ancestors yielded not to it they unanimously resisted it and they had no reason to believe it either from the Councils or practice of the Church or from the Edicts and Rules of the imperial Law or the very sayings of the Popes themselves Thus Sampson's Hair the strength and Pomp of their best Plea is cut off The foundation of the Popes Supremacy is subverted and all other pleas broken with it If according to the Apostles Canons every Nation had its proper Head in the beginning to be ackonwledged by them under God And according to a general Council all such Heads should hold as from the beginning there can be no ground afterwards for a lawful possession to the contrary If tu es Petrus pasce Oves have any force to maintain the Popes Supremacy why did not the ancient Fathers the Authors of those Canons see it Why was not it shewn by the Popes concerned in bar against them when nothing else could be pleaded When both Possession and Tradition were to be begun and had not yet laid their Foundation Yea when actual opposition in England was made against it when general Councils abroad laid restraints upon it and the Eastern Church would not acknowledge it Indeed both Antiquity Universality and Tradition it self and all colour of Right for ever fails with possession For Possession of Supremacy afterwards cannot possibly have either a divine or just Title but must lay its Foundation contrary to Gods Institution and Ecclesiastical Canon And the Possessor is a Thief and a Robber our Adversaries being Judges He invades others Provinces and is bound to Restore And long Possession is but a protracted Rebellion against God and his Church However it be with the secular Powers Christs Vicar must certainly derive from him must hold the power he gave must come in it at his door And S. W. himself P. 50 against Dr. Hammond fiercely affirmeth That Possession in this kind ought to begin near Christs Time and he that hath begun it later unless he can Evidence that he was driven out from an

yet so much as undertaken and may be expected Hoc opus est 'T is observed by Dr. Stillingfleet that there is but one eminent place in Antiquity produced on their side in the behalf of Traditions and that is out of St. Basil de sp sanc ad Amphilo But the Book with just reason is suspected Three of the Traditions mentioned in the place are the Consecration of the Person to be Baptized the standing at the Prayers until Pentecost and above all the Trine Immersion in Baptism The two first of these are not acknowledged by the present Church of Rome and the last by the very Council of Trent is pronounced not to be of Apostolical Tradition Here is not one word touching any Tradition for the Infallibility of the Church but indeed much reason against it For either the present Church at that time was actually deceived and took that to be Apostolical which was not so or the present Church in the Council of Trent took that not to be Apostolical which indeed was so and was actually deceived in her Judgment and determination to the contrary For those words of that Author parem vim habent ad pietatem unwritten Traditions have equal force to stir up Piety with the written word put the dilemma beyond exception as those known words of the true Basil That it is a manifest falling from Hom. 29. de tri To. 1. the Faith and an Argument of Arrogancy either to reject any point of those things which are written or to bring in any of those things which are not written make it justly suspitious that the Book extolling unwritten Traditions was none of his Bellarmine's three Arguments 1. The Fathers say the sentence of general Councils admits of no Appeal 2. Such as submit not to them are Hereticks 3. Such Sentence is Divine prove their Authority but not their Infallibility and the force of such Sentence is from Scripture or Reason or Miracles or approbation of the Syst sid 1. c. 26. Nu. 2. whole Church as Occham and Santa Clara after St. Augustine affirm Therefore the Fathers generally allow us liberty of examination and derogate Faith from all men beside the Apostles CHAP. XVII Arg. III For Infallibility from Reason 3 Reasons answered Point Argued Retorted 'T Is Confess'd that though Scripture and Tradition prove it not yet if there be indeed any sound Reason which is a kind of divine Law for the Pope's Infallibility that will go a great way But it doubtless ought to be very clear and strong reason that is able to carry it in so great a point without either Scripture or Tradition Let us hearken Perhaps we have Tradition offering its Service R. 1. to Reason in another form and the Argument may stand thus Tradition is Infallible but the Pope in the Church of Rome is the Keeper of Tradition therefore thereby the Pope is Infallible Ans This Argument indeed hath countenance from Antiquity For Iraeneus adviseth his Adversaries who pretended Tradition to go to Rome and there they might know what was true and Apostolical Tradition for there it was preserved But how could that father assure us that Rome would always be a faithful preserver of true Apostolical Tradition What security could he give to after Ages against innovations and additions to Tradition it self in the Church of Rome Remember what hath been said that Tradition can be thought infallible only in the substantials of Religion and consequently cannot protect either it self or the Church from additional errors in other things Besides in the Substantials of Religion the Protestant Churches have the benefit of Tradition as well as the Church of Rome and if that carry Infallibility with it our Church is infallible as well as the Church of Rome and consequently thereby hath a Right to govern it's self Reas 2 But the great Reason always gloried in is from the Wisdom and Prudence of our blessed Saviour who had he not intended to afford the assistance of Infallibility to the succeeding Pastors of his Church to lead them when assembled in a general Council he had built his Church upon the Sand as A. C. argues with his Grace of Canterbury Ans Admit the necessity of this Assistance to the Pastors of the Church what is this to prove the government of the Church in the Pope because of his Infallibility But if our Saviour should not have assured us that he will thus assist his Church in all Ages as you cannot shew how do you know he hath intended it and how unchristian is your Reason to impeach your Saviour with the inference of Folly and as at other times with Ignorance and imposture if he hath not Take heed hath not our Saviour built his Church upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles and is this Sand in the Roman Sence Is not Christ himself the chief Corner-Stone Is he Sand too Doth not he that keepeth his Sayings build upon a Rock as firm as the decrees of a general Council Where hath our Saviour given us the least intimation that inherent Infallibility is the only Rock to secure the Church from Error Is there not sufficient ground to rely on the Doctrine of Christ had there never been a general Council What was the Church built upon the Sand only before the Council of Nice why did it not then fall in the Storms of Persecution Did not the Apostles commit the doctrine of Christ to writing Is not Tradition the great mean of delivering the Scriptures and all things needful to Salvation by your own Arguments may not the latter be done by Nurses and Tutors c. without a general Council and if there be lesser differences in the Church is the Foundation subverted presently and may not those lesser differences among Christians be healed with Argument or at least quieted and the peace of the Church preserved by the decrees of Councils without Infallibility how unreasonable is it to deny it We grant saith Doctor Stillingfleet Infallibility P. 259. in the Foundation of Faith we declare the owning of that Infallibility is that which makes men Christians the body of whom we call the Church we further grant that Christ hath left in that Church sufficient means for the preservation of it in Truth and Unity but we cannot discern either in Scripture Antiquity or Reason that such Infallibility is necessary for the Churches preservation by the Councils of succeeding Pastors much less a living and standing Infallible Judge as the Head of the Church Object But they say the Infinite Dissentions and Divisions amongst those that deny it make this R. 3. necessary Answ How is it in the Roman Church are there no Divisions there or is the sole Remedy Ineffectual yea are there no differences there about Infallibility it self the Manner and Subject of it are not many of your selves ashamed and weary of it do not some of you deny it and set up Tradition in stead of it was not the

Justinian as the four Gospels to which he gave the Title and force of Laws By which all Popes are bound by solemn Oath to Rule the Church Yet we find not one word in any of them for the Popes pretended universal Pastorship Yea in every one of them we have found so much and so directly against it that as they give him no power to govern the whole Church so by swearing to observe them in such government as the Canons deny him he swears to a contradiction as well as to the ruine of his own pretensions Argument We conclude from the premises that now seeing all future Councils seem to build upon the Nicene Canons as that upon the Apostles if the Canons of Nice do indeed limit the power of the Bishop of Rome or suppose it to have limits if his cause be tried by the Councils it must needs be desperate Now if those Canons suppose bounds to belong Minor to every Patriarchate they suppose the like to Rome But 't is plain that the bounds are given by those Canons to the Bishop of Alexandria and the reason is because this is also customary to the Bishop of Rome Now 't is not reasonable to say Alexandria must have limits because Rome hath if Rome have no limits Pope Nicolas himself so understood it whatever I. E. Pis 8. S. W. did Nicena c. the Nicene Synod saith he conferred no increase on Rome but rather took from Rome an example particularly what to give to the Church of Alexandria Whence Dr. Hammond strongly concludes that if at the making of the Nicene Canons Rome had bounds it must needs follow by the Ephesine Canon that those bounds must be at all times observed in contradiction to the universal Pastorship of that See The matter is ended if we compare the other Latin Version of the Nicene Canon with the Canon as before noted Antiqui moris est ut Vrbis Romae Episcopus habeat principatum ut suburbicana loca omnem provinciam suâ sollicitudine gubernet quae vero apud Aegyptum sunt Alexandrinae Episcopus omnem habeat sollicitudinem Similiter autem circa Antiochiam in caeteris Provinciis privilegia propria serventur Metropolitanis Ecclesiis Whence it is evident that the Bishop of Rome then had a distinct Patriarchate as the rest had and that whatever Primacy might be allowed him beyond his Province it could not have any real power over the other Provinces of Alexandria c. And 't is against the plain sence of the Rule that the Antiquus mos should signifie the custom of the Bishop of Rome's permission of Government to the other Patriarchs as Bellarmine feigneth This Edition we have in Christopher Justellus's Library rhe Canon is in Voel Biblioth Jur. Cano. Tom. 1. p. 284. SECT VI. Concil Constant 2. The Fifth General Conc. of 165 Bishops An. 553. BAronius and Binius both affirm that this was Bar. an 553. nu 224. a general Council and so approved by all Popes Predecessors and Successors of St. Gregory and St. Gregory himself Bin. To. 2. Not. in con Const 5. The cause was Pope Agapetus had condemned Anthinius the matter was afterwards ventilated in the Council Now where was the Popes Supremacy we shall see immediately After Agapetus succeeded Vigilius When the Council condemned the Tria Capitula Pope Vigilius would defend them but how did he carry it in Faith or Fact Did the Council submit to his Judgment or Authority No such thing But quite contrary the Council condemned the tria capitula and ended The Pope for not consenting but opposing the Council is banished by the Emperor Justinian Then Vigilius submits and confirms the Sentence of the Council and so is released from Banishment This is enough out of both * Ibid. N. 223. Baronius and Binius The Sum is we condemn say they as is expressed in the very Text all that have defended the Tria Capitula but Vigilius say the Historians defended the Tria Capitula therefore was Vigilius the Pope condemned by this Council such Authority they gave him SECT VII Concil Constant of 289 Bishops 6 General An. 681 vel 685. Concil Nic. 7 General of 350 Bishops An. 781. BEllarmine acknowledgeth these to be sixth and seventh general Councils and both these he acknowledgeth did condemn Pope Honorius for an Heretick lib. 4. de Pont. C. 11. For Bellarmine to urge that these Councils were deceived in their Judgment touching his opinion is not to the point we are not disputing now whether a Pope may be a Heretick in a private or publick Capacity in which the Councils now condemned him though he seems to be a bold man to prefer his own bare conjecture a thousand years after about a matter of Fact before the judgment of two general Councils consisting of 659 Bishops when the cause was fresh Witnesses living and all circumstances visibly before their eyes But our question is whether these Councils did either give to the Pope as such or acknowledged in him an uncontroulable Authority over the whole Church The Answer is short they took that power to themselves and condemned the Pope for Heresie as they also did Sergius of Constantinople SECT VIII Concil Gen. 8. Constant 383 Bishops An. 870. Conclusions from them all HOw did this eighth general Council recognize the Popes Supremacy Binius himself Tom. 3. p. 149. tells us this Council condemned a custom of the Sabbath-Fast in Lent and the practice of it in the Church of Rome and the word is We will that the Canon be observed in the Church of Rome inconfuse vires habet 'T is boldly determined against the Mother Church Rome concerned reproved commanded Where is the Authority of the Bishop of Rome Rome would be even with this Council and therefore saith Surius she receives not this 55 Canon Tom. 2. in conc Const 6. p. 1048. ad Can. 65 in Not. Bin. But why must this Canon only be rejected Oh! 't is not to be endured that 's all the reason we can have But was not this a general Council Is it not one of the eight sworn to by every Pope Is not this Canon of the same Authority as of the Council with all the rest Or is it tolerable to say 't is not Authentick because the Pope doth not receive it and he doth not receive it because it is against himself Quia Matrem Ecclesiarum omnium Rom. Ecclesiam reprehendit non recipitur saith Surius ibid. These are the eight first general Councils allowed by the Roman Church at this day What little exceptions they would defend their Supremacy with against all that hath appeared are answered in the Postscript at the latter end of the book whither I refer my Readers for fuller satisfaction In the mean time we cannot but conclude Conclus 7 Infer 1. That the Fathers during eight hundred and seventy years after Christ knew no such thing as the Popes Supremacy by divine

Successoribus Committebat lib. 2. de Sacerdotio Answ 'T is granted Peter had his Successors in time and place and that 's all the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be rendred those which followed him will conclude However admit the Bishop of Rome did succeed Saint Peter in his care as the word is doth it follow that he succeeded him in his Primacy which hath appeared not capable of Succession Application of Sect. 1. Therefore I conclude that whatsoever Inference Primacy the Bishop of Rome obtained in the Ancient Church it was not the Primacy of Saint Peter or as he was Successor of Saint Peter in his Primacy but he obtained it upon other Grounds not those Antecedent in Saint Peter but such as arose afterwards and were peculiar to the Church of Rome A Note as easie to be observed by such as look into the practice of the Ancient Church as of great caution and use in this Controversie The Grounds are known to be such as these because Rome was the Imperial City because the Church of Rome was then most Famous for the Christian Faith because she was the most noted Seat of true Tradition because her Bishops were most Eminent for Piety Learning and a charitable Care for other Churches and lastly perhaps because Saint Peter had been Bishop there his Memory might deflect some honour at least by way of motive on the Bishop of Rome as the Council of Sardica moveth if it please you let us honour the Memory of Saint Peter but though the Memory of Saint Peter might be used as an Argument of the Pope's Priority 't is far from concluding his inheriting Saint Peter's Primacy though he had honour by being his Successor 2. It further follows that the Primacy of Inference Primacy not Jure Divino that See heretofore was not Jure Divino but from the Civility of the World and the Curtesie of Princes and the Gratitude of the Church Indeed this Primacy was not an Office but an honour and that honour was not given by any Solemn Grant of God or Man but seems to have gained upon the World insensibly and by degrees till it became a Custom as the Council of Nice intimates Inference Not in succeeding Popes 3 Lastly it follows that this Primacy was not derived to the Succeeding Bishops of Rome it standing upon such temporary Grounds as too soon failed for when that which was the cause of it ceased no wonder if the honour was denied When the Faith of the See was turned to Infidelity and Blasphemy and Atheism and Sorcery as their own men say when their piety was turned into such villanies of pride Symony uncleaness and monstrous lewdness as themselves report when their care and vigilance was turned into Methods of wasting and destroying the Churches when the Exordium Vnitatis was turned into a Head of Schism and division no wonder that the Primacy and honour of the See of Rome which was raised and stood upon the contrary grounds was at length discovered to be groundless and the former primacy which stood on Courtesie and was exalted by an usurped Supremacy and Tyranny was thrown off by us and our ancient liberty is Repossessed and the Glory of Rome is so far departed SECT II. Whether the Pope be Supreme as Successor of Peter by Divine Right Neg. Not Primate as such Peter himself not Supreme Pope not Succed him at all THis is the last Refuge and the meaning of it is that our Saviour made St. Peter Vniversal Monarch of the whole Church and intended the Pope of Rome should succeed him in that power All possible defence herein hath been prevented For if the Bishop of Rome did not succeed him in his Primacy how should he succeed him in his Supremacy Again if St. Peter had no such Supremacy as hath appeared how should the Pope receive it as his Successor Besides what ever power St. Peter had it doth no way appear that the Pope should succeed him in it much less in our Saviours Intention or by Divine Right However let us try their colours Will they maintain it that Christ appointed the Bishops of Rome to succeed St. Peter in so great a power The Claim is considerable the whole World in all Ages is concerned none could give this priviledge of Succession but the giver of the power But where did he do it Where or how when or by whom was it expressed Should not the Grant of so great an Empire wherein all are so highly concern'd especially when it is disputed and pretended be produced Instead of plain proof we are put off with obscure and vanishing Shadows such as follow SECT III. Arg. 1. Peter Assigned it Arg. 1 INstead of proving that Christ did they say that St. Peter when he died bestowed the Supremacy upon the Bishops of Rome in words to this effect as Hart expresseth them I Ordain this Clement to be your Bishop unto whom alone I commit the Chair of my Preaching and Doctrine And I give to him that power of binding and loosing which Christ gave to me Ans And what then I Ordain then he had it not as Peters Successor by Divine Right but as a Gift and Legacy of St. Peter 2. This Clement a foul blot to the Story For it 's plain in Records that Linus continued Bishop eleven years after Peter's death and Cletus twelve after Linus before Clemens had the Chair Your Bishop Euseb in Chron. that is the Bishop of Rome what 's this to the Vniversal Bishop And I give to him what the Chair of Preaching and Doctrine and the power of the Keys viz. no more than is given to every Bishop at his Ordination Now 't is observable though this pitiful Story signifie just nothing yet what strange Arts and stretches Vid. Raynolds and Hart. p. 269 c. of invention are forced to support it and to render it possible though all in vain SECT IV. Arg. 2. Bishop of Antioch did not Succeed Ergo of Rome Arg. 2 BEllarmine argues more subtilly yet supposeth more strongly than he argues Pontifex Romanus the High-Priest of Rome succeeded St. Peter dying at Rome in his whole dignity and power for there was never any that affirmed himself to be St. Peter's Successor any way or was accounted for such besides the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Antioch But the Bishop of Antioch did not succeed St. Peter in pontificatu Ecclesiae totius therefore the Bishop of Rome did Ans He supposeth that St. Peter's Successor succeeded him in all his dignity and power but 't is acknowledged by his friends there was no Succession of the Apostolick but only of the Episcopal power 2. If so then Linus Cletus and Clemens should have had dignity and power over John and the other Apostles who lived after St. Peter as their Pastor and Head according to their own way of Arguing 3. Besides St. St. PETER He was crucified at Rome with his head downwards and Buried

inter Epist illust person 147. And it is decreed saith the Church of Carthage we consult our Brethren Syricius Bishop of Rome and Simplicius Bishop of Milain Concil Carth. 3. c. 48. The like we have observed out of Origen Clemens Alex. Cyprian c. before Hence it follows that the Church and the Fathers before the Councils had no knowledge of the Popes Supremacy and we have a plain answer to all obscure passages in those Fathers to the contrary Besides whatever private opinion any of them might seem to intimate on the Popes behalf before 't is certain it can have no Authority against the sence and sentences of General Councils which soon after determined against him as hath appeared in every one of them in so express and indisputable terms in the very body of the Canons that it is beyond all possible hopes to support their cause from any circumstantial Arguments touching those Councils Yet these also shall now be considered in their order SECT II. Objections touching the Council of Nice answered LEt us begin with the Council of Nice consisting of 318 Bishops which is found so 1. General plain in two special Canons the one forbidding Appeals and the other limiting the Jurisdiction of the Provinces according to Custom against the Papal Supremacy that one would think nothing could be objected But Bellarmine will say something that was never said before Obj. 1 He saith the Bishop of Alexandria should have those Provinces because the Bishop of Rome was accustomed to permit him so to do Ans We have given full answer to this before but a learned Prelate of ours hath rendred it so senceless and shameless a gloss in so many and evident Morton grand impost p. 132 c. instances that I cannot forbear to give the sum of what he hath said that it may further appear our greatest Adversaries are out of their Wits when they pretend a fence against the Canons After the non-sence of it he shews its impudence against the Sun-shine Light of Story and Grammer because it is so evident that the words because the Bishop of Rome hath the same Custom are words of Comparison betwixt Alexandria and Rome in point of ancient Priviledge both from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and three Editions now entred into the body of the Councils by their own Binius wherein the words are because the Church of Rome hath the like Custom Yet this were modesty Did they not know saith he that the Council of Calcedon did against the Will of the Pope advance the priviledge of Constantinople upon this ground of Custom The matter is so plain that their own Cardinal Cusan concord Catho li. 2. cap. 12. concludes thus We see how much the Bishop of Rome by use and custom of Subjectional Obedience hath got at this day beyond the ancient Constitutions speaking of this very Council Obj. 2 Bellarmine saith the beginning of that Canon in the vulgar Books is thus The Roman Church semper habet primatum mos autem perduret Ans The answer is 't is shameful to prefer one vulgar Book before all other Greek or Latine Copies and before the Book of the Pope's decrees set out at Paris an 1559. or the Editions sent by two Patriarchs on purpose to give satisfaction in this Cause which Bellarmine himself acknowledgeth lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 13. In none of all which the word Primacy is to be found and consequently is foisted into that vulgar book But what if it were the bare Primacy is not disputed in the sence given of it by the Council of Calcedon It behoves that the Arch-Bishop of Const new Rome be dignified with the same Primacy of Honour after Rome Prerogativam dignitatis Zozom l. 7. c. 9. SECT III. 2. Gen. Council Objections touching the Council of Constantinople Answered NExt to the Council of Constantinople being 2. General the second General let us hear what is objected Obj. 1 They say themselves saith Bellarmine that they were gathered by the mandate of Pope Damasus Ans 1. What then suppose we should give the Pope as the Head of Vnity and order the honour of convening General Councils and of sitting as President in them What 's this to the Supremacy of Government or what more than might be contained in the Primacy that is not now disputed 2. But Bellarmine himself confesseth that those words are not in the Epistle of the Council as all Mandates use to be but of certain Bishops that had been at the Council 3. 'T is recorded that the Mandate from the Vid. Theod. l. 5. c. 7. Zoz l. 7. c. 7. Neeeph l. 12. Emperor gathered them together the Testimony will have credit before the Cardinal 4. Indeed the Pope sent Letters in order to the calling this Council but far from Mandatory neither were they sent to the Eastern Bishops to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 require but to the Emperor Theodosius by way of Request for the obtaining Liberty to assemble a Synod Did he command the Emperor why did not Pope Leo afterwards command a general Council in Italy nearer home when he had intreated Theodosius for it with much importunity and could not obtain the time was not ripe for the Pope's Commands either of Emperors or Synods Obj. 2 It is also said that the Council acknowledged that the Church of Rome was the Head and they the Members in their very Epistle to Pope Damasus Ans Bellarmine confesseth this is not in their Epistle but the Epistles of the Bishops as before 2. If they had thus complemented the Pope it could not be interpreted beyond the Head of a Primate and their union with him in the same Faith 'T is evident enough they intended nothing less than a Supremacy of Power in that Head or subjection of Obedience in themselves as Members 3. This is evident in the very inscription of the Epistle which was not to Damasus only but joyntly to others thus Most Honourable and Reverend Brethren and Colleagues And the Epistle it self is answerable We declare our selves to be your proper Members but how That you Reigning we may Reign with you 4. The Sum is there were at this time two Councils convened by the same Emperor Theodosius both to one purpose this at Constantinople the other at Rome That at Rome was but a particular the other at Constantinople was ever esteemed a general Council Who now can imagine that the General was subject to the Particular and in that sence Members No the particular Church of Rome then was not the Catholick they humbly express their Communion We are all Christs who is not divided by us by whose grace we will preserve entire the body of the Church They did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as their word was their fellow Members which they stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their fellow Workers Obj. 3 This second Canon against the Pope was never received by the Church of Rome because Baron Binius

Furtivè as Baronius inter Actarelatus Ans This is beyond all colour for the Bishops of Rome opposed it as unfit yet never said it was forged Leo Gelasius Gregory all took it very ill but no one said it was false The Popes Legates also in the Council of Calcedon made mention of this Canon by way of Opposition but yet never offered at its being surreptitious But that which is instar omnium in this Evidence is this the Fathers of the Council of Calcedon in their Letters to Pope Leo say that with mutual consent they confirmed the Canon of 150 Bishops at Const notwithstanding that his Bishops and Legates did dissent therefrom Now what if a few Histories do not mention this Canon which is all that remains to be said Socrates and Zozomon do and two positive Witnesses are better than twenty Negative Besides though it s much against the Hair of Rome yet it 's so evident that Gratian himself reports that Canon verbatim as Acted in that Council SECT IV. Objections against the Third General Council at Ephesus answered Obj. 1 IT is said by Bellarmine that they confessed they deposed Nestorius by the Command of Pope Celestine Ans 1 We answer that Command should appear in the Popes Letters to them but it doth not the stile of Command was not then in use for almost 200 years after Pope Gregory abhors it Li 7. Ep. 30. 2. The words intended are these tum Ecclesiae canonibus tum Epistolà Patris Celestini Verb. Conc. de Nest l. 1. c. 4. Collegae nostri compulsi They were compelled both by the Canons and by his Letters therefore they did it by the Popes Command an excellent consequence from the part to the whole Indeed they first shew that they were satisfied both by his Words and Letters that he had deserved deposition and then acknowledge they ought by the Canons and no doubt would have deposed him as well as John of Antioch shortly after without the Popes Authority though they give this Complement to Celestine for his seasonable advice grounded upon the Canons and merits of the Cause Obj. 2 But the Council say they durst not Judge John Bishop of Antioch and that they reserved him to the Judgment of Pope Celestine Ans Strange Bellarmine hence 1. Denies matter of Fact mentioned in the very same Paragraph They durst not depose this Patriarch when they tell the Pope in terminis they had done it Se illum prius excommunicasse omni potestate sacerdotali exuisse What is this but Deposition 2. He hence concludes a wonderful Right that the Pope is absolutely above a General Council a conclusion denied by their own general Councils of Constance and Basil ever disclaimed by the Doctors of Paris as contrary to Antiquity and which no Council since the beginning of Christianity did expresly decree as Dr. Stapleton himself confesseth and therefore flies to Silence as consent Quamvis nullo decreto publico tamen tacito doctorum consensu definita c. doctr princ l. 13. c. 15. But all this is evidently against both the sence of the Council declared in this point and the reason of the Canon it self 1. They sufficiently declared their sence in the very Epistle alledged where speaking of the points constituted by the Pope We say they have judged them to stand firm wherofore we agree with you in one sentence and do hold them meaning Pelagius and others to be deposed So that instead of the Popes confirming Acts of Councils this Council confirms the Acts of the Pope whom indeed they plainly call their Colleague and Fellow-worker Epis Syn. 2. In the Acts or Canons their reason and very words establishing the Cyprian Priviledge as hath been shewn they bound and determine the power of Rome as well as other Patriarchates and certainly they therefore never intended to acknowledge the absolute Monarchy of the Pope over themselves by reserving John of Antioch to Celestine after they had deposed him they declare their own end plainly enough Vt illius temeritatem animi lenitate vinceremus that is as you have it in Binius Celestine might try whether by any reason he could bring him to a better mind that so he might be received into favour again SECT V. Objections touching the Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth General Councils especially Touching the Fourth General Council of Calcedon answered Conclusion Obj. 1 THis Council stiled the Pope Oecumenical Patriarch or Vniversal Bishop The Title was not given by the Council it self Bellar. but by two Deacons writing to the Council and of Paschasius the Popes Legate in the Council 2. Though the Council did not question the form of the Title yet no one can think that they either intended to grant or acknowledge the Popes Vniversal Authority by such their silence For 't is incredible that the same Council which gave equal Priviledges to Constantinople should give or acknowledge an Vniversal Jurisdiction to Rome over the whole Church 3. But the words answer themselves Vniversali Archiepiscopo magnae Romae Universal Arch. Bishop Conc. Calc Act. 3. not of the whole Church but of Great Rome Which grand Restriction denies that Universal Power which they would argue from it The stile of the Roman Emperor is Vniversal Emperor of Rome and thus is distinguished from the Emperor of Turky and all others and denieth him to be the Emperor of the whole world Obj. Saith Binius in Annot. in Conc. Calced Act 3. ex Baron The Title at first was the Bishop of the Vniversal Church because it is so read in the Epistle of Leo but was altered by some Greek Scribe in envy to the Church of Rome Ans 'T is likely that a private man could or durst alter the Stile of a General Council against the dignity of the Pope his Legate present but 't is more likely that some Latine Scribe hath added that Inscription to the Epistle of Pope Leo in honour of the Church of Rome as is confessed by Cusanus to have been done to the Epistle of Anacletus and by Baronius to have been done to the Epistle of Pope Boniface and by three other Popes themselves unto the Council of Nice viz. Zosimus Boniface and Celestinus And the rather because as was just now noted this Council at the same time honoured the Bishop of Constantinople with equal Priviledges to the Bishop of Rome Obj. 3 Pope Leo opposed this Decree of the Council and disclaimed it Ans No wonder but it seems General Councils were not always of the Popes mind and the Pope would then have had a greater Priviledge than a General Council and if that was a General Council as they themselves say it was the Controversie is ended For by their own confession this General Council made a Decree against the Popes pretences of Superiority and therefore it did not intend by the Title of Bishop of the whole Church to acknowledge that Superiority which he pretended and that Council of

differ with a particular Church in Doctrine wherein She departs from the Catholick Faith but here we must take care not only of Schism but Damnation it self as Athanasius warns us Every one should therefore endeavour to satisfie himself in this great Question What is Truth or the true Catholick Faith To say presently that it is the Doctrine of the Roman Church is to beg a very great Question that cannot easily be given I should think Athanasius is more in the right when he saith this is the Catholick Faith c. in my opinion they must stretch mightily that can believe that the Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved and therefore which every man ought to understand takes in all the Doctrines of the Council of Trent Till the contrary be made evident I shall affirm after many great and learned men that he that believes the Scriptures in general and as they are interpreted by rhe Fathers of the Primitive Church the three known Creeds and the four first general Councils and knows and declares himself prepared to receive any further Truth that he yet knows not when made appear to be so from Reason Scripture or Just Tradition cannot justly be charged with Schism from the Catholick Faith Methinks those that glory in the Old Religion should be of this mind and indeed in all reason they ought to be so unless they can shew an Older and better means of knowing the Catholick Faith than this what is controverted about it we shall find hereafter in its due place In the mean time give me leave to Note that our more Learned and Moderate Adversaries do acquit such a man or Church both from Heresie and Schism and indeed come a great deal nearer to us in putting the issue of the Controversie very fairly upon this unquestionable Point They who first Separated themselves Mr. Knot in sid unm c. 7. s 112. p. 534. from the Primitive pure Church and brought in Corruptions in Faith Practise Lyturgy and use of Sacraments may truly be said to have been Hereticks by departing from the pure Faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the external Communion of the true uncorrupted Church 2. Object Worship A second band of external Communion is 2. Worship Publick Worship in which Separation from the Church is notorious But here Publick Worship must be understood only so far as it is a bond of Communion and no farther otherwise there is no breach of Communion though there be difference in Worship and consequently no Schism This will appear more plainly if we distinguish of Worship in its Essentials or Substantials and its Modes Circumstances Rites and Ceremonies 'T is well argued by the Bishop of Calcedon that none may Separate from the Catholick Church or indeed from any particular in the Essentials or Substantial Parts of Worship for these are God's ordinary means of conveying his Grace for our Salvation and by these the whole Church is knit together as Christ's visible body for Divine Worship But what are these Essentials of Worship Surely nothing else but the Divine Ordinances whether moral or positive as abstracted from all particular Modes not determined in the Word of God Such as Prayer the reading the Holy Canon interpreting the same and the Sacraments therefore that Church that worships God in these Essentials of Worship cannot be charged in this particular with Schism or dividing from the Catholick Church And as for the Modes and particular Rites of Worship until one Publick Liturgy and Rubrick be produced and proved to be the Rule of the Catholick Church if not imposed by it there is no such bond of Union in the Circumstantial Worship in the Catholick Church and consequently no Schism in this respect Much less may one particular Church claim from another par in parem non habet imperium exact Communion in all Rites and Ceremonies or for want thereof to cry out presently Schism Schism Indeed our Roman Adversaries do directly and plainly assert that about Rites and Ceremonies the guilt of Schism is not concerned and that particular Churches may differ from one another therein without breach of Communion Though for a Member of a particular Church to forsake the Communion of his own Church in the Essentials of Worship meerly out of dislike of some particular innocent Rites seems to deserve a greater Censure But the Roman Recusants in England have a greater difficulty upon them to excuse their total Separation from us in the Substantials of our Worship at which they can pretend to take no offence and wherein they held actual Communion with us many years together at the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign against the Law of Cohabitation observed in the Scripture where a City and a Church were commensurate contrary to the Order as one well observés which the Ancient Church took for preserving Vnity and excluding Schism by no means suffering such disobedience or division of the Members of any National Church where that Church did not divide it self from the Catholick And lastly contrary to the Common right of Government both of our Civil and Ecclesiastical Rulers and the Conscience of Laws both of Church and State But their pretence is Obedience to the Pope which leads us to consider the third great bond of Communion Government 3. Object Government Thirdly The last bond of Ecclesiastical external Government Communion is that of Government that is so far as it is lawful in it self and exerted in its Publick Laws This Government can have no influence from one National Church to another as such because so far they are equal par in parem but must be yielded by all Members of particular Churches whether National Provincial or truly Patriarchal to their proper Governours in all lawful things juridically required otherwise the guilt of Schism is contracted But for the Government of the Catholick we cannot find it wholly in any one particular Church without gross Vsurpation as is the plain sence of the Ancient Church indeed it is partly found in every Church it was at first diffused by our Vniversal Pastor and Common Lord into the hands of all the Apostles and for ought hath yet appeared still lies abroad among all the Pastors and Bishops of particular Churches under the power protection and assistance of Civil Authority Except when they are collected by just power and legal Rules into Synods or Councils whether Provincial National or General here indeed rests the weight of the Controversie but I doubt not it will at last be found to make its way against all contradiction from our Adversaries In the mean time we do conclude while we profess and yield all due obedience to our proper Pastors Bishops and Governours when there are no Councils sitting and to all free Councils wherein we are concerned lawfully convened we cannot be justly charged with Schism from the Government of the Catholick Church though we stiffly deny obedience to a Forreign Jurisdiction and will

not rebel against the Government that God hath placed immediatly over us This fair respect the Church of England holds to the Communion both of the Catholick and all particular Churches both in Doctrine Worship and Government and the main exception against her is that she denies obedience to a pretended Power in the See of Rome a Power not known as now claimed to the Ancient Church a Power when once foreseen warned against as Antichristian by a Pope himself and when usurped condemned by a General Council And lastly such a Power as those that claim it are not agreed about among themselves But the charge of Schism falls after another sort upon our Roman Adversaries who have disturbed the Vniversal and all particular Churches by manifest violation of all the three bonds of external Communion The Doctrine and Faith by adding to the Canon of the Scripture Apocriphal Books by adding to the revealed will of God groundless Traditions by making new Creeds without the Consent of the present and against the Doctrine and practice of the Ancient Churches and as for Worship how have they not corrupted it by Substraction taking away one essential part of a Divine Ordinance the Cup from the Laity c. by additions infinite to the Material and Ceremonial Parts of Worship and by horrid Alterations of the pure and Primitive Worship to childish Superstitions and some say dangerous Idolatry Lastly As to Government they have plainly separated themselves both from the Ancient and present Catholick Church and all other particular Churches by usurping a Dominion condemned by the Ancient and that cannot be owned without betraying the Liberty of the present Church By exerting this Usurpation in unlawful and unreasonable Conditions of Communion and as it is said by Excommunicating for Non-obedience to these Impositions not only the Church of England but three Parts of the Christian World The proof on both sides we are to expect in due place SECT IV. The Conditions of Schism Causless Voluntary THe fourth and last thing considerable in the Definition is the Condition which Condition adds the guilt and formality of Schism to Separation which is twofold it must be Causeless and Voluntary 1. It must be voluntary Separation or denial of Communion but of this I shall say nothing Voluntary a greater man received a check from his Romish Adversaries for the proof of it saying who knows not that every sin is voluntary S. W Causless 2. It must be causless or as it is usually expressed without sufficient cause 't is a Rule generally allowed that the Cause makes the Schism i. e. if the Church give cause of Separation there is the Schism if not the cause of Schism is in the Separatist and consequently where the cause is found there the charge of Schism resteth I know 't is said that there cannot be sufficient cause of Separation from the true Church and therefore this Condition is needless but they ever mean by the true Church the Catholick Church 'T is granted the Catholick Church cannot be supposed to give such cause she being the ordinary Pillar of Truth wherein the means of Salvation can be only found therefore we rarely meet with any such condition in the Definitions of Schism given by the Fathers of the Ancient Church because they had to deal with Schisms of that kind that separated from the whole Church But hence to infer that we cannot have just canse to separate from the Church of Rome will be found bad Logick However if we could grant this Condition to be needless it cannot be denied to be true and the lawfulness of Separation for just cause is an eternal verity and if the cause be supposed Just cannot be said to be unjust seeing there cannot be supposed a sufficient cause of Sin the Act is justified while it is condemned Besides it is not questioned by our Adversaries but there may be sufficient cause of separation from a particular Church then if at last we find that the Church of Rome is no more there is more than reason to admit this Condition in the present Controversie But the Cause must not be pretended to effect beyond its influence or Sufficiency Therefore none may be allowed to deny Communion with a Church farther than he hath cause for beyond its Activity that which is said to be a cause is no cause Hence we admit the distinction of partial and total separation and that known Rule that we may not totally separate from a true Church and only so far as we cannot communicate without sin The Reason is evident because the truth and very being of a Christian Church implieth something wherein every Christian Church in the very Foundation and being of it hath an agreement both of Union and Communion Far be it from us therefore to deny all kind of Communion with any Christian Church yea we franckly and openly declare that we still retain Communion out of fraternal charity with the Church of Rome so far as she is a true Church Only protesting against her Vsurpations and reforming our selves from those corruptions of Faith and Worship of which Rome is too fond and consequently the more guilty SECT V. The Application of Schism Not to our Church IF this definition of Schism be not applicable to the Church of England she is unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism If the Church of England doth not voluntarily divide in or from the Catholick Church or any particular Church either by separation from or denying Communion with it much less by setting another Altar against it without sufficient cause then the definition of Schism is not applicable to the Church of England But she hath not thus divided whether we respect the Act or the Cause With respect to the Act viz. Division We 1. In the Act. argue if the Church of England be the same for Substance since the Reformation that it was before then by the Reformation we have made no such Division for we have divided from no other Church further than we have from our own as it was before the Reformation as our Adversaries grant And therefore if we are now the same Church as to Substance that we were before we hold the same Communion for substance or essentials with every other Church now that we did before But for Substance we have the same Faith the same Worship the same Government now that we had before the Reformation and indeed from our first Conversion to Christianity Indeed the Modern Romanists have made new Essentials in the Christian Religion and determine their Additions to be such But so Weeds are of the essence of a Garden and Botches of the essence of a Man We have the same Creed to a word and in the same sence by which all the Primitive Fathers were saved which they held to be so sufficient that in a general Council they did forbid Con. Ept. p. 2. Act. 6. c. 7. all persons under pain of

so prodigiously lets flie against the Stile of Vniversal Bishop yet all this is said and must be maintained lest we should exclude the Vniversal Pastorship out of the Primitive Church There is a great deal of pitiful stuff used by the Romanist upon this Argument with which I shall not trouble the Reader yet nothing shall be omitted that hath any shew of Argument on their Side among which the words of Saint Gregory following in his Argument are most material Object Saint Gregory saith the care of the whole Church was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles Saint Peter and yet he is not called the Vniversal Bishop Sol. 'T is confessed that Saint Gregory doth say that the care of the whole is committed to Saint Peter again that he was the Prince of the Apostles and yet he was not called Vniversal Apostle 't is hence plain that his being Prince of the Apostles did not carry in it so much as Vniversal Bishop otherwise Saint Gregory would not have given the one and denied him the other and 't is as plain that he had the care of all Churches and so had Saint Paul but 't is not plain that he had Power over all Churches Doctor Hammond proceeds irrisistibly to prove the contrary from Saint Gregory himself in the Novels if any Complaint be made saith he against a Bishop the Cause shall be judged before the Metropolitane Secundum Regulas Ex Reg. lib. 11. Ep. 54. Sanctas Nostras Leges if the Party stand not to his Judgment the Cause is to be brought to the Arch-Bishop or Patriarch of that Diocess and he shall give it a Conclusion according to the Canons and Laws aforesaid no place left for Appeal to Rome Object Yet it must be acknowledged Saint Gregory adds si dictum fuerit c. where there is no Metropolitane nor Patriarch the Cause may be heard by the ApostolickSee which Gregory calls the Head of all Churches Sol. Now if this be allowed what hath the Pope gained if perhaps such a Church should be found as hath neither Primate nor Patriarch how is he the nearer to the Vniversal Authority over those Churches that have Primates of their own or which way will he by this means extend his Jurisdiction to us in England who have ever had more than one Metropolitane the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was once acknowledged by a Pope to be Alterius Orbis Apostolicus Patriarch But admitting this extraordinary Case that where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch there they are to have recourse to the See Apostolick 't is a greater wonder that the Romanist should insist upon it then that his late Grace should mention it at which A. C. so much admires for this one observation with the assistance of that known Rule in Law exceptio confirmat Regulam in non exceptis puts a plain and speedy end to the whole Controversie for if recourse may be had to Rome from no other place but where there is neither Primate nor Patriarcb then not from England either when Saint Gregory laid down the Rule or ever since and perhaps then from no other place in the World and indeed provision was thus made against any such extraordinary Case that might possibly happen for it is but reason that where there is no Primate to appeal to appeal should be received somewhere else and where better than at Rome which Saint Gregory calls Caput omnium Ecclesiarum and this is the utmost advantage the Romanist can hope to receive from the Words Object But we see Saint Gregory calls Rome the Head of all Churches Sol. 'T is true whether he intends a Primacy of Fame or visible Splendor and Dignity being the Seat of the Emperor or Order and Vnity is not certain but 't is certain he intends nothing less by it than that which just now he denied a Supremacy of Power and Vniversal ordinary Jurisdiction he having in the words immediately sore-going concluded all ordinary Jurisdiction within every proper Primacy or Patriarchate Object But saith S. W. Saint Gregory practised the thing though he denied the Word of Vniversal Sol. What Hypocrisie damn the Title as he doth and yet practise the thing you must have good proof His first Instance is of the Primate of Byzacene wherein the Emperor first put forth his Authority and would have him judged by Gregory Piissimus Imperator eum per nos voluit Vid. Ep. 65. l. 7. judicari saith Gregory Hence as Doctor Hammond smartly and soundly observes that Appeals from a Primate lie to none but the Supreme Magistrate To which purpose in the Cause of Maximus Bishop of Solana decreed excommunicate Ep. l. 3. Ep. 20. by Gregory his Sentence was still with this reserve and submission nisi prius unless I should first understand by my most Serene Lords the Emperors that they commanded it to be done Thus if this perfect instance as S. W. calls it have any force in it his Cause is gone what ever advantage he pretends to gain by it Besides the Emperors Command was that Gregory should judge him juxta Statuta Canonica and Gregory himself pleads quicquid esset Canonicum Judicaremus Thus S. W's Cause is killed twice by his own perfect instance for if Saint Gregory took the Judgment upon him in obedience to the Emperor and did proceed and was to proceed in judging according to the Canons where was then the Vniversal Monarchy Yet it is confessed by Dr. Hammond which is a full answer to all the other not so perfect instances that in case of injury done to any by a Primate or Patriarch there being no lawful Superior who had power over him the injured person sometimes made his complaint to the Pope as being the most Eminent Person in the Church and in such case he questionless might and ought in all fraternal Charity admo nish the Primate or Patriarch or disclaim Communion with him unless he reform But it ought to be shewn that Gregory did formally excommunicate any such Primate or Patriarch or juridically and authoritively act in any such Cause without the express license of the Emperor which not being done his instances are answered besides Saint Gregory always pleads the Ancient Canons which is far from any claim of Vniversal Pastorship by Divine Right or Donation of Christ to Saint Peter I appeal saith Doctor Hammond to S. W. whether that were the Interpretation of secundum Canones and yet he knows that no other Tenure but that will stand him in stead Indeed the unhappiness is as the Doctor observes that such Acts at first but necessary Vid. dispat disp p. 408. to p 423. fraternal charity were by ambitious men drawn into example and means of assuming power of Vniversal Pastorship which yet cannot be more vehemently prejudiced by any thing than by those Ancient examples which being rightly considered pretend no higer than Ecclesiastical Canons and the Universal Laws of Charity but never made

claim to any Supremacy of power over all Bishops by Divine Institution It yet appears not that Saint Gregory practised the thing but to avoid Arrogance disclaims the name of Vniversal Bishop A. C. against my Lord of Canterbury goes another way to work he grants the Title and also the thing signified by it to be both renounced by Saint Gregory but distinguishes of the Term Vniversal Bishop into Grammatical to the exclusion of all other Bishops from being properly Bishops and Metaphorical whereby the Bishops are secured as such in their respective Diocesses yet all of them under the Jurisdiction of the Vniversal Bishop viz. of Rome Sol. This distinction Doctor Stillingfleet destroys not more elaborately than fully and perfectly shewing that 1. 't is impossible Saint Gregory should understand the Term of Vniversal Bishop Lib. 4. Ep. 32. in that strict Grammatical Sense for the reason why this Title was refused was because it seemed to diminish the honour of other Bishops when it was offered the Bishops of Rome in a Council of six hundred and thirty Bishops who cannot be imagined to divest themselves by their kindness of their very Office though they hazarded somewhat of their honour Can we think the Council that gave the same Title to John intended thus to depose themselves how comes it to pass that none of John's or Ciriacus's Successors did ever challenge this Title in that literal sence if so it was understood But to wave many things impertinent 't is evident Saint Gregory understood the Title Metaphorically from the reasons he gives against it which also equally serve to prove against S. W. that it was not so much the Title as the Authority of an Vniversal Bishop which he so much opposed He argueth thus to John the Patriarch What wilt thou answer to Christ the Head of the Vniversal Lib. 4. Ep. 38. Church in the day of Judgment who doest endeavour to subject all his Members to thee under the name of Vniversal Bishop Again doth he not arise to the height of Singularity Ibid. that he is Subject to none but Rules over all and can you have a more perfect description of the present Pope than is here given or is it the Title or the Power that makes him Subject to none that Rules over all Again he imitates the pride of Lucifer endeavouring Ibid. to be Head not sure in Title but Power of the Church Triumphant as the Pope of the Church Militant Exalting his Throne Ibid. not his Name as Gregory adds above the Stars of God viz. the Bishops and the height of the Clouds Again Saint Peter was the first Member of the Church Paul Andrew and John what are they else but Heads of particular Churches and yet they are all Members of the Church under one Head i. e. Christ as before he had said we see he allows not Peter himself to be Head of the Church None that was truly Holy was ever called by that name of Vniversal Bishop which he makes to be the same with the head of the Church But Lastly suppose St. Gregory did mean that this Title in its strict grammatical sence was to be abhorred and not as Metaphorically taken What hath the Pope gained who at this day bears that Title in the highest and strictest sence imaginable as the Dr. proves and indeed needs no proof being evident of it self and to the observation of the whole world Thus all the hard words of St. Gregory uttered so long agon against such as admitted or desired that Title unavoidably fall upon the Modern Roman Bishops that take upon them to be the sole Pastors of the Church and say that they are Oecumenical Bishops and that all Jurisdiction is derived from them They are Lucifers and Princes of Pride using a vain new rash foolish proud profane erroneous wicked hypocritical singular presumptuous blasphemous Name as that holy Pope inveighed against it Moreover as he also adds they transgress Gods Laws violate the Canons dishonour the Church despise their Brethren and cause Schism Istud nomen facere L. 6. ep 30 31. in dissessionem Ecclesiae Obj. But it is said that Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches all at once Therefore saith A. C. the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bishops and by consequence over the whole Church And this appears in that Irenaus in the name of the Gallican Bishops writes to Victor not to proceed so rashly in this Action as appears in Eusebius Sol. 1. We answer that those Bishops among whom Irenoeus was one did severely rebuke that Pope for offering to excommunicate those Asian Vid. Eus l 5. c. 24. Churches Therefore they did not believe him to be the Supreme Infallible Pastor of the whole Church 2. His Letters declaring that Excommunication Ibid. not pleasing all his own Bishops they countermanded him Surely not thinking him to be what Popes would now be esteemed 3. Hence Card. Perron is angry with Eusebius and calls him an Arrian and an enemy to the Church of Rome for hinting that though the Pope did declare them excommunicate yet it took no effect because other Bishops continued still in Communion with them 4. But the force of the whole Argument leans upon a plain mistake of the Ancient Discipline both in the Nature and the Root or Ground of it For the nature of Ancient Excommunication Mistake of the nature Root of Discipline especially when practised by one Church against another did not imply a Positive Act of Authority but a Negative Act of Charity or a declaring against the Communion of such with themselves And therefore was done by Equals to Equals and sometimes by Inferiors to Superiors In Equals thus Johannes Antiochenus in the Ephesine Council excommunicated Cyril Patriarch Vict. Tu. nu cro p. 10. of Alexandria and in Inferiors in the sence of our Roman Adversaries for the African Bishops excommunicated Pope Vigilius Hence also Acacius the Patriarch of Const expunged the Name of Foelix Bishop of Rome out of the Dipticks of the Church And Hilary anethamatized Pope Liberius therefore Victors declaring the Asian Churches to be excommunicate is no argument of his power over them 2. The Root or Ground of the ancient Discipline is also as plainly mistaken which was not Authority always but Care and Charity Care I say not only of themselves who used it but also of the Church that was censured and indeed of the whole Church 'T is here proper to consider that though Bishops had their peculiar Seats and Limits for their Jurisdictions yet they had all a charitive inspection and care of that universal Church and sometimes denominations accordingly Hence we deny not that the ancient Bishops of Rome deservedly gained the Title of Oecumenical Bishops a thing of so great moment in the Controversie that if well considered might advance very far towards the ending of it For so the Title hath been given to others as well as

conclude that whatever they thought of the Primacy of dignity they did not believe themselves or give occasion to others to believe that they had then the Jurisdiction of England much less of the whole World Indeed the Powers of Emperors over Popes Vid. King James's defence p. 50. was exercised severely and continued long in practice an 654. Constantius bound and banished Pope Martin an 963. Otho rejected Pope John 13. and made Leo 8. Pope and John 14. Gregory 5. and Sylvester 2. were made Popes by the Otho's an 1007. Hen. 2. deposed three Popes this practice is confessed till Gregory 7. and before An. 679. Popes submitted to Emperors by purchasing their Investitures of them by submissive terms and bowing the knee before them Platin. Baron Segeb. SECT VIII Nor the Words of the Imperial Law IF the Ancient Councils or practice or Popes themselves offered nothing to perswade our Ancestors to a belief of the Pope's Vniversal Power or Possession of England Certainly we may despair of finding any such thing in the Ancient Laws of the Church which are justly presumed to contain the Sense and Rule of all were all other Records of Antiquity silent saith our late Primate the Civil Law is proof enough for that 's a Monument of the Primitive Church and not only so it being the Imperial as well as Canon Law it gives us the reason and Law both of the Church and the whole World Now what saith the Law it first forbids the Title and then the Practice Primae sedis Apostolus the Patriarch or Bishop Cor. Jur. Can. de p● 1. dist 99. c. 3. Can. 4. of the first See is not to be called Prince of the Priests or Supreme Priest nor as the African Canon adds aliquid hujusmodi any other thing of that kind The practice of any such Power was expresly forbidden and not the proud Title only the very Text of the Law saith à Patriarcha non datur Appellatio from a Patriarch there lies no Appeal Cod. lib. 1. Tit. 4. l. 29. Auth. Collat. 9. Tit. 15. c. 22. And this we have found agreeable to the M●livetane Council where Saint Augustine was Can. 23. present forbidding under pain of Excommunication any Appeal to any Foreign Councils or Judicatures and this is again Consonant to the fifth Canon of Nice as that was to the thirty fourth Apostolick where the Primate in every Nation is to be accounted their Head Now what do our Adversaries say to this Indeed they seem to be put to it and though their Wits are very pregnant to deliver many Answers such as they be in most Cases they all seem to joyn in one poor slight Evasion here namely that the Laws concerning Appeals did only concern inferiour Clergy-men but Bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome even by the African Canon and acknowledged in that Councils Epistle to Pope Boniface Three bold Sayings first that the Law concerned not the Appeals of Bishops 2. The Council of Africa decreed Bishops Appeals to Rome 3. And acknowledged it in their Letter to Pope Boniface but are these things as truly as boldly said for the first which is their Comment whereby they would restrain the sense of the Laws to the exclusion of the Bishops we shall consider their ground for it and then propose our reason and the Law expresly against it and then their Reasons will need little answer Object They say the Law reacheth not the difference between Patriarchs themselves Sol. But if there should happen a difference betwixt a Patriarch and the Pope who shall decide that both these inconveniences are plainly solved by referring all such extraordinary difficulties to a General Council But why should the Law allow Forreign Appeals to Bishops and not to Priests Are all Bishops Patriarchs is not a Patriarch over his Bishops as well as a Bishop over his Priests may not the Gravamen of a Priest be given by his Bishop or the difference among Priests be as Caelestus necessity of Grace Milev Con. considerable to the Church sometimes as among Bishops or hath not the universal Pastor if the Pope be so power over and care of Priests as well as Bishops or can the Summum imperium receive limits from Canon or Law to say that Priests are forbidden to appeal but the Pope is not forbidden to receive their Appeals is plainly to cripple the Law and to make it yield to all the inconveniences of foreign appeals against its true end But what if this very Canon they pretend to allow Appeals from Bishops to Rome do expresly forbid that very thing it is brought to allow and it doth so undeniably as appears in Can. 28. the Authentick Collection of the African Canons non provocent adtransmarina Judicia sed ad primates suarum Provinciarum aut ad universale Concilium sicut de Episcopis saepe constitutum est The same thing had often been determined in the case of Bishops Obj. Perron and others say this clause was not in the ancient Milevetan Canons Sol. Have they nothing else but this groundless conceit to support their universal Pastorship against express Law for four hundred years after Christ Sure it behoved highly to produce a true Authentick Copy of those Canons wherein that clause is omitted which because they do not we conclude they cannot However it is manifest that the same thing against appeals of Bishops to Rome had been often determined by far greater Testimony than the bare assertion of Perron and his Partners viz. that general Council of Carthage An. D. 419. about three years after that Milevetan at the end of the first Session they reviewed the Canons of the seventeen lesser Councils which Justellus mentions and wherein no doubt that point had been often determined and out of them all composed that Codex canonum Ecclesiae Africanae with that clause inserted as appears both in the Greek and many ancient latine Copies and was so received and pleaded by the Council of Rhemes as Hincmarmus proves as well as others Gratius confesseth it but adds this Antidote Nifi forte Romanam Sedem appellaverit i. e. None shall appeal to Rome the main design of the Council except they do appeal to Rome not expounding the Canon but exposing himself and that excellent Council Obj. But A. C. urgeth the Epistle of that Council to Boniface as was before noted and thence proves that the Council acknowledged that Bishops had power in their own cause to appeal to Rome Sol. 'T is true they do say that in a Letter written a year before to Zosimus they had granted liberty to Bishops to appeal to Rome This is true but scarce honest the next words in the Letter spoil the Argument and the sport too for they further say that because the Pope contended that the appeals of Bishops were contained in the Nicene Canons they were contented to yield that it should be so till the true Canons were produced Now what can the Reader desire

declaratory Laws against it Thus we have seen how the Popes Possession of the formal branch of Jurisdiction by Appeals and Legates stood here from St. Austin to Hen. 8. and that it was quiet and uninterrupted for nine hundred together passeth away as a Vapour The Contrary being evident by as Authentick Testimonies as can be desired and now what can be imagined to enervate them Obj. If it be urged that it was once in the body of our Laws viz. In Magna Charta liceat unicuique de caetero exire de Regno nostro redire salvo securè per terram per aquam salva fide nostra nisi in tempore Guerrae per aliquod breve Tempus 't is confest Ans But here is no expression that plainly and in terms gives license of Appeals to Rome 'T is indeed said that it is lawful for any to go out of the Kingdom and to return safe But mark the Conditions following Nisi in c. 'T is likely these words were inserted in favour of Appeals but it may be the Authors were timerous to word it in a more plain contradiction to our ancient Liberties 2. The very form of words as they are would seem to intimate that the Custom of England was otherwise 3. Lastly If it be considered how soon after and with what unanimity and courage our ancient Liberty to the contrary was redeemed and vindicated and that clause left out of Magna Charta ever since though revised and confirmed by so many Kings and Parliaments successively it is only an argument of a sudden and violent torrent of Papal Power in King John's time c. not of any grounded or well settled Authority in the English Laws as our English Liberties have I Conclude with those weighty words of the Statute of Ed. 3. an 27. c. 1. Having regard to the said Statute made in the time of his said Grandfathers which Statute holdeth always in force which was never annulled or defeated in any point And for as much as he is bound by his Oath to do the same to be kept as the Law of the Realm though that by sufferance and negligence it hath been since attempted to the contrary Vid. Preamble of the Statute Whereupon it is well observed that Queen Acts Mon. Mary her self denyed Cardinal Pelow to appear as the Popes Legate in England in her time And caused all the Sea-ports to be stopped and all Letters Briefs and Bulls to be intercepted and brought to her CHAP. X. The Pope's Legislative Power in England before Hen. 8. No Canons of the Pope oblige us without our Consent our Kings Saxons Danes Normans made Laws Ecclesiastical WE have found possession of the Executive Power otherwise than was pretended we now come to consider how it stood with the Legislative the Pope indeed claimed a Power of making and imposing Canons upon this Church but Henry the Eighth denied him any such Power and prohibited any Canons whatsoever to be executed here without the King's Licence An. 25. 19. The question now is whether the Pope enjoyed that Power of making and imposing Canons effectually and quietly here from the time of Saint Augustine to Henry the Eighth or indeed any considerable time together and this would invite us to a greater Debate who was Supreme in the English Church the Pope or the King during that time or rather who had the exercise of the Supremacy for the Power of making Laws is the chief Flower or Branch of the Supremacy and he that freely and without interruption enjoyed this Power was doubtless in the Possession of the Supremacy That the Pope had it not so long and so quietly as is pleaded by some and that our Kings have generally enjoyed it will both together appear with evidence enough by the Particulars following 1. If none were to be taken for Pope but by the King 's Appointment Sure his Laws were not to be received but with the King's Allowance 2. If not so much as a Letter could be received from the Pope without the King's Knowledge who caused words prejudicial to the Crown to be renounced Sure neither his Laws Both the Antecedents we find in Eadm p. 626. p. 131. 1. 3. If no Canons could be made here without the King's Authority or being made could have any force but by the King's Allowance and Confirmation where was the Pope's Supremacy that Canons could not be made here without Convocations by Kings the King's Authority is evident because the Convocations themselves always were and ought to be Assembled by the King 's Writ Eadm p. 24. 5. 11. Besides the King caused some to sit therein to Supervise the Actions Legato ex parte Regis Regni inhiberent ne ibi contra Regiam Coronam dignitates aliquid statuere attentaret and when any did otherwise he was forced to retract what he had done as did Peckham or were in paucis Servatae as those of Boniface Math. Par. An. 1237. p. 447. 51. Lindwood c. 1. Glos 1. If Canons were made though the Popes Legate and consequently all his power was at Can. confir by Kings the making of them yet had they no force at all as Laws over us without the Kings allowance and confirmation The King having first heard what was decreed Consensum praebuit authoritate Regiâ potestate confirmavit Statuta concilii by his Kingly power he confirmed the Statutes of the Council of William Arch-Bishop of Cant. and the Legate of the holy Church celebrated at Westminster by the Assent of the King and primorum omnium Regni the Chapters subscribed were promulged Eadm p. 6. 29. Flor. Wigorn. an 1127. p. 505. Gervase an 1175. Col. 1429. 18. Twisden Concludes as for Councils it is certain none were here called from Rome till 1127. P. 19 20. If they did come to any as to Calcuith the King upon the advice of the Arch-Bishop Statuit diem appointed the day of the Council So when William the first held one at Winchester 1070. for deposing Stygand though there came to it three sent from Alexan. 2. Yet it was held Jubente presente Rege who was President of it wherein as before was noted the Popes Legate subscribed the sixteenth after all the English Bishops Vita Lanfranci c. 7. p. 7. Col. 1. d. All our Canons are therefore as they are justly Canons Kings Laws called the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws because no Canons have the power of Laws but such as he allows and confirms and whatsoever Canons he confirmed of old that had their original from a foreign power he allowed for the sake of their Piety or Equity or as a means of Communion with the Church from whence they came but his allowance or confirmation gave them all the Authority they had in England 'T is a point so plain in History that it is beyond Before Conquest question that during all the time from St. Gregory to the Conquest the Brittish Saxon and

Danish Kings without any dependance on the Pope did usually make Ecclesiastical Laws Witness the laws of Excombert Ina Withred Alfrede Edward Athelstan Edmond Edgar Athelred Canutus and Edward the Confessor among which Laws one makes it the Office of a King to Govern the Church as the Vicar of God Indeed at last the Pope was officiously kind and did bestow after a very formal way upon the last of those Kings Edward the Confessor a Priviledge which all his Predecessors had enjoyed as their own undoubted Right before viz. the Protection of all the Churches of England and power to him and his Successors the Kings of England for ever in his stead to make just Ecclesiastical Constitutions with the advice of their Bishops and Abbots But with thanks to his Holiness our Kings still continued their ancient custom which they had enjoyed from the beginning in the right of the Crown without respect to his curtesie in that matter After the Conquest our Norman Kings did also exercise the same Legislative power in Ecclesiastical After Conquest Causes over Ecclesiastical Persons from time to time with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Hence all those Statutes concerning Benefices Tythes Advowsons Lands given in Mortmain Prohibitions Consultations Praemunires quare impedits Priviledge of the Clergy Extortions of Ecclesiastical Courts or Officers Regulation of Fees Wages of Priests Mortuaries Sanctuaries Appropriations and in sum as Bishop Bramhall adds All things which did belong to the external subsistence Regiment and regulating of the Church and this in the Reigns of our best Norman Kings before the Reformation Arch Bishop Bramh. p. 73. But what Laws do we find of the Popes making in England or what English-Law hath he ever effectually abrogated 'T is true many of the Canons of the Church of Rome were here observed but before they became obliging or had the force of Laws the King had power in his great Council to receive them if they were judged convenient or if otherwise to reject them 'T is a notable instance that we have of this in Ed. 3. time When some Bishops proposed 20 Ed. 3. c. 9. in Parliament the reception of the Ecclesiastical Canon for the legitimation of Children born before Marriage all the Peers of the Realm stood up and cried out with one voice Nolumus leges Angliae mutari we will not have the Laws of England to be changed A clear evidence that the Popes Canons were not English Laws and that the Popish Bishops knew they could not be so without the Parliament Likewise the King and Parliament made a legislative exposition of the Canon of the Council of Lions concerning Bigamy which they would 4 Ed. 1. c. 5. not have done had they not thought they had power according to the fundamental Laws of England either to receive it or reject it These are plain and undeniable evidences that when Popery was at highest the Popes Supremacy in making Laws for the English Church was very ineffectual without the countenance of a greater and more powerful viz. the Supremacy of our own Kings Obj. Now admit that during some little space the Pope did impose and England did consent to the authority of his Canons as indeed the very Consent admitted rejecting of that authority intimates yet that is very short of the Possession of it without interruption for nine hundred years together the contrary being more than evident However this Consent was given either by By Permission Permission or Grant If only by Permission whether through Fear or Reverence or Convenience it signifies nothing when the King and Kingdom see cause to vindicate our ancient Liberties and resolve to endure it no longer If a Grant be pretended 't was either from Or by Grant the King alone or joyned with his Parliament If from the King alone he could grant it for his time only and the power of resuming any part of the prerogative granted away by the Predecessors accompanies the Crown of the Successor and fidelity to his Office and Kingdom obligeth him in Justice to retrieve and recover it I believe none will undertake to affirm that the Grant was made by the Law or the King with his Parliament Yet if this should be said and proved too it would argue very little to the purpose for this is to establish Iniquity by a Law The Kings Prerogative as Head of this Church lieth too deep in the very constitution of the Kingdom the foundation of our common Law and in the very Law of Nature and is no more at the will of the Parliament than the fundamental liberties of the Subject Lastly the same Power that makes can repeal a Law if the Authority of Papal Canons had been acknowledged and ratified by Parliament which cannot be said 't is most certain it was revoked and renounced by an equal Power viz. of Henry the Eighth and the whole Body of the Kingdom both Civil and Ecclesiastical It is the Resolution both of Reason and Law that no Prescription of time can be a bar to the Supreme Power but that for the Publick good it may revoke any Concessions Permissions or Priviledges thus it was declared in Parliament in Edward the Third his Reign when reciting the Statute of Edward the First they say the Statute holdeth alway his force and that the King is bound by Oath to cause the same to be kept and consequently if taken away to be restored to its Observation as the Law of the Land that is the Common Fundamental unalterable Law of the Land Besides the Case is most clear that when Henry the Eighth began his Reign the Laws asserting the Supreme Authority in Causes and over Persons Ecclesiastical were not altered or repealed and Henry the Eight used his Authority against Papal Incroachments and not against but according to the Statute as well as the Common Law of the Land witness all those Noble Laws of Provisors and praemunire which as my Lord Bramhall saith we may truly call 25 Ed. 1. 27 Ed. 3. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3 4. 7 Hen. 4. c. 6. the Palladium which preserved it from being swallowed up in that vast gulph of the Roman Court made by Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. CHAP. XI Of the Power of Licences c. here in Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Hen. 7. THough the Pope be denied the Legislative and Judiciary or Executive Power in England yet if he be allowed his Dispensatory Power that will have the effect of Laws and fully supersede or impede the Execution of Laws in Ecclesiastical Causes and upon Ecclesiastical Persons 'T is confest the Pope did usurp and exercise this strange Power after a wonderful manner in England before Henry the Eighth by his Licences Dispensations Impositions Faculties Grants Rescripts Delegacies and other such kind of Instruments as the Statute 25 Hen. 8. 21. mentions and that this Power was denied or taken from him by the same

but these obtained upon private persons and many times in methods not cognizable by Law neither were the people so apt to complain in such cases because they had something which they unaccountably valued for their money and the possession of a false opinion in the Vulgar as Juglers and Cheats may equally glory in can never be soberly interpreted to be a good and sufficient Title to the Supremacy of the Church of England Yet it is not amiss to remember that the Popes Messenger Jo. Opizanus for acting against the Kings Laws in getting mony for his Master was cast into Prison as we find it Vit. Hen. Chich. p. 86. Neither can we reasonably imagine but that much of that vast Sum was gathered by those ways which in the Reign of Hen. 3. the Lords and Commons complain of viz. that above four hundred thousand pounds yearly was carried hence into Italy It was some disturbance of such kind of Receipts that the Law forbids any such Bulls to be Stat. de 7. H. 1. c. 6. purchased for the time to come upon pain of praemunire And that 't was decreed that the Popes Collector though he have a Bull for the purpose Hen. 4. fol. 9. hath no Jurisdiction within this Realm And if the ancient Law of the Realm saith that the Pope cannot alter the Laws of England that Law condemns his raising money upon the people in any kind without special Law to that purpose a Prerogative the Kings of England themselves do not claim Therefore that standing Fundamental Law of England always lay in bar against and was a continual real and legal disturbance of the Popes possession of power to impose Taxes or by any devices to collect money from the English either Laity or Clergy CHAP. XIV The Conclusion of the Argument from Prescription 'T is on our side No force for the Pope VVE have seen what the Argument from Prescription is come to how far short of Nine Hundred years and how unsettled both in Law and Practice it ever was both as to Jurisdiction in the Popes Court at Rome and by his Legates here and as to Legislation by the force of his Canons and his dispensation by Faculties Licenses and any sort of Bulls c. and as to his Patronage of or Profits from the English Church If a just Computation were made I believe the Argument from Possession would really appear to be on our side Our Kings having enjoyed and flourished in the exercise of Supremacy over us ever since the Act of Hen. 8. extinguishing the Popes Usurpation here with far more quiet and less interruption than ever the Pope did for so long a time Besides other qualifications of our Kings possession do mightily strengthen the Plea above any thing that can be alledged on the Popes behalf 1. Our Kings had possession from the beginning according to the Canon and therefore could Nice Ephe. never be lawfully divested Ancient Histories are evident for us and Baronius determines well what is said by a Modern concerning ancient Tom. 1. an 1. n. 12. affairs without the Authority of any more ancient is contemned This ancient Possession of our Kings hath ever been continued and declared and confirmed by our Laws and the consent of the whole Kingdom signified thereby And these Laws have still been insisted on and repeated when there hath been any great occasion and fit opportunity to vindicate our ancient Liberties But the Pope could never obtain any legal settlement of his Power here before Queen Mary's Reign nor by Her neither in the main branches of it though indeed she courted him with the dignity of a great name and a verbal Title Indeed the subject of the Question being a spiritual Right our Adversaries themselves agree that Possession sufficient to prove it ought to begin near Christs time And he that hath begun it later as certainly the Pope did unless he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancienter Possession as the Pope can never do is not to be stiled a Possessor but an Vsurper an Intruder an Invader Disobedient Rebellious and Schismatical as no doubt by S. W's Logick the Pope is as before was noted I shall conclude with the grave and considerate Concession of Father Barnes noted by Dr. Stillingfleet who after his thorow study of the point upon clear Conviction determined it positively for us in these words The Britanick Church may plead the Cyprian Dr. Still p. 398. Priviledg that it was subject to no Patriarch and although this priviledge was taken away by Force and Tumult yet being restored in Henry the Eighth's time and quietly enjoyed since it ought to be retained for peace sake without prejudice of Catholicism and the brand of Schism by which he grants all that is pertinent to our Cause that the Pope had not possession here from the beginning nor ought to have had 2. That he took advantage bellorum tumultibus vi for his Usurpation 3. That our Ancient Cyprian priviledge was restored by Henry the Eighth totius Regni Consensu with the Consent of the whole Kingdom 4. That never since it hath been peaceably prescribed pacifice praescriptum or quietly enjoyed 5. And that therefore it still ought to be retained sine Schismatis ullius Notâ without the brand or charge of Schism which is the only thing contended for CHAP. XV. The Argument from Infallibility Considered in its Consequence retorted THe two last Arguments for proof of the Pope's Authority are general and not limited to the Church of England as the three former were and are his Infallibility and his Vniversal Pastorship which remain to be examined Arg. From his Infallibility it may be argued thus Whether the Pope were the means of our Conversion or have a Patriarchal Right over us or have had possession of the Government of the English Church heretofore or not if he be really and absolutely Infallible he hath thereby a right to govern us and we are bound to be ruled and directed by him but the Pope is really and absolutely Infallible Ergo. The Consequence would tempt a denial indeed Consequence Infallibility is an excellent qualification for an Vniversal Rector but are not qualification and Commission two things hath God given Authority to every man equal to his Parts to his Natural acquired or infused abilities if not what necessity is there that he hath to the Pope if all Power as well as all Wisdom is from God the prime fountain of them both and if we pretend to both need we evidence only one Indeed we ought to be guided by one that is Infallible if such a one there be but the Necessity ariseth from Prudence not immediatly from Conscience Unless by some other way of Authority God hath given him power to govern us as well as ability otherwise we ought to submit our selves to the guidance of the Pope as a good and wise man or as a Friend as our Ancestors did

and Mr. Pool's Treatise written on purpose upon this Subject CHAP. XVI II. Arg. For Infallibility viz. Tradition Concessions 4. Propositions 3. Arguments Objections Answered THat the difference may not seem wider than indeed it is we shall make way for our discussion of this Argument by a few but considerable Concessions 1. We yield that Tradition truly Catholick is Apostolical Truly Catholick that is in all the three known Conditions ab omnibus semper ubique For we cannot imagine that any thing should be believed or practised by all Learned Christians at all times and in all places as a point of Christian Religion that was not receiv'd as such either from Christ himself or his Apostles 2. We grant that Tradition hath been and ever will be both useful and necessary for the delivering down to the Faith of the Church in all succeeding Ages both the Canon of the Scripture and the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion The necessity hereof ariseth from the distance of Time and Place and must be supposed upon the Succession of Generations in the Church after the removal of the first Preachers and Writers and consequently the first deliverers thereof 3. We need not stick to agree that Tradition is Infallible if we abuse not the term too rigidly in conveying and preserving the substance of Religion which I was much enclined to believe before and am now much encouraged to express after I had read the learned and ingenious book of the Several ways of resolving Faith he concludes p. 129. the Necessaries to Salvation should ever fail to be practically transmitted from Generation to Generation is alike impossible as that multitudes of People should not in every Age be truly desirous of their own and their Posterities everlasting happiness seeing it is a thing both so easie to be done and so necessary to Salvation By the substance of Christian Religion I mean the Credenda and the Agenda or as he doth the Creed the Lords Prayer the Ten Commandments and the Two Sacraments 4. We may for ought I see to the contrary Gratifie the Author of Rushworth's Dialogues and the Abettors of that late new found Tradition of the present Church of Rome For every Church of Christ as such hath possession of the substance of Christian Religion and without it cannot be a Church And I am sure by this Concession the great Argument for Tradition is allowed and we are so far agreed in a main point I am troubled we must now differ but our Propositions shall be such as none that have weighed Antiquity can well doubt of them We affirm that whatsoever matter of Faith 1 Prop. or Practice is not derived from the first hands by Tradition Catholick as explained in the first Concession is not necessary to Salvation For 't is agreed if it were it would have been preserved by Tradition But it is against all Sence to believe that Tradition is sufficient to secure us from all Additions 2 Prop. to the first Faith or Additions and Alterations in Ceremonies and Worship or any thing that is not necessary to Salvation and herein indeed lies the Controversie for if Midwifes Nurses Parents and Tutors have as it is said Tradition in their hands and hold themselves obliged not to poyson little Babes as soon as they can receive Instructions accordingly and Tradition could not possibly admit or deliver any thing but what is necessary to salvation it were not possible for any Error to obtain in the Church or with any one Party or even Member of it but truth would be equally Catholick with Tradition and then Charity will not suffer us to believe that the Jews that kept the Law should be guilty of any vain Traditions contrary to our Saviour's Reproofs or that there should be any such Parties as Hugonites and Protestants in the World or such various Sects in the Church of Rome it self or so many Successive Additions to the Faith and Worship of that Church as none may have the confidence to deny have happened Vincentius speaks very truly saith Rigaltius and prudently if nothing were delivered by our Observ in Cyp. p. 147. Ancestors but what they had from the Apostles but under the pretence of our Ancestors silly or counterfeit things may by Fools or Knaves be delivered us for Apostolical Traditions and we add by zealously superstitious men or by men tempted as is evident they were about the time of Easter and Rebaptization in the beginning to pretend Tradition to defend their Opinions when put to it in Controversie It further follows that the Infallibility of the Pope or Court of Rome or Church in 3 Prop. Matters of Faith is no necessary Point of Faith because it is not delivered down to us as such by lawful i. e. Catholick Tradition this is the Point Now here we justly except against the Testimony of the present Oral Tradition of the Roman Church or Tradition revers'd because it cannot secure us against additions to the Faith It is no evidence that Tradition was always the same in that point it cannot bear against all Authentick History to the contrary That Popes and Councils and Fathers and the Church too have erred in their belief and practice is past all doubt by that one instance of the Communion of Infants for some hundred of Years together which is otherwise determined by the Council of Trent Yea that there was no such Tradition of the Pope's or the Church of Rome's Infallibility in ancient times is as manifest by the oppositions betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches which could not consist with such Tradition or belief of it And for the Church of England had she owned such Tradition her ancient Bishops would not have contended with and rejected his Messenger St. Austin and his Propositions together Neither can any considering man imagine that the Tradition of the Popes Infallibility is Catholick or generally received and believed in the Church of Rome at this day 'T is well known many of their eminent men renounce it and indeed the Pope himself doth not believe it or he does not believe that all his Doctors believe it For if he does believe both why does he not make use of his Talent and put an end to all the scandalous broils and Ruptures occasioned by the Doctrinal differences and Disputes among the several factions of his Church and have peace within his own Borders But this admits no Answer 'T is said by the Romanist that Universal Traditions are recorded in the Fathers of every succeeding Age and 't is reasonably spoken It behoves him as to the present point to shew us in some good Authors in every age since the Apostles this Tradition for Infallibility then indeed he hath done something which ought to be done But till that be done we must adhere that there is no such ground of the Popes Authority over us as his Infallibility proved by Scripture or Tradition This proof I think was never

all of these Encomiums that the Fathers believed that the other Apostles were under Saint Peter as their Governour or that he had any real Power given him by Christ more than they The Words of Saint Cyprian are plain and full albeit Christ saith he gave equal Power to 1. St. Cyp. de unit Eccl. all the Apostles after his Resurrection and said as my Father c. yet to declare Vnity he disposed by his Authority the Original of that Vnity beginning in one no doubt saith he the rest were the same that Peter was endued with the like fellowship pari Consortio of Honour and Power but the beginning doth come from Vnity that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be but one Thus this Topick of the Fathers expounding the Text being found to fail another device and such a one as the very detection both answers and shames the Authors is fled unto viz. to corrupt instead of purging the Fathers and to make them speak home indeed The place of Saint Cyprian just now set is a In Opusc Contr. Graec. very clear instance of this black Art allowed by the Popes themselves the place in the former Prints was as it is set down in the Roman-purged-Cyprian is thus altered by addition of these words And the Primacy is given to Peter Again he appointed one Church and the Chair to be one and to make all sure the Antwerp Cyprian addeth conveniently Peter's Chair And then saith he who forsaketh Peter's Chair on which the Church was founded c. And by this time Against Ha●● Peter's Primacy is the Popes Supremacy Vid. Dr. Rayn p. 210 211. But Tho. Aquinas hath dealt worse with St. Cyril Fathering a Treasure upon him which he never owned beyond all tolerable defence To the Grecians St. Cyril is brought in speaking thus Christ did commit a full and ample power both to Peter and his Successors The Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in every Doctrine Peter and his Church to be instead of God and to him even to Peter all do bow by the Law of God and the Princes of the World are obedient to him even as to the Lord Jesus and we as being Members must cleave unto our Head the Pope and Apostolick See c. Now either St. Cyril said thus or not If he did who will believe him that shall make such Stories and Father them upon every Doctrine in the New Testament contrary to common sence and the knowledge of all or trust his cause to the interpretation of such Fathers But if this Book called St. Cyril's Treasure be none of St. Cyril's as certainly it is not then though I am provoked I shall say no more but that we should weigh the Reasons but not the Authority of such a Schoolman especially in his Masters Cause 'T is certain the words are not to be found in those parts of Cyril's Treasure which are Extant as Hart acknowledgeth to Dr. Raynolds Yet the abuse of single Fathers is not so hainous a thing as Thomas committed against 600 Bishops Ibid. even the General Council of Calcedon when he saith they decreed thus If any Bishop be accused let him appeal freely to the Pope of Rome because we have Peter for a Rock of Refuge and he alone hath Right with freedom of Power in the stead of God to Judge and Try the crime of a Bishop according to the Keys which the Lord did give him calling the Pope the Holy Apostolick and universal Patriarch of the whole World Now in that Council there is not a word of all this and they answer Hereticks have rased it out if you will believe it but neither Surius nor Caranza find any thing wanting I shall only make this Note that seeing the Fathers have been so long in the hands of those men that stick at nothing that may advance the Power of their Master 'T is no wonder that their learned Adversaries are unwilling to trust their cause with such Judges but rather appeal to the true Canon and call for Scripture One would think this were enough but this Opinion of the equality of Power among the Apostles was not only the concurrent Judgment of the Ancients but even of learned later men in the Church of Rome even from these words Tues Petrus c. upon unanswerable Reason Lyra on Matth. 16. Durand a St. Porciano in 4. Cent. dist 18. q. 2. both in the 14 Cent. and Abulensis in the In Matth. 18. q. 7. In Matth. 20. q. 83 84. 15 Cent. the latter argues earnestly that none of the Apostles did understand those words of Christ to give any Supremacy to Peter for afterwards they contended for Superiority Matth. 18. and after that the two Sons of Zebedee desire it Matth. 20. and at the last Supper the question is put again Luke 22. Therefore he concludes they thought themselves equal till Christs death when they knew not which of them should be greatest Cusanus his contemporary de concord Cath. l. 2. c. 13. and 34. and Fran. Victoria This was the interpretation of all the Doctors of Paris Bin. Conc. an 1549. and of Adulphus Arch-Bishop of Cologne and of the Bishops of his Province the Decrees of whose Synod with this interpretation were ratified in every point by Charles the Fifth and enjoyned to be observed Thus the chief ground of St. Peter's Supremacy is sunk and there is little hopes that any other Text will hold up that weighty super-structure Another Scripture much insisted on for the support of St. Peter's Supremacy is Joh. 21. 14 15 16. 3. Joh. 21. 14 c. Peter lovest thou me feed my Sheep feed my Lambs Wherein is committed to Peter the power of the whole Church Ans 'T is answered this Text gives not any Commission or power to St. Peter it gives him charge and Commandment to execute his Commission received before Now it hath appeared sufficiently that the Commission was given equally to all the Apostles in those words as my Father sent me so send I you c. so that the power of feeding and the Duty of Pastors was alike to them all though this Charge was given to Peter by name here with so many Items perhaps intimating his repeated Prevarications yet were they all sent and all charged with a larger Province than these words to Peter import Teach all Nations Preach the Gospel to every Creature are our Saviours charge to them all Obj. In the Apostolick Power all were equal saith Hart not in the Pastoral Charge Ans We answer with a distinction allowed by Stapleton of the Name Pastor 't is special and distinct from Apostle Some Apostles some Eph. 4. Pastors or general and common to all commission'd to preach the Gospel So Christ is called Pastor and all the Apostles were Pastors as well as Peter Obj. But St. Peter was the Pastor over the rest for he is charged to feed all the Sheep the whole Church Now

of Rome 'T is expressed more fully in their Letter to the Pope himself in Edw. 1. Reign to defend the Inheritance and Prerogative of the Crown the State of the Realm the Liberties Customs and Laws of their Progenitors against all foreign Usurpation toto posse totis viribus to the utmost of their power and with all their might adding We do not permit or in the least will permit sicut nec possumus nec debemus though our Soveraign Lord the King do or in the least wise attempt to do any of the Premises viz. owning the Authority of the Pope by his answer touching his Right to Scotland so strange so unlawful prejudicial and otherwise unheard of though the King would himself See that famous Letter sent to the Pope the 29 of Edw. 1. taken out of Cor. Christi College-Library and printed this year at Oxford the reading of which gave the occasion of these Meditations 3. It appears further in the Sheet where you have that Letter that the Commons in Parliament have heretofore held themselves bound to resist the invasion and attempts of the Pope upon England though the King and the Peers should connive at them their words are resolute Si Dominus Rex Regni majores hoc vellent meaning Bishop Adomers Revocation from Banishment upon the Popes order Communitas tamen ipsius ingressum in Angliam nullatenus sustineret This is said to be recorded about the 44 of Hen. 3. 4. It is there observed also that upon the Conquest William the Conquerour made all the Freeholders of England to become sworn Brethren sworn to defend the Monarchy with their Persons and Estates to the utmost of their Ability and manfully to preserve it So that the whole Body of the people as well as the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament stood anciently bound by their Oath to defend their King and their Country against Invasion and Usurpation 5. The present Constitution of this Kingdom is yet a stronger Bulwark against Popery Heretofore indeed the Papal pretensions were checkt sometimes in temporal sometimes in spiritual concerns and Instances But upon the Reformation the Popes Supremacy was altogether and at once rejected and thrown out of England and the consequence is an universal standing obligation upon the whole Kingdom by Statutes Customs and most solemn Oaths to defend our Monarchy our Church our Country and our Posterity against those Incroachments and that Thraldom from which we were then so wonderfully delivered and for this hundred years have been so miraculously preserved blessed be God Accordingly in our present Laws both the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Supremacy is declared to be inherent in the Crown and our Kings are sworn to maintain and govern by those Laws And I doubt not but all Ministers of the Church and all Ministers of State and of Law and War all Mayors and Officers in Cities and Towns corporate c. together with all the Sheriffs and other Officers in their several Countries and even all that have received either Trust or power from his Majesty within the Kingdom All these I say I suppose are sworn to defend the King's Supremacy as it is inconsistent with and in flat opposition to Popery In the Oath of Allegiance we swear to bear true Allegiance to the King and to defend him against all Conspiracies and Attempts which shall be made against his Person and Crown to the utmost of our power meaning especially the Conspiracies and Attempts of Papists as is plain by that which follows in that Oath and yet more plain by the Oath of Supremacy In which Oath we swear that the King is the only Supreme Governor in this Realm as well in all spiritual things and causes as temporal and that no foreign Prince or Prelate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within this Realm and that we do abhor and renounce all such We swear also that we will bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King and to our power assist and defend all Jurisdictions viz. Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal granted or belonging to the Kings Highness 6. Now next to Oaths nothing can be thought to oblige us more than Interest But if neither Oaths nor Interest neither Conscience nor Nature neither Religion nor self-Preservation can provoke us to our own defence what remains but a certain fearful expectation of judgment to devour a perjur'd and senseless Generation If either our joynt or several Interests be considerable how are we all concern'd 1. Is there any among us that care for nothing but Liberty and Mony they should resist Popery which would many ways deprive them of both 2. But if the knowledge of the Truth if the Canon of life in the holy Scriptures if our Prayers in our own tongue if the Simplicity of the Gospel the purity of Worship and the Integrity of Sacraments be things valuable and dear to Christians let them abhor Popery 3. If the ancient Priviledges of the Brittish Church the Independency of her Government upon Foreign Jurisdiction if their legal Incumbencies their Ecclesiastical Dignities if their opportunities and capacities of saving Souls in the continuance of their Ministries if their judgment of discretion touching their Doctrine and Administrations their judgment of Faith Reason and Sence touching the Eucharist if exemption from unreasonable impositions of strange Doctrines Romish Customs groundless Traditions and Treasonable Oaths And lastly if freedom from spiritual Tyranny and bloody Inquisitions if all these be of consequence to Clergy-men let them oppose Popery 4. If our Judges and their several Courts of Judicature would preserve their Legal proceedings and judgments and decrees if they would not be controlled and superseded by Bulls Sentences and Decrees from the Pope and Appeals to Rome let them never yield to Popery 5. If the Famous Nobility and Gentry of England would appear like themselves and their heroick Ancestors in the defence of the Rights of their Country the Laws and customs of the Land the Wealth of the people the Liberties of the Church the Empire of Brittain and the grandeur of their King or indeed their own honour and Estates in a great measure let them never endure the re-admission of Popery 6. Yea let our great Ministers of State and of Law and of War consider that they stand not firm enough in their high and envied places if the Roman Force breaks in upon us and remember that had the late bloody and barbarous design taken effect one consequence of it was to put their places into other hands And therefore in this capacity as well as many other they have no reason to be Friends to Popery 7. As for His Most Excellent Majesty no suspicion either of inclination to or want of due vigilance against Popery can fasten upon him and may he long live in the Enjoyment and under a worthy Sence of the Royalties of Monarchy and the honour and exercise of his Natural and Legal Supremacy in all Causes and over all