care of the whole Province and all the inferior cities and Bishops in them and the Bishops commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is straight added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the ancient Canon of the Fathers which hath continued in force from the first times also unto that Councel Where if it be demanded what is the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive the word to be best explained by Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should doubtlesse be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the meaning of the Canon to be agreeably to the expresse words of other Canons that as any ordinary Bishop hath full power in his own Church which he may in all things wherein that alone is concerned exercise independently from the commands or directions of any So in any thing of a more forein nature wherein any other Church is concerned equally with that and so falls not under the sole cognizance or judgement of either there the Bishop of that Church is to do nothing without directions from the Metropolitane and that is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that no Bishop must do any thing but what belongs particularly to him ratione officii any thing that another is concerned in as well as he without the Metropolitane § 24. Act. 15 Can. 9. So in the Councel of Chalcedon the direction is given for appeals in this order from the Bishop to the Metropolitane from the Metropolitane to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primate of the Diocese or Province as where there are more Metropolitanes then one as was shewed of Ephesus in Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ulp. Obser D. de Offic. Procons and elsewhere frequently there some one is Primate or Patriarch among them and to him lyes the appeal in the last resort and from him to no other see Justinian Novel 123. c. 22. and Cod. l. 1. tit 4. leg 29. who speaking of this calls it an ancient decree § 25. That which we find in the eighth Canon of the Great Councel of Ephesus shall conclude this matter when upon some claim of the Patriarch of Antioch for an interest in the ordaining of the Patriarch of Cyprus the Bishops of Cyprus deny his claim and deduce their privilege of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or independence from any forein Bishop from the very Apostles times A sanctis Apostolis say they nunquam possunt ostendere quòd adfuerit Antiochenus ordinaverit vel communicaverit unquam insulae ordinationis gratiam neque alius quisquam From the very Apostles times they can never shew that the Patriarch of Antioch or any other was present and ordained or being absent sent the grace of ordination to this Island but that the Bishops of Constantia the Metropolis of that Island by name Troilus Sabinus and Epiphanius and all the orthodox Bishops from the Apostles times ab his qui in Cypro constituti sunt have been constituted and ordained by their own Bishops of the Island and accordingly they required that they might continue in the same manner Sicut initio à temporibus Apostolorum permansit Cypriorum Synodus as they had done from the times of the very Apostles still appealing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the ancient manner the ancient custome the privileges which from their first plantation they had enjoyed and that from the Apostles themselves And accordingly that Councel condemned the pretension of the Patriarch of Antioch as that which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an innovation against the Ecclesiastical Lawes and Canons of the holy Fathers and orders not only in behalf of the Cypriots that the Bishops of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall continue to enjoy their right inviolate according to the ancient custome but extended their sentence to all other Dioceses in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same shall be observed in all other Dioceses and Provinces wheresoever that no Bishop shall lay hold of another Province which hath not been formerly and from the beginning under their or their Ancestors power And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This holy and Oecumenical Synod hath decreed that the privileges and rights of every Province shall be conserved pure and inviolate as they have enjoyed them from the beginning according to the custome that hath anciently been in force All deducing this power of Primates over their own Bishops and together excluding all forein pretenders from the Apostles and first planters of the Churches and requiring all to remain as they were first thus constituted Wherein as there be many things of useful observation which will be more fitly appliable in the progresse of this discourse so that which is alone pertinent to this place is only this that there may be a disobedience and irregularity and so a Schisme even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitanes and of the authority which they have by Canon and Primitive custome over them which was therefore to be added to the several Species of Schisme set down in the former chapters CHAP. IV. The pretended evidences of the Romanist against the Church of England examined and first that from the Bishop of Romes Supremacy by Christs donation to S. Peter § 1. THE Scene being thus prepared and the nature and sorts of Schisme defined and summarily enumerated our method now leads us to inquire impartially what evidences are producible against the Church of England whereby it may be thought lyable to this guilt of Schisme And these pretended evidences may be of several sorts according to the several Species of this sort of Schisme described and acknowledged by us § 2. The first charge against us Our casting out the Popes Supremacy The first evidence that is offered against us is taken from a presumed Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as Successor to S. Peter over all Churches in the world which being in the dayes of Henry VIII renounced and disclaimed first by both Vniversities and most of the greatest and famous Monasteries of this kingdome in their negative answer and determination of this question An aliquid Authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuiquam Episcopo extero Whether the Pope of Rome have of right any authority in the Realme of England more then any other forein Bishop hath and that determination of theirs testified under their hands and scales and after by Act of Convocation subscribed by the Bishops and Clergy and confirmed by their corporal oaths and at last the like imposed by Act of Parliament 35 Hen. VIII c. 1. all this is looked on and condemn'd as an Act of Schisme in this Church and Nation in renouncing that power of S. Peters Successors placed over all Christians by Christ § 3. This objection against us consisting of many branches every of which must be manifested or granted to have truth in it or else the objection will be of no
and the dignity of place before all others in Christ's life time even before S. Peter himself which is the plain meaning of his style of the beloved Disciple and of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaning on his breast at supper Joh. 21.20 his having the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first place next to Christ as being in Abrahams bosome plainly signifies being in dignity of place next to the father of the faithful 't is evident that he is one of those that by agreement went to the Circumcision was assigned the Jewes Not the Jewes of Asia for his Province as well as S. Peter and consequently he had the converting and then governing of all the converted Jewes of that Lydian Asia and placing Bishops over them as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap Euseb l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clemens Alexandrinus and b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Eusebius and c Joannes apud Ephesum Ecclesiā sacravit De Prom. Praed impl c. 5. Prosper and others tell us and the d Phot. Bib. num 254. Author of the Martyrdome of Timothy saith of him that being returned from his banishment by Nerva's decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he placed his seat of residence in Ephesus and having seven Bishops with him he undertook the care of that Metropolis that is in effect or by interpretation of all Asia which was under that prime Metropolis as far as extended to the Jewish Christians there As neither the Gentiles there § 15. But then as before was said of the several Churches and Bishops in the same place one of the dispersed Jewes the other of Gentiles so it is evident that through all this Asia the Lydian or Proconsular the faith was by S. Paul planted among the Gentile part and by him S. Timothy constituted Bishop there and so saith S. Chrysostome Hom. 5. in 1 Tim. 5.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a whole intire nation that of Asia was intrusted to him § 16. Where I shall demand of any man of the Romish pretensions or perswasion what can be said in any degree probably for S. Peters Vniversal Pastorship whilst he lived over this Asia whose seven Metropoles and sure there were inferior Churches or Episcopal Sees under them are so early famous being honoured with Christs-Epistle to them in the Revelation was S. Peter the supreme Pastor of these Churches had he any or did he ever exercise or pretend any Jurisdiction over them was not all the Jewish part of that Province ultimately under S. John and the Gentile part under S. Paul and S. Timothy constituted and commissionated by him Doth not S. Paul give him full instructions and such as no other Apostle could countermand or interpose in them leaving no other appeal or place of application for farther directions save only to himself when he shall come to him 1 Tim. 3.14 15. Did not S. Paul by his own single power delegate that Province to him and seat him there as appears by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I exhorted or appointed thee when I went to Macedonia 1 Tim. 1.3 and may it not as reasonably be said that S. Peter was with him in his journey to Macedonia as that he joyned with him in giving that Commission to Timothy § 17. Nor in Crete And so likewise of Titus in Crete was he not by S. Paul peculiarly left in Crete and constituted Primate there Is it imaginable that under Christ there could be any head of that Church of that whole Island save only S. Paul § 18. Nor in Britannie The same may certainly be said of all the Gentile Churches in all other Islands and parts of the world and consequently in this of Britannie wherein our present debate is terminated And therefore if that of * de Petr Paul ad diem 29. Junii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Simeon Metaphrastes should be thought to have truth in it that S. Peter was in Britannie some time and baptized many into the faith of Christ and constituted Churches ordaining Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons in the 12. of Nero in all reason it must be extended no farther then S. Peters line as he was the Apostle of the Circumcision i. e. to the Jewes that might at that time be dispersed here and so not prejudge the other more authentick relations of Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes having planted the faith in this Island § 19. This I suppose is one competent proof of the Negative as it respects the person of S. Peter that he was not could not be as things stood with him Vniversal Pastor of the whole Church constituted by Christ And accordingly we see in Prosper disputing against hereticks which divide from the Church he expresses it by relictâ pace communionis Prospers testimony to this matter panis unius Dei Apostolorum that they leave the Communion of Christ and his Apostles in the plural and adds cum in ipsâ Hierusalem Jacobus Joannes apud Ephesum Andreas caeteri per totam Asiam Petrus Paulus Apostoli in urbe Româ Gentium Ecclesiam pacatam unámque posteris tradentes ex Dominicâ pactione sacrarunt that James in Jerusalem John at Ephesus Andrew and the rest through all Asia Peter and Paul at Rome consecrated the Church of the nations Whereas the Church had the several Apostles for the founders and those independent one from the other So the unity from which hereticks and schismaticks depart is said to have been founded equally in each of them in John and James and Andrew and others as well as in S. Peter nay at Rome not in S. Peter alone but in him and S. Paul together § 20. A second evidence against S. Peters supremacy from the donation of the keyes In the next place another evidence we may have of this in reference again to S. Peters person from that which is visible in the donation of the power of the Keyes set down in Scripture This power Mat. 16.19 is promised to S. Peter I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven But to him that from hence pretends this Donative and consequent power as a peculiarity and inclosure of S. Peters these considerations will be of force to supersede his conclusion 1. That these words here set down by S. Matthew c. 16. are not the Instrument of Christs conveyance the words of his commission but those other Joh. 20.21 As my Father hath sent me Power of the keyes given to all and each so send I you upon which words it is added he breathed on them and said Receive the holy Ghost Whose sins you remit they are remitted And these as also those Mat. 28.19 which are a repetition much to the same purpose are delivered in common and equally to all and every of the eleven Apostles as is evident by the plural style throughout that Commission § 21. Secondly
of the two swords or from Thou art Peter they have so little apparence of strength in them and have so often been answered by those of our perswasion that I cannot think it useful or seasonable to descend to any farther survey of them his other pretensions are at an end for the Vniversal Pastorship of the Pope his successor whose power and authority over all other Bishops cannot farther be extended upon this account of succession then S. Peter's was over all other Apostles the several Bishops of the world holding from as succeeding some Apostle or other as certainly as the Bishop of Rome can by any be supposed to succeed S. Pe-Peter according to that of * De Praescript c. 32. Tertullian Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia Polycarpum à Joanne collocatum refert Sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit perinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habent As the records of the Church of Smyrna deduce Polycarp their Bishop from S. John and as the Church of Rome relates that Clement their Bishop was ordained by S. Peter in like manner the rest of the Churches shew us the Bishops which they have had constituted by the Apostles and who have brought down and derived the Apostolick seed unto them § 2. What therefore I shall now adde in return to the second branch of this argument concerning the power of S. Peters successor as such will be perfectly ex abundanti more then needs and so I desire it may be looked on by the reader whose curiosity perhaps may require farther satisfaction when his reason doth not and in compliance therewith I shall propose these few considerations * The privileges attending S. Peters successor belonging rather to the Bishop of Antioch then of Rome First whether S. Peter did not as truly plant a Church of Jewish believers at Antioch and leave a successor Bishop there as at Rome he is supposed to have done 2. Whether this were not done by him before ever he came to Rome 3. Whether the Concession of these two unquestioned matters of fact doe not devolve all power and Jurisdiction on the Bishop of Antioch S. Peters successor there which by that tenure and claim of succession from S. Peter can be pretended to by the Bishop of Rome S. Peters successor also Nay Whether the right of Primogeniture be not so much more considerable on this side then any circumstance on the other side which can be offered to counterbalance it that he which succeeded him in his first seat Antioch is if there be force in the argument of succession to be looked on as the chief of his strength partaker of more power by virtue of that succession then he that afterward succeeded him at Rome § 3. This we know that anciently there were three Patriarchates and Antioch was one of them as Rome was another and though I who lay not that weight on the argument of succession from S. Peter am not engaged to affirme that Antioch was the chief of these yet this I contend that there is much lesse reason that any precedence which is afforded Rome by the ancient Canons should be deemed imputable to this succession from S. Peter when 't is evident that claim belongs to Antioch as well as to Rome and first to Antioch and afterwards to Rome and no otherwise to Rome then as it was first competible to Antioch § 4. The Primacy belonged to Rome upon another score Of Rome it is confessed that the primacy of dignity or order belonged to that the next place to Alexandria the third to Antioch which is an evidence that the succession from S. Peter was not considered in this matter for then Alexandria which held only from S. Mark must needs have yeelded to Antioch which held from S. Peter The original of this precedence or dignity of the Bishop of Rome is sure much more fitly deduced by the fourth General Councel holden at Chalcedon Can. penult confirming the decree of the Councel of Constantinople that that See shall have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges and dignities and advantages with Rome upon this account that Constantinople was New Rome and the seat of the Empire at that time which say they was the reason and not any donation of Christs to S. Peter or succession of that Bishop from him that Rome enjoyed such privileges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Fathers at Constantinople being moved with the same reasons had rightly judged that now the same privileges should belong to that Church or City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that this being next to Old Rome should in all Ecclesiastical affaires have the same dignity or greatnesse that Old Rome had Where as the Original of the dignity of that See is duly set down and which is observable in the whole contest never so much as quarelled at by the Legats viz. the residence of the Imperial Majesty there a thing very remarkable in the several degrees of dignity in the Church that of Patriarchs Primates Archbishops Bishops which generally observed their proportions with the civil state as hath been shewed so is the nature of it also no supremacy of power over all the Bishops of the world for that monarchical power is not at once competible to two equals or rivals and withall the moveablenesse or communicablenesse of that dignity as that which may follow the Imperial seat whithersoever it is removeable and is not fixed at Rome by any commission of Christ or succession from S. Peter § 5. The Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon rejected by the Romanists But because I shall suppose that a Canon though of an Vniversal Councel when it is found thus derogatory to the height which Rome now pretends to shall not by the Romanist be acknowledged to be authentick as wanting that which the Romanist makes absolutely necessary to the validity of Councels or Canons the suffrage of the Bishop of Rome and consent of his Legates and because I mean not here to goe out of my way to vindicate which I could very readily doe the authority of that Canon or to shew the strangenesse of this dealing not to admit any testimony against them but wherein they have given their own suffrage a method of security beyond all amulets if no man shall be believed against me till I have joyned with him to accuse and condemne my self I shall therefore lay no more weight on this then will without this support be otherwise upheld and is in some measure evident by the Romanists rejecting this Canon and adding that the Church of Antioch rejected it also which argues that that which the Church of Constantinople was willing to acquire by this decree was as derogatory to the dignity of Antioch as of Rome And as that concludes that Antioch had professedly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome the dignity of a
most ignorant rusticks some so void of all degree of knowledge saith Josephus that they knew not what the very word Priest signified The Roman Conquerours by their Procurators put in annually whom they pleased to choose without consideration of the Aaronical line into the chief Priest's office I shall here demand of any Whether supposing and granting it as undeniable that the Zelots were formally Schismaticks or with some improvement in Josephus his style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seditious there can be any ground of reason or equity to involve or conclude under the same guilt those that lived under those imposed usurping High Priests supposing those inferiors to have been as farre from consenting to the continuance as to the beginning of such usurpation and that the circumstances were such that they lay not under the appearance of doing what they did not and so had not the scandal any more then the reality of that guilt The Reader I suppose will be able to answer this Quaere to himself and supersede all necessity of making up the Parallel § 7. The Conclusion And then I have at this time no farther exercise for him but that he will joyn in ardent prayers with me that God will restore that which is lost reduce that heavenly grace and incomparable blessing of Christian peace and holy communion among all that have received the honour of being called by his name that we may all minde the same thing fix the same common designes love and aid and promote one anothers good unanimously glorifie him here with one tongue and heart that we may all be glorified with him and sing joynt Hosannah's and Hallelujah's to him to all eternity Amen ERRATA PAge 42. line 3. dele p. 73. li. 9. lege S. Peter so p. 81. marg li. 12. lege 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 85. l. 24. lege Where as p. 91. li. 4. lege 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 107. li. 2. for third lege second p. 141. li. 25. for quae re quo p. 157. li. 3. lege that the The Contents CHAP. I. AN Introduction the danger and sin of Schism page 1 CHAP. II. What Schism us together with some general considerations thereon 12 CHAP. III. The several sorts of Schism 31 CHAP. IV. The pretended evidences of the Romanist against the Church of England examined and first that from the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy by Christ's donation to S. Peter 66 CHAP. V. The evidences from the Bishop of Romes succeeding S. Peter examined 92 CHAP. VI. Their second plea from the Bishop of Rome having planted Christianity among us 107 CHAP. VII Their third Evidence from our casting off Obedience to the Bishop of Rome at the Reformation 132 CHAP. VIII Of the second sort of Schism as that is an offence against mutual Charity This divided into three species and the first here examined 155 CHAP. IX The second species of this Schism examined as it is an offence against external peace or Communion Ecclesiastical 163 CHAP. X. The third species of this Schism as an offence against that charity due from every Christian to every Christian examined 169 CHAP. XI Concerning the present Persecution of the Church of England and the advantages sought from thence 174 THE END A CATALOGUE of some Books Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivie-lane London A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament by Henry Hammond D. D. in fol. The Practical Catechisme with all other English Treatises of Henry Hammond D. D. in two volumes in 4 o. Dissertationes quatuor quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scripturis Primaeva Antiquitate adstruuntur contra sententiam D. Blondelli aliorum Authore Henrico Hammond in 4 o. A Letter of Resolution of six Quaere's in 12 o. The names of several Treatises and Sermons written by Jer. Taylor D. D. viz. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Course of Sermons for all the Sundaies of the Year Together with a Discourse of the Divine Institution Necessity Sacrednesse and Separation of the Office Ministerial in fol. 2. Episcopacy asserted in 4 o. 3. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ 2 d Edit in fol. 4. The Liberty of Prophesying in 4 o. 5. An Apology for authorized and Set-forms of Liturgie in 4 o. 6. A Discourse of Baptisme its institution and efficacy upon all Beleivers in 4 o. 7. The Rule and Exercises of holy living in 12 o. 8. The Rule and exercises of holy dying in 12 o. 9. A short Catechisme for institution of young persons in the Christian Religion in 12 o. 10. The Reall Presence and Spirituall of CHRIST in the Blessed Sacrament proved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in 8 o. Certamen Religiosum or a Conference between the late King of England and the late Lord Marquis of Worcester concerning Religion at Ragland Castle Together with a Vindication of the Protestant Cause by Chr. Cartwright in 4 o. The Psalter of David with Titles and Collects according to the matter of each Psalm by the Right honourable Chr. Hatton in 12 o. Boanerges and Barnabas or Judgement and Mercy for wounded and afflicted souls in several Soliloquies by Francis Quarles in 12 o. The life of Faith in Dead Times by Chr. Hudson in 12 o. Motives for Prayer upon the seven dayes of the Week by Sir Richard Baker Knight in 12 o. The Guide unto True Blessedness or a Body of the Doctrine of the Scriptures directing man to the saving knowledge of God by Sam. Crook in 12 o. Six excellent Sermons upon several occasions preached by Edward Willan Vicar of Hoxne in 4 o. The Dipper dipt or the Anabaptists duck'd and plung'd over head and ears by Daniel Featly D. D. in 4 o. Hermes Theologus or a Divine Mercury new descants upon old Records by Theoph. Wodnote in 12 o. Philosophical Elements concerning Government and Civil society by Thomas Hobbs of Malmesbury in 12 o. An Essay upon Statius or the five first books of Publ. Papinius Statius his Thebais by Tho. Stephens School-master in S. Edmonds-bury in 8 o. Nomenclatura Brevis Anglo-Latino Graeca in usum Scholae Westmonasteriensis per F. Gregory in 8 o. Grammatices Graecae Enchiridion in usum Scholae Collegialis Wigorniae in 8 o. A Discourse of Holy Love by Sir Geo. Strode Knight in 12 o. The Saints Honey-Comb full of Divine Truths by Rich. Gove Preacher of Henton S. Gorge in Somersetshire in 8 o. Devotion digested into several Discourses and Meditations upon the Lords most holy Prayer Together with additional Exercitations upon Baptism The Lords Supper Heresies Blasphemy The Creatures Sin The souls pantings after God The Mercies of God The souls complaint of its absence from God by Peter Samwaies Fellow lately resident in Trinity College Cambridge in 12 o. Of the Division between the English and Romish Church upon Reformation by Hen. Fern D. D. in 12 o. Directions for the profitable reading of the Scriptures by John White M. A. in 8 o. The Exemplary Lives and Memorable Acts of 9. the most worthy women of the world 3 Jews 3 Gentiles 3 Christians by Tho. Heywood in 4 o. The Saints Legacies or a Collection of promises out of the Word of God in 12 o. Judicium Universitatis Oxoniensis de Solemni Lega Foedere Juramento Negativo c. in 8 o. Certain Sermons and Letters of Defence and Resolution to some of the late Controversaries of our times by Jasper Mayne D. D. in 4 o. Janua Linguarum Reserata sive omnium Scientiarum Linguarum seminarium Auctore Cl. Viro J. A. Comâ—nio in 8 o. A Treatise concerning Divine providence very seasonable for all Ages by Tho. Morton Bishop of Duresme in 8 o. Animadversions upon Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan with some Observations upon Sir Walter Rawleighs History of the World by Alex. Rosse in 12 o. Fifty Sermons preached by that learned and reverend Divine John Donne in fol. Wits-Common-wealth in 12 o. The Banquet of Jests new and old in 12 o. Balzac's Letters the fourth part in 8 o. Quarles Virgin Widow a Play in 4 o. Solomons Recantation in 4o. by Francis Quarles Amesii antisynodalia in 12 o. Christ's Commination against Scandalizers by John Tombes in 12 o. Dr. Stuart's Answer to Fountain's Letter in 4 o. A Tract of Fortifications with 22 brasse cuts in 4 o. Dr. Griffiths Sermon preached at S. Pauls in 4 o. Blessed birth-day printed at Oxford in 8 o. A Discourse of the state Ecclesiastical in 4 o. An Account of the Church Catholick where it was before the Reformation by Edward Boughen D. D. in 4 o. An Advertisement to the Jury-men of England touching Witches written by the Author of the Observations up Mr. Hobbs Leviathan in 4o Episcopacy and Presbytery considered by Hen. Fern D. D. in 4 o. A Sermon preached at the Isle of Wight before His Majesty by Hen. Fern D. D. in 4o The Commoners Liberty or the English-mans Birth-right in 4o An Expedient for composing Differences in Religion in 4 o. A Treatise of Self-denial in 4 o. The holy Life and Death of the late Vi-countesse Falkland in 12 o. Certain Considerations of present Concernment Touching this Reformed Church of England by Hen. Fern in 12 o. Englands Faithful Reprover and Monitour in 12 o. Newly published The grand Conspiracy of the Members against the Minde of Jews against their King As it hath been delivered in four Sermons by John Allington B. D. in 12 o. The Quakers Questions objected against the Ministers of the Gospel and many sacred acts and offices of Religion with brief Answets thereunto Together with a Discourse of the holy Spirit his workings and impressions on the souls of men by R. Sherlock B. D. in 8 o. Now in the Presse Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to Practise by H. Hammond D. D. in 12 o.
other but by both and in the ancient if not Ignatian Epistle to the Antiochians You saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have been the disciples of Peter and Paul i. e. converted and ruled by them the Jewish part by one and the Gentile by the other and the Church of the Gentiles at Antioch and Syria of which Antioch was the chief city and Cilicia is it to which peculiarly the decrees of the Councel at Jerusalem are sent Act. 15.23 and inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the brethren at Antioch those of the Gentiles and that separately from the Jewish Church in that city or region as is evident both by the contents of that Rescript or Decretal Epistle in which only the Gentiles were concerned v. 28 29. and also by that which we read of S. Peter and the Jewish proselytes Gal. 2.11 that they withdrew from all communion and Society with the Gentile Christians upon which S. Paul reproved him publickly v. 12. According to this condition of disparate not subordinate Churches at Antioch it is that the writer of the Apostolical constitutions tells us that Euodius and Ignatius at the same time sate Bishops of Antioch one succeeding S. Peter the other S. Paul one in the Jewish the other in the Gentile congregation and so continued a while till both the Churches the wall of Separation being by compliance and Christian Charity removed joined and united together under Ignatius who therefore as by a Hom. 4. in Luc. Origen and b l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius he is called the Second so by S. Hierome is called the third Bishop of Antioch and yet as truly by c de Syn. Arim. Seleuc. Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said to be constituted Bishop after the Apostles and by d Ex com Ignat. S. Chrysostome to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the blessed Apostles hands were laid upon him whil'st yet Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affirms him to have received the Archisacerdotal honour from the hands of S. Peter § 9. The same is as evident at Rome where these two great Apostles met again and each of them erected and managed a Church S. Peter of Jewes S. Paul of Gentiles So saith e l. 3. c. 3. Euseb l. 4. c. 6. S. Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the blessed Apostles founded and built the Church there and f l. 1. adv Carpocrat Epiphanius more expressely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter and Paul were Apostles and Bishops in Rome So the Inscription on their Tombes which saith a l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius continued to his time mentions them both as founders of that Church So Gaius an Ecclesiastick writer of great antiquity coaetaneous to Pope Zephyrynus speaking of the monuments of S. Peter and S. Paul calls them b Euseb Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the monuments of them that founded that Church § 10. So Dionysius the Bishop of Corinth who lived about 20 years after their death affirms both of the Church of Rome and of Corinth c Euseb Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was each of them the plantation of Peter and Paul And d De Prom. Praedict implend c. 5. Prosper Petrus Paulus Apostoli in urbe Româ Peter and Paul the Apostles consecrated or constituted a Church in the city of Rome And the very Seales of Popes are an irrefragable evidence of the same as they are set down by Mathew Paris in the year of our Lord 1237. In bullâ Domini Papae saith he stat imago Pauli à dextris crucis in medio bullae figuratae Petri à sinistris In the Bull of the Pope stands the image of S. Paul on the right hand of the Crosse which is graven in the midst of the Seal and the image of S. Peter on the left hand and this only account given for S. Pauls having the nobler place Quia Paulus credidit in Christum quem non vidit à dextris figuratur because he believed on Christ without seeing him here on earth And all this very agreeable to the story of Scripture which as according to the brevity of the relations there made it only sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the circumcision and of his being so at Rome we make no question So it affirms of S. Paul that he preached at Rome in his own hired house receiving them which came unto him Act. 28.30 which will most fitly be applied to the Gentiles of that city the Jewes having solemnly departed from him v. 29. § 11. Accordingly in Ignatius Ep. ad Trall we read of Linus and Clemens that one was S. Paul's the other S. Peter's Deacon both which afterward succeeded them in the Episcopal chaire Linus being constituted Bishop of the Gentile Clemens of the Jewish Christians there And hence growes unquestionably that variety or difference observed among writers some making S. Peter others S. Paul the founder of that Church but others as hath been shewed both of them some making Clemens others Linus the first Bishop after the Apostles both affirmers speaking the truth with this Scholion to interpret them Linus was the first Bishop of the Gentile Christians after S. Paul Clemens the first of the Jewish after S. Peter and after Linus his death Cletus or Anacletus succeeding him and dying also both congregations were at length joyned in one under Clemens by which one clew I suppose it easie to extricate the Reader out of the mazes into which the ancient writers may lead him in rehearsing the first Bishops of Rome so very diversly but this is not a place to insist on it § 12. By all which it appears that even in those Churches whereof S. Peter is acknowledged the founder as that of Rome and the like yet he cannot be deemed the sole founder but coequal to him S. Paul of the Gentile as he of the Jewish Proselytes and if the sole government of that Church be devolved to the original it will be found to have begun in Clemens in whom the union of the Jewish and Gentile congregations there was first made and not in S. Peter § 13. But then for another great part of the Christian world it is manifest that S. Peter had never to doe either mediately or immediately in the planting or governing of it and consequently that from him that power can never descend to any other Not to mention the travailes and labours and plantations of the other Apostles which certainly had each their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently their Provinces by Apostolical joynt consent assigned them Act. 1. though that short History written by S. Luke S. Paul's attendant mention them not I shall only insist on the beloved Disciple his fellow-Apostle of the Circumcision and that abundant Labourer S. Paul § 14. Nor all the Circumcision For S. John who had the favour of Christ
Patriarchate and the attendants and pompes of that So it proceeds on a concession that all that Constantinople wanted or in which this New came short of the Old Rome was only the dignity of a Patriarchate without any ordinary jurisdiction over other Churches Which again shewes us what was the nature of the preeminence of the Roman See at that time no supreme authoritative power over other Primates The dignity of Patriarchs reconcileable with the independency of Primates but only a precedence or priority of place in Councels an eminence in respect of dignity which is perfectly reconcileable with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and independence the no-subordination or subjection of other Primates § 6. The Canon of Ephesus against encroaching on any others Province This hath formerly been manifested when we discoursed of the original and power and dignity of Primates and Patriarchs and is put beyond all controll by that Canon of the Councel of Ephesus in the cause of the Archbishop of Cyprus over whom the Patriarch of Antioch though Patriarch of all the Orient was adjudged to have no manner of power And this independency of Cyprus not only from the Patriarch of Antioch but from all others whomsoever was contested then as from the Apostles times and asserted and vindicated by that Councel and order given indefinitely against all invasions for time to come in whatever Diocese that no Bishop shall encroach upon anothers Province or usurp a power where from the Apostles times he had not enjoyed it which how directly it is applicable to and prejudgeth the pretensions of Rome as well as of Antioch is so manifest that it cannot need farther demonstrating § 7. Instances of Independent power in Archbishops Of the same kind two farther instances I shall here adde first of the Archbishop of Carthage who being the chief Primate or Metropolitan for these two words in the African style different from the usage of other Churches are observeable to signifie the same thing in Africk i. e. in one of the thirteen Dioceses of the Empire appears to have been independent from all other power an absolute Primate subject to no superiour or Patriarch whether of Alexandria or Rome This is evident by Justinian in the 131 Novel where the Emperour gives the same privileges to the Archbishop of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Carthage which he had formerly given to the Bishop of Justiniana prima which being the second example I meant to mention I shall briefly shew what that Prerogative was which equally belonged to these two § 8. Justiniana Prima was the head of a Caetera Provinciae sub ejus sint authoritate i. e. tam ipsa mediterranea Dacia quà m Dacia Ripensis nec non Mysia Secunda Dardania Praevalitana Provincia secunda Macedonia pars secunda etiam Pannoniae quae in Bacenâ—i est civitate Justin de Privileg Archiep Just Prim ed à Gothofred Dacia the new a Diocese as that signifies more then a Province a b Volumus ut Primae Justinianae patriae nostrae pro tempore sacrosanctus Antistes non solùm Metroplitanus sed etiam Archiepiscopus fiat Ibid. Primat's a Patriarch's dominion erected by Justinian the Emperour and that city thus dignified as the c Multis variis modis nostram patriam augere cupientes in qua Deus praestitit nobis ad hunc modum So Gothofred reads but certainly it should be ad or in hunc mundum quem ipse condidit venire Ibid. Necessarium duximus ipsam gloriosissimam Praefecturam quae in Pannoniâ erat in nostrâ foelicissimâ patriâcollocare Ib. place where he had been born and the Archbishop thereof made Primate of all that Diocese This is thus expressed in the Imperial Constitutions Nov. 11. that he shall have omnem censuram Ecclesiasticam summum Sacerdotium summum fastigium summam dignitatem all power of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction the supreme Priesthood supreme honour and dignity And in the Constitutions set out by Gothofred out of an old MS. Copy Tu omnes Justinianae primae Antistites quicquid oriatur inter eos discrimen ipsi hoc dirimant finem eis imponant nec ad alium quendam eatur sed suum agnoscant Archiepiscopum omnes praedictae Provinciae that all the Provinces shall in the last resort make their appeal to him for all controversies And Nov. 131. c. 3. that in all that Diocese he shall have locum Apostolicae sedis the place or dignity of an Apostolical seat which gave Nicephorus occasion in his relation of this matter to affirme that the Emperour made it a free city and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an head unto itself with full power independent from all others And though the first Bishop thereof was consecrated by Vigilius Bishop of Rome as by some Bishop it is certain he must yet that is of no force against the conclusion to which I designe this instance it being evident that being consecrated he was absolute and depended not on any and his * Quando autem te ab â—âc luce decedere contigerit pro tempore Archiepiscopum ejus à venerabili suo Concilio Metropolitanorum ordinari sancimus quem ad modum decet Archiepiscopum omnibus honoratum Ecclesiis provehi Ibid. successors were to be ordained by his Councel of Metropolitanes and not by the Pope § 9. Which as it makes a second instance of the point in hand so when it is remembred that all this independent absolute power was conferred upon this city the Emperors favorite only by his making it a Primate's or chief Metropolitane's See and that Carthage's being the Prime Metropolis of Africk is expressed by having the same privileges that Justiniana Prima had It will follow what is most certain and might otherwise be testified by innumerable evidences that every Primate or chief Metropolitane was absolute within his own circuit neither subject nor subordinate to any forein Superiour whether Pope or Patriarch And that was all which was useful much more then was necessary to be here demonstrated And being so there remains to the See of Rome no farther claim to the subjection of this Island nor appearance of proof of the charge of schisme in casting off that yoke upon this first score of S. Peter's or his successors right to the Vniversal Pastorship § 10. The unreasonablenesse of confining the Catholick Church to the number of those that live in the Roman subjection Upon this head of discourse depends also all that is or can be said for the confining the Catholick Church to the number of those who live in obedience to the Roman Church or Bishop For if there have been from the Apostles times an independent power vested in each Primate or chief Metropolitane as hath been evidently shown then how can it be necessary to the being of a member of the Catholick Church to be subject to that one Primate 'T is certainly sufficient to the conservation of the unity of the whole Church that every
one pay an obedience where an obedience is due and no way usefull toward that end that those that are born free should resigne up divest themselves of that privilege and become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 servants or subjects of their own making But I shall not enlarge on this matter but conclude with that of our Bishops in Convocation Anno Chr 1537. in their Book intituled The Institution of a Christian man that it was many hundred years before the Bishop of Rome could acquire any power of a Primate over any other Bishops which were not within his Province in Italie And that the Bishops of Rome doe now transgresse their own profession made in their Creation For all the Bishops of Rome alwaies when they be consecrated and made Bishops of that See doe make a solemn profession and vow that they shall inviolably observe all the Ordinances made in the eight first General Councels among which it is especially provided that all causes shall be determined within the Province where they be begun and that by the Bishops of the same Province which absolutely excludes all Papal i. e. forein power out of these Realms CHAP. VI. Their third plea from the Bishop of Rome having planted Christianity among us § 1. THE next part of the Romanist's arguing against us is taken from a peculiar right or claim that the Bishop or See of Rome hath to our obedience upon the score of having planted Christianity among us § 2. The plea from Planting the Faith unreconcileable with the former But before I proceed to shew the invalidity of this plea I desire it may first be observed that the pleading of this as the title by which the Bishop of Rome hath right to our subjection is absolutely unreconcileable with his former pretensions founded in his oecumenical Pastorship by succession to S. Peter For certainly he that is supposed in grosse to have that original title to all power over all Churches cannot be imagined to acquire it afterward by way of retail over any particular Church He that claims a reward as of his own labour and travail must be supposed to disclaim Donation which is antecedent to and exclusive of the other as the title of descent is to that of Conquest And it is a very great prejudice to the justice of his pretensions who findes it necessary to mix things that are so incompetible § 3. A Dilemma to the Romanist And therefore I am obliged to offer this Dilemma to the Romanist in this place and to demand Which is the Pope's true title to the subjection of this Island the Donation of Christ or conversion wrought by Augustine the Monk If the latter be affirmed to be it then it must be granted by him both that this Island before the time of Pope Gregory was no way subjected to the Romish See and withall that no Christian nation is at this day thus subject but such as doth appear to have been converted by Rome as the Saxons here are supposed to have been And then this concession will lose more subjects to the Apostolick See then the return of these Islands to the desired subjection would ever be able to countervail or recompense and therefore it is reasonable to insist on the terms of this bargain and not to yeild the one till the other be yeilded to us But if the former be affirmed to be it and that indeed the commission from Christ to S. Peter be still the fundamental hold by which our subjection is and alwaies hath been due to his successors then is that other of the conversion by Augustine but a fallacious pretense a non causa pro causâ to amuze us and need not farther be answered or invalidated then by this confession § 4. The Faith planted here before Augustine the Monk But then passing by this advantage and taking the objection as it lies by it self these farther considerations will take off all force from it 1. That this Island was converted to the Faith of Christ long before Augustine's preaching to the Saxons either in or very neer the Apostles times in Tiberius his reign saith Gildas and long before Tertullian's and Origen's time as by them appears Tertull in Apol and Orig in Ezech Hom 4. To this I shall not need to adde the testimony of Eleutherius the Bishop of Rome in the vulgar Epistle to our Lucius the first Christian King of the world styling him vicarium Dei in regno suo God's vicegerent in his own kingdome because as there is some doubt of the authenthenticknesse of that Epistle so the * Suscepistis nuper in Regno Britanniae legem fidem Christi only thing that we have now need to conclude from it is otherwise evident viz that the Nation was in his time converted and so long before Augustine's coming And though by Dioclesian's persecution Christianity were here shrewdly shaken yet I suppose that will not be thought argumentative both because it might be of ill example against other nations where the faith was as bloodily persecuted in that or other times and possibly at some point of time against Rome it self And not quite destroyed by Dioclesian where S. Peter's chair was not alwaies amulet sufficient to avoid the like destructions and especially because it is evident that the British Church survived that calamity three of our Bishops being ten years after that present and their names subscribed Eborius of Yorke Restitutus of London and Adelfius Coloniae Londinensium at the Councel of Arles eleven years before the first Councel of Nice So likewise at the time of that Nicene Councel it appears that as Britaine was one of the six Dioceses of the West Empire see Notitia Provinc Occident so there were in it three Metropolitanes the Bishop of York his Province Maxima Caesariensis the Bishop of London his Province Britannia prima the Bishop of Caeruske his Province Britannia secunda in Monmouthshire * See S. Hen Spelman Concil Anglic pag. 26. out of the Annales of Gisburne which after in King Arthur's time was translated to S. Davids where it continued an Archbishoprick till King Henry I. who subjected it to Canterbury and †à Samsone usque tempus Henrici primi sederunt Meneviae undecim Episcopi usque ad hoc tempus Episcopi Meneviae à suis suâ—fraganeis Wallensibus ibidem fuerunt consecrati nullâ penitus professione vâ—l subjectione factâ alteri Ecclesiae Ibid. all this space of about 500 years after Augustines coming the Bishops thereof eleven in number were all consecrated by the suffragan Bishops of that Province without any profession or subjection to any other Church as the Annales there affirm § 5. To the same purpose is it The Britains rejection of the Bishop of Rome that when Augustine required subjection to the Pope and Church of Rome the Abbat of Bangor is recorded to have returned him this answer Notum sit vobis quòd nos omnes sumus Be it known unto you that
force 1. the matter of fact that thus it was in England 2. the consequence of that fact that it were Schisme supposing these Successors of S. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ 3. the matter of fact again that S. Peters Successors were thus constituted Vniversal Pastors by Christ This again of two branches 1. that S. Peter was so constituted 2. that the power instated on S. Peter devolved on the Bishops of Rome I shall endevour to expedite this matter by granting and not requiring the pretenders farther to prove the two first branches and leave the issue of the debate to their manifesting the truth or our manifesting the falshood of the last mentioned but indeed the principal fundamental part of the contention as it consists of two branches one as it respects S. Peter the other as it respects his Successor in the See of Rome wherein if the Romanists pretensions shall appear to have truth in them we must be acknowledged by breaking off from our submission to that See to be formally Schismaticks according to the grounds allready laid and acknowledged by us But on the other side if their pretensions herein shall appear to be false or unsufficiently proved and manifested there is no other branch of the argument be it never so true which can give the conclusion any authority with any pondering rational man it being in the power of any weak link to destroy the usefulnesse of the whole chain and consequent to the falsenesse or inevidence of any one proposition that the conclusion shall not be inferred by that arguing § 4. The Supremacy of S. Peter examined And first for the pretension as far as it respects S. Peter and must be managed by evidences and so concluded either on one side or the other I shall begin with offering my evidences for the Negative § 5 Evidences against it First from his being Apostle of the Circumcision peculiarly And first it is evident by Scripture that this Apostle was the Apostle of the circumcision or Jewes exclusively to the uncircumcision or Gentiles which were generally anothers Province By Apostle here I understand a Commissioner of Christs endued with authority by him and this Commission given to him as to all the other Apostles indefinitely and unlimitedly not restrained by Christs words to any particular Province but extending equally to the whole world what therefore is done in this kind is by Subsequent act of the Apostles themselves who are testified to have done that which it had been very unskilful and improvident and consequently unreasonable not to have done viz. distributed their Vniversal great Province inro several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1.25 distributions or Lots or lesser Provinces one or more to goe one way the other another which is there called by S. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to go to his own or proper place or assignation for the witnessing the Resurrection and proclaiming the faith or Doctrine of Christ to the world § 6. Now if the circumcision or Jewish Christians were peculiarly S. Peters Province the lot or division assigned unto him agreeable unto which it is that both his preaching in the Acts is to the Jewes in Judaea and Samaria and his Epistles are both of them addressed to the Jewes of the dispersion and none else then it is not imaginable how he should be the Vniversal or Supreme Pastor or Bishop of the whole world For the Christians of that age of the world being either Jewes or Gentiles the Jewes again either those that remained in their countrey or those that were dispersed in other regions there was but one portion of one of these which can reasonably be placed under S. Peters Jurisdiction The Jewes that were in Judaea were all immediately subject to the several Bishops in each city and all they to their Metropolitane James the Bishop of Jerusalem Of this James the brother or neer kinsman of Christ many a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. in 1 Cor 15.7 ex Sentententiâ Chrysostomi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Photius Epist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Nicephorus l. 2 c. 38. of the Ancients affirm that he was by Christ after his resurrection constituted Bishop there b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others that it was done by Christ and his Apostles c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb ex Clement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesippus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap Euseb l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vide Athan. in Synops Epiph. Haer. 78. Nyssen de Resur Or. 2. Hieron in Gal. 1. in Catal. Euseb in Chron. p. 43. others the more ancient that the Apostles constituted him in that See Peter James and John the three most honoured by Christ conferring this honour upon him whereupon in this his See he is named before Peter and John Gal. 2.9 and hath the Principal place in the Councel at Jerusalem where S. Peter is present and accordingly gives the Sentence Act. 15.19 upon which the Rescript is grounded v. 22. From all which as it appeareth that the Jurisdiction in that Metropolis which had extended very far among the Jewes not only to all Judaea but even to Syria and Cilicia and other regions saith Agrippa in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo as hath formerly been mentioned belonged to James the Just and not to S. Peter So it is as evident that it was not by S. Peter alone intrusted to him which might conclude some peculiar transcendent power of S. Peter there but by S. James and S. John together with S. Peter which quite takes off all pretension of his to the singular Supremacy there § 7. The Gentiles were not S. Peters Province So again for the uncircumcision or Gentile Christians they were not S. Peter's Province but peculiarly S. Paul's by S. Peter's own confession and acknowledgment Gal. 2.7 who is therefore styled the Apostle of the Gentiles Rom. 11.13 and that without any commission received or consequently dependence from S. Peter as he declares and contests it Gal. 1.12.17 having his assignation immediately from Christ v. 16. Accordingly whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same city the one constantly applied himself to the Jewes received disciples of such formed them into a Church left them when he departed that region to be governed by some Bishop of his assignation and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles § 8. Thus we know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted the Jewes and S. Paul the Gentiles and certainly S. Paul no way Subordinate or dependent on him as appears by his behaviour toward him avowed Gal. 2.11 and acordingly in Ignatius his Epistle to the Magnesians we read of the Church of Antioch that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 founded by S. Peter and S. Paul not by one or
The words Mat. 16. are only a promise in the future what Christ will afterward do and so the donation there set down only by way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or anticipation and if the making this promise to him peculiarly seem to make any thing for him then the repetition of that promise Mat. 18.18 which is made to all the Apostles indefinitely will take off that appearance where it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say unto you to all of them equally and without any peculiarity of restriction whatsoever ye shall bind c. The applying the words particularly to S. Peter hath one special energie in it and concludes that the Ecclesiastical power of oeconomy or stewardship in Christ's house of which the keyes are the token Isa 22.21 belongs to single persons such as S. Peter was and not only to Consistories or assemblies that whatsoever S. Peter acted by virtue of Christs power thus promised he should be fully able to act himself without the conjunction of any other and that what he thus did clave non errante no one or more men on earth could rescind without him which is a just ground of placing the power Ecclesiastical in Single persons and not in Communities in the Prelate of each Church and not in the Presbytery But still this is no confining of this power to S. Peter any more then to any other single Apostle who had this power as distinctly promised to each of them as here S. Peter is pretended and acknowledged to have To which purpose as the words of Scripture are most clear Mat. 18.18 and accordingly Mat. 19. the promise is again made of twelve thrones for each Apostle to sit on one to judge i. e. to rule or preside in the Church and when that promise was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit Act. 2. the fire that represented that Spirit was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sat upon every one of them without any peculiar mark allowed S. Peter and they were all filled with the holy Ghost and so this promise equally performed as it was made to all so is this exactly the notion which the ancient Fathers of the Church appear to have had of them in Mat. 18. Thus Theophylact according to S. Chrysostomes sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though the words I will give thee were delivered to S. Peter alone yet the power hath been conferred on all the Apostles Epist 27. S. Cyprian hath an eminent place to this purpose Dominus noster Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio loquitur dicit Petro Ego tibi dice Quia tu es Petrus tibi dabo claves Inde per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernetur Christ meaning to set down the way of ordering his Church saith unto Peter I will give thee the keyes From this promise of his the ordination of Bishops and course of the Church hath continued by all successions and vicissitudes So that the Church is built upon Bishops in the plural and every Ecclesiastick act is governed by them So S. Ambrose De Dign Sacerd c. 5. 6. Claves illas regni Coelorum in beato Petro cuncti suscepimus Sacerdotes All we Bishops have in S. Peter received those keyes of the kingdome of heavens Ep. ad Dracont And accordingly S. Athanasius mentions the office of Bishop as one of those things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ effigiated or formed in or by the Apostles And S. Basil the great calls Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presidency of the Apostles the very same that Christ bestowed upon all and not only on one of them § 23. By all which it is evident again that the power which Christs commission instated on S. Peter was in like manner intrusted to every other single Apostle as well as to him and consequently that this of universal Pastor was no personal privilege or peculiarity of S. Peters § 24. The Romanists argument from Tu es Petrus evacuated Thirdly that argument which is taken by learned Romanists from the name of Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rock or foundation stone bestowed on him by Christ as if that were sufficient to found this pretended Supremacy is presently evacuated and retorted on the pretenders when 't is remembred 1. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directly the same signifies vulgarly a stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Homers Iliad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of it self denotes no more but by the context Mat. 16.18 being applied to a building must needs signifie a foundation stone and then 2. that all the 12 Apostles are in like manner and not he only or above any other styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twelve foundations Apoc. 21.14 each of which stones having the name of an Apostle on it in respect of the power and dignity that belonged to every one is severally compared to a precious stone And it being there in vision apparent that the wall of the city i. e. of the Church being measured exactly and found to be an hundred fourty four i. e. twelve times twelve cubits 't is evident that that mensuration assignes an equal proportion whether of power or province to all and every of the Apostles which is again a prejudice to the Vniversal Pastorship of any one of them CHAP. V. The Evidences from the Bishop of Romes succeeding S. Peter examined § 1. No privilege by succession from S. Peter but such as S. Peter is proved to have himself FRom this argument of the pretenders as it respects S. Peters person and hath thus been manifested to be utterly incompetent to inferre the designed conclusion It is now very easie but withall very unnecessary to proceed to the other part of it as it concerns S. Peters successors in his Episcopal or which is all one as to this matter his Apostolical seat and power at Rome For certainly what he had not himself he cannot devolve to any of his successors upon that one skore of succeeding him and therefore as this of S. Peters personal power and eminence is the principal So it is in effect the only ground of the Romanists pretension this other of derivative power in his successor being like water that flowes from a spring apt to ascend no higher then the fountain stood and therefore I again think fit to remind the Romanist and peremptorily to insist on this exception that if he cannot make good S. Peters Oecumenical power and Pastorship over all the rest of the Apostles from the donation of Christ which I suppose hath been evidenced he cannot do and for any proofs made use of by any to that purpose and drawn either from Feed my sheep and lambs or from the mention
and communicate it to another And therefore may as freely bestow the power of Primate and chief Metropolitan of England or which is all one of a Patriarch on the Bishop of Canterbury having formerly thought fit to grant it to the Bishop of Rome as he or any of his Ancestors can be deemed to have granted it to the Bishop of Rome And then as this being by this means evidenced to be no more then an act of regal power which the King might lawfully exercise takes off all obligation of obedience in the Bishops to the Pope at the first minute that he is by the King divested of that power or declared not to have had it de jure but only to have assumed it formerly which freedome from that obedience immediately clears the whole businesse of schisme The reasonablenesse of revoking it as that is a departure from the obedience of the lawful superiour so will there not want many weighty reasons deducible from the antient Canons as well as the maximes of civil government why the King who may freely place the Primacy where he please should choose to place it in a Bishop and subject of his own nation rather then in a forein Bishop farre removed and him not only independent from that King but himself enjoying a Principality or territorie which it is too apparent how willing he is to enlarge unlimitedly and to improve the concessions which are either acknowledged or pretended to be made him to that purpose § 11. And here it is not amisse to observe in the reign of Queen Mary Title power of Supreme head of the Church retained by Queen Mary who was no way favourable to the Reformation in points of doctrine and Liturgie and made all speed to repeal what had been done in King Edward's time in that matter yet 1. that she left not the title of Supreme head till the third Parliament of her reigne and 2. that in the second Parliament authority is granted her to make and prescribe to all such Cathedral and Collegiate Churches as were erected by Henry the VIII such statutes and orders as should seem good to her and that statute never repealed but expired 3. that in her third Parliament it was with much difficulty obtained that the supremacie of the Pope should be acknowledged the matter being urged by her as that which concerned the establishing the Matrimonie of her Mother and her legitimation which depended upon the absolute power of the Pope 4. that in the 4 th year of her reigne when the Pope sent Cardinal Petow to be his Legate in England and to be Bishop of Sarisbury she would not permit him to come into the Land neither could he have that Bishoprick which as it was some check to the Pope's absolute supremacy and an assertion and vindication of the Regal power so being added to the former it will be lesse strange that this Supreme power of the Popes should be by the Bishops in the reigne of Henry VIII disclaimed and ejected § 12. Upon this bottome the foundation of Reformation being laid in England the superstructure was accordingly erected by the King and Bishops and Clergie in Convocation but this not all at once but by distinct steps and degrees Somewhat in the reigne of this Henry the VIII as in the number of the Sacraments the use of the Lords Prayer c. in the English tongue and the translation of the Bible all resolved on in Synod the King which duly assembled it presiding in it by his Vicar General § 13. This was much farther advanced in the time of his son Edward the VI. who being a childe The advance of the Reformation in K ng Edward's daies and the Laws and Constitution of this Realm committing the exercise of the Supreme power in that case into the hands of a Protector what was thus regularly done by that Protector cannot be doubted to be of the same force and validity as if the King had been of age and done it himself Or if it should it would be an unanswerable objection against all hereditary successive Monarchy a maim in that form of Government which could no way be repaired there being no amulet in the Crown which secures the life of each King till his successor be of age nor promise from heaven that the children of such Princes shall by succeeding to the Crown advance by miracle to the years and abilities of their Parents So irrational is the scoffe and exception of some that what was done in King Edward's daies being the Acts of a childe is as such to be vilified and despised § 14. In the Reign of this Prince many Changes were made in the Church and Recessions from the Doctrines and practises of Rome Beside that of Images the lawfulnesse of the marriage of the Clergie was asserted a body of an English Liturgie formed and setled for publick use the Eucharist appointed to be administred to the people in both kindes c. and though Bishop Gardner of Winchester and Bishop Bonner of London made opposition against these changes and for some misbehaviours herein were imprison'd and two more moderate learned men Bishop Tunstal of Durham and Bishop Day of Chichester upon another score yet Archbishop Cranmer and the rest of the Bishops making up the farre greater number joyned with the Supreme power in the Reformation And as it is no great marvell that there should be some so few dissenters so the punishment inflicted on them will not be deemed excessive by any that shall compare it with the farre severer executions the fire and fagot which were soon after in Queen Mary's daies inflicted on Archbishop Cranmer Bishop Ridley and Bishop Latimer as the reward of their disputing in the Synod against Transubstantiation and the like cruelties on multitudes more and the Exiles and deprivations which befell so many others in her Reigne However this can be no prejudice to the regularity of the Reformation in the reigne of King Edward wrought as hath been said by the Supreme power with the consent of the major part of Bishops § 15. In Queen Elizabeth's That which afterward followed in the beginning of Qu. Elizabeth's reigne may be thought more distant and lesse reconcileable to our pretensions not that of her sex her being a woman for so was Qu. Mary before which acted so vigorously for the contrary way and the constitution of our Monarchy invests equally either sex in the plenitude of Regal power in sacred as well as civil affairs and it was but to raise envie against the Reformation that Queen Elizabeth's sex as before King Edward's non-age hath by some been thought fit to be mention'd and cannot by any sober judgment be admitted to have any force in it but because as it is from our histories more pertinently objected most of the Bishops were by her divested of their dignities and new created in their stead To this therefore in the last place I must apply my self to give satisfaction And
unity of the Faith which was once delivered to the saints under that head also comprehending the institutions of Christ of his Apostles and of the Vniversal Church of the first and purest ages whether in Government or other the like observances and practises The second is an offence against external peace and Communion Ecclesiastical The third and last is the want of that charity which is due from every Christian to every Christian Beside these I cannot foresee any other species of schisme and therefore the vindicating our Reformation from all grounds of charge of any of these three will be the absolving the whole task undertaken in these sheets § 3. 1. A departure from the Unity of Doctrines or Traditions Apostolical For the first it may be considered either in the Bullion or in the coyn in the grosse or in the retail either as it is a departure from those rules appointed by Christ for the founding and upholding his truth in the Church this Vnity of Doctrine c. or else as it is the asserting any particular branch of Doctrine contrary to Christs and the Apostolical pure Churches establishment § 4. Our Church vindicated from this in two branches And here it is first suggested by the Romanist that by casting out the authority of the Bishop of Rome we have cast off the head of all Christian Vnity and so must needs be guilty of Schisme in this first respect To which the answer is obvious 1. In the first Christs Rules for upholding the truth that that Bishop of Rome was never appointed by Christ to be the head of all Christian unity or that Church to be the conservatory for ever of all Christian truth any more then any other Bishop or Church of the Apostles ordaining or planting and whatever can be pretended for the contrary will be easily answered from the grounds already laid and cleared in the former part of this discourse concerning the Vniversal Pastorship of S. Peter's successors which must not be here so unnecessarily repeated § 5. 2 dly That the way provided by Christ and his Apostles for the preserving the unity of the faith c. in the Church is fully acknowledged by us and no way supplanted by our Reformation That way is made up of two acts of Apostolical providence First their resolving upon some few heads of special force and efficacie to the planting of Christian life through the world and preaching and depositing them in every Church of their plantation 2. Their establishing an excellent subordination of all inferior officers of the Church to the Bishop in every city of the Bishops in every Province to their Metropolitanes of the Metropolitanes in every region or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Patriarchs or Primates allowing also among these such a Primacie of Order or dignity as might be proportionable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the scripture and agreeable to what is by the antient Canons allowed to the Bishop of Rome And this standing subordination sufficient for all ordinary uses and when there should be need of extraordinary remedies there was then a supply to be had by congregating Councels Provincial Patriarchal General as hath formerly been shewed And all this it is most certain asserted and acknowledged by every true son of the Church of England as zealously as is pretended by any Romanist And from hence by the way that speech of the learned and excellent Hugo Grotius which I discern to be made use of by the Romanists and look'd on with jealousie by others will I suppose receive its due importance and interpretation in his Rivet Apologet Discuss p. 255. Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idémque corpus c. § 6. As for the subjection and dependence of this Church to the Monarchick power of the Bishop of Rome this will never be likely to tend to the unity of the whole body unlesse first all other Churches of Christians paid that subjection too and were obliged and so by duty morally ascertain'd alwaies to continue it which it is evident the Eastern Churches had not done long before the time of our pretended departure and 2. unlesse the Bishop of Rome were in probability able to administer that vast Province so as would be most to the advantage of the whole body For which whether he be fitly qualified or no as it is not demonstrable in the causes so is it to be looked on as a Politick Probleme the truth of which belongs to prudent persons and and such as are by God intrusted with the Flock to judge of i. e. to the Princes the nursing Fathers of every Church who are prudentially and fatherly to determine for themselves and those that are under them what is most ordinable to that end and cannot be obliged to conclude farther then the motives or premises will bear to decree what they doe not reasonably and cordially believe § 7. In the Second Particular doctrines Lastly for the particular doctrines wherein we are affirmed by the Romanists to depart from the Vnity of the Faith and so by departing from the unity to be schismatical as heretical by departing from the faith this must be contested by a strict survey of the particular doctrines wherein as we make no doubt to approve our selves to any that will judge of the Apostolical doctrine and traditions by the Scriptures and consent of the first 300 years or the four General Councels The Church of Englands temper in respect of particular doctrines the most competent witnesses of Apostolical traditions so we shall secure our selves of our innocence in this behalf by that principle acknowledged in our Church and owned as the rule by which we are concluded in any debate or controversie That whatever is contrary to the doctrine or practises of those first and purest ages shall by us assoon as it thus appears be renounced and disclaimed also Which resolution of rulinesse and obedience will I suppose conserve us in the unity of the Faith and render us approveable to God though our ignorance thus unaffected should betray us to some misunderstandings of those first times and be an instrument much more probable to lead us into all truth then the supposed infallibility of the Church of Rome can be imagined to be which as it leaves the proudest presumer really as liable to error as him that acknowledgeth himself most fallible so it ascertains him to persevere incorrigible whether in the least or greatest error which by fault or frailty he shall be guilty of § 8. This consideration of the humble docible temper of our Church together with our professed appeal to those first and purest times to stand or fall as by those evidences we shall be adjudged as it necessarily renders it our infelicity not our crime if in judging of Christ's truth we should be deemed to erre so may it reasonably supersede that larger trouble of the Reader in this place which the view and examination of the severals would cost him