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
kingdome of heaven and so doth all unjust excommunication now unite us to the Apostles by this conformity with and participation of their sufferings And I suppose the arguments and testimonies produced by the Chancellour of Paris are and when they were first published were so deemed by those of the Romish communion unanswerable to this matter And accordingly that of Thomas de Curselis in the Councel of Basil that it was * Papae à Christo dictum Quicquid ligaveris super terram erit ligatum non quicquid dixeris esse ligatum Jacob Angularis in Ep ad Wesselum ap Goldast l. 1. p. 575. Which holds in the Interpretative Excommunication said by Christ to the Pope Whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound not whatsoever thou shalt affirm to be bound hath with it the evidence of undeniable truth equally applicable to him and all Bishops in that and in all future ages § 5. And then certainly what hath thus been said of the Formal will with the same evidence be extended also to the Interpretative excommunication whensoever the conditions of the communion contain in them any sinne and so become as the former censures were supposed to be For in that case certainly it is no act of Schisme from any Church for any member to be or to continue thus excluded from it For how desireable and valuable soever an intire inviolate peace with all Christians with all men together with the approbation of our willing cheerful obedience and submission of our judgments and practises to our superiors must forever be deemed by all true disciples of Christ Yet must not the purchase of this treasure be attempted by the admission of any sin any more then the glory of God might be projected by the Apostle's lie The least transgression of God's Law must not be adventured on upon any the most Christian designe or consideration The peaceable living with all men which is so often exhorted to and inculcated is yet no farther recommended then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be possible and as much as in us lies and that we know must be interpreted of a moral and legâ—â— possibility by which we are pronounced able to doe that and no more which we can doe lawfully and so when the Apostle 1 Thess 4.11 exhorts to the most earnest pursuit of this blisful state this ease and rest and quiet from the labours and toils and hell of the factious turbulent spirit it is in a style which supposes this reserve we must saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have an ambition and emulation and contention to live peaceably and quietly obliging us to use all means that would be allowed to the ambitious person in his warmest pursuit i. e. the utmost lawful but not the lowest unlawful means M r Knots Concession in this matter c. 7. p. 471 472. § 6. In which matter it is remarkable what course hath been taken by the late author of Infidelity unmasked in his discourse of the Schisme of Protestants where having acknowledged how perfectly unlawful it is to dissemble equivocate or lie in the matters of faith and withall urgeing from all antiquity that to forsake the external communion of God's visible Church is the sin of schisme he makes a shift to conclude as a natural consequence from hence that therefore the Church I suppose he means of Rome is infallible and not subject to errour because otherwise men might forsake her communion Where though the consequence be very strange that we may forsake the Churches communion in case she be fallible or subject to errour for this supposes it lawful 1. to forsake the communion of any erroneous Church which is much more then we would desire to be granted us and 2. to forsake all that are fallible though they be not actually in errour which is in effect to forsake the communion of all but Saints and Angels and God in heaven for they only have the privilege of impeccable and infallible yet it absolutely acknowledges that it would be lawful to separate from and forsake the even Vniversal Church of Christ in case or on supposition that we could not be permitted to communicate with it without lying and dissembling and equivocating in matters of faith which he there acknowledgeth to be the denying God on earth § 7. Now to return to our present consideration Severe conditions of some Churches Communion Of this there is no question but that as it is said to be customary among the Kings of the Hunnes as soon as they have any children and so no need of their brethrens assistance to banish all their brethren out of their dominions and not to admit them again without putting out their eyes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Cinnamus Hist l. 1. so it is possible I wish it were not justly supposable for a particular Church so to fence and limit to guard and restrain their communion to require such severe conditions of all whom they will admit or tolerate within their Church that some men cannot without putting out their eyes or wilful acknowledgment of untruths others without committing sin against conscience undergoe the conditions thus required nor consequently be admitted to communion with it Make Communion with them impossible As in case any unsound or untrue position be entred into the Confession or Catechisme of any Church and all the members of that Communion be explicitly required to believe Such are prescribing subscription of errors and acknowledge the truth of every branch of that Confession and so that confession be really the condition and accordingly in the reputation of men esteemed the tessera or symbol of that communion then he that shall enter this communion thus conditionated must certainly either actually subscribe or which as to the scandal of the action is equivalent be reasonably supposed to acknowledge that untruth and if in some persons blameless ignorance may be supposed sufficient for the excusing or alleviating that fault yet 1. he that hath means of discovering that untruth and criminously neglects to make use of those means and 2. he that hath discovered the truth and yet thus professeth himself to believe the contrary will not be thus excusable And it is not here sufficient to object the supposable levity of the error or intellectual falsity For how light and inconsiderable and extrinsecal to the foundation soever the error be supposed to be yet if there be obstinacy in continuing in it against light and conviction or if there be falsness in professing or subscribing contrary to present perswasions or scandal and ill example temptation and snare to others in seeming to doe so these certainly are sins and neither light nor inconsiderable nor reconcileable with that fabrick of Christian practise which ought to be superstructed on that foundation § 8. or Profession against Conscience Nay if the errors be really on the other side if the doctrines so proposed as the condition of the communion
of any Church be indeed agreeable to truth but yet be really apprehended by him to whom they are thus proposed to be false and disagreeable it will even in that case be hard to affirm that that man may lawfully thus subscribe contrary to his present perswasions For though it be certain that he that thus erres be obliged to use all probable means to reform and deposite his error and as long as he remains in it is so farre guilty of sin as he wants the excuse of invincible ignorance and being obliged to charity and peace as farre as it is possible and in him lies he cannot be freed from offending against that obligation if he doe not communicate with those the condition of whose communion contains nothing really erroneous or sinful and so though such a man on that side be or may be in several respects criminous yet it is as evident on the other side that he that professes to believe what he really doth not believe that subscribes with his hand what he rejects in his heart or that doth that which is under the scandal of doing so is farre from being guiltless he certainly offends against the precept of sincerity and veracity yea and of charity to his brethren in respect of the scandal hath added hypocrisie to his error and so which way soever he turns he is sure to sin the worst and most unhappy kinde of straight he remains in error and schisme on the one side and by flying from that he advances to lying and hypocrisie on the other and the desire of avoiding one of these cannot justifie the other § 9. This I say in case the error be really on the mans not on the Churches side But if as in the case proposed the errors be supposed to be wholly on the Churches side and withall indispensably required to be subscribed by all and so the conditions of that communion being exacted of him who cannot without sin undertake them be to him really and unexcusably unlawful then certainly to that man in that case it is no crime not to communicate when he is thus excluded from communicating with that Church but a crime and a great one thus by testifying against the truth and his own conscience to qualifie himself for that communion The admission of such guilts as these hypocrisie and lying against conscience and due grounds of conviction is too high a price to be paid even for peace or communion it self § 10. A meek son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase and when the fundamentals of the Faith and superstructures of Christian practise are not concerned in the concessions he will cheerfully expresse his readiness to submit or deposit his own judgment in reverence and deference to his superiours in the Church where his lot is fallen But when this proves unsufficient when peace with the brethren on earth will not be had at a cheaper rate then this of a voluntary offending against our father which is in heaven in this case the Christian must be content to live without it and though he would rejoice to sell all that he hath to purchase that jewel yet his conscience the health and peace of that which is interrupted by every wilful sin is a commodity that must not be parted with whatsoever the acquisition be which is in his view and thus offers it self in exchange for it § 11. Application to the Church of Rome in relation to the present Church of England The evidence of which is I conceive so demonstrative and irresistible that it will be justly extended much farther then the present case of the Church of England gives me any temptation to extend it For in case our Ancestors had unjustly and criminously made a separation from the Church of Rome which it shall anon appear that they have not and we their successors in that schisme should unfeignedly confess and repent and desire to reform that sin and uprightly discharge our conscience in neglecting no means that patience humility charity could suggest to us in order to obtaining our reconciliation yet if that cannot be obtained by all these submissions without that harder condition of renouncing or professing or seeming in common reputation of men to renounce any part of Divine truth or Christian practise which we verily believe to be the truth and our duty it would not be our guilt but only our unhappiness that we were thus forced to continue in that separation The reason is evident from the former grounds we must not sin that we may give glory to God such is confession fruits of repentance Jos 7.19 a penitent thief must not lie to enable himself to make restitution nor the contrite schismatick commit any new sin such certainly is hypocrisie lying professing contrary to present perswasion to complete his repentance for the old § 12. If this last be conceived as it is not the present case of the Church of England so to be an impossible unsupposeable case not only upon the Romanists grounds who I presume will not acknowledge any such hard condition as is the profession of an untruth to be required to any mans reconciliation and readmission to their communion but upon this other score because if any false profession be now required to our re-admission the same was formerly required to our continuance in their communion and consequently our Ancestors departure then could not be supposed as in this last fiction of case it is a schismatical departure I shall not need to give any more distinct answer to this then 1. That we that acknowledge not the Church of Rome to be infallible may be allowed to make a supposition which is founded in the possibility of her inserting some error in her Confessions and making the explicite acknowledgment of that the peremptory indispensable condition of her communion 2. That it is possible also though not by us pretended that she should since that supposed departure of our Ancestors introduce some new doctrines and consequently some new errors and those now be supposeable to lie in the way to our return though they had no part before their birth in driving us from them 3. That that may be by the Church of Rome permitted and allowed to those that have alwaies remained in their communion which to them that have departed and either in their persons or posterity desire to return to it will not be permitted by them It being more ordinary to indulge liberties to sons that have alwaies continued in the family then to grant them to offenders and suppliants that expect favours and graces and restauration to privileges 4. That those which have had their education out of the Communion of the Church of Rome may very possibly probably come to discern that which in that communion would never have been for want of representation discerned by them and consequently may observe some errors in her doctrine
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
we are all subject and obedient to the Church of God and the Pope of Rome but so as we are also to every pious and good Christian viz to love every one in his degree and place in perfect charity and to help every one by word and deed to attain to be the sons of God †Concil Anglic p. 188. Et aliam obedientiam quà m istam non scio debitam ei quem vos nominatis esse Papam nec esse Patrem Patrum vendicari postulari And for any other obedience I know none due to him whom you call the Pope and as little doe I know by what right he can challenge to be father of fathers Bishop of Bishops or Vniversal Bishop Praeterea nos sumus sub gubernatione Episcopi Caerlegionensis super Oscâ As for us we are under the rule of the Bishop of Caerlegion upon Vsk who is to overlook and govern us under God § 6. The invalidity of the argument from conversion when the Britains were certainly not converted by Augustine From hence the result is clear that whatever is pretended from Augustine the Monk or supposed to have been then pressed by him for the advancing of the Popes interest in this Island and concluding us guilty of Schisme in casting off that yoke yet the British Bishops still holding out against this pretension and that with all reason on their side if the title of conversion which the Romanist pleads for our subjection may be of any validity with him it must needs follow that the whole Island cannot upon this score of Augustine's conversion be now deemed schismatical it being certain that the whole Island particularly the Dominion of Wales was not thus converted by Augustine nor formerly by any sent from Rome or that observed the Roman Order as appears by the observation of Easter contrary to the usage received at Rome but either by Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes as our Annals tell us most probably And this in the first place must needs be yeilded to by those that expect to receive any advantage to their cause by this argument And if they will still extend their title equally to those parts of Britannie which Augustine did not as to those which he did convert to Wales as well as to Kent it is evident they must doe it upon some other score whatsoever the pretense be and not upon this of conversion § 7. But then 2 dly for as much of this Island as was really converted to the Faith by the coming of Augustine No title from conversion for subjection there is no title for their subjection and the perpetual subjection of their posterity from this § 8. To examine this a while by other known practises of the Christian world S. Paul by himself or his Apostles or Procurators was the great Converter of the Gentiles Concerning him I shall demand whether all those nations converted by him and his ministers are to all ages obliged to be subject to that chair where S. Paul sat whether in the Church at Antioch or Rome or the like at the time of his sending out or going himself to convert them If so then 1. there cannot be a greater prejudice imaginable to S. Peter's Vniversal Pastorship And 2. it will in the story of the fact appear to have no degree of truth in it Timothie that was placed over Asia in Ephesus and Titus over Crete being as hath formerly appeared supreme in those Provinces and independent from any other See And generally that is the nature of Primates or Patriarchs to have no superior either to ordain or exercise jurisdiction over them but themselves to be absolute within their Province and their successors to be ordained by the suffragan Bishops under them which could not be if every such Church where such a Primate was placed were subject to that Church from which they received the Faith § 9. The power of Kings to erect Patriarchates To put this whole matter out of controversie It is and hath alwaies been in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchates or to translate them from one city to another and therefore whatever title is supposeable to be acquired by the Pope in this Island upon the first planting of the Gospel here this cannot so oblige the Kings of England ever since but that they may freely remove that power from Rome to Canterbury and subject all the Christians of this Island to the spiritual power of that Archbishop or Primate independently from any forein Bishop § 10. For the erection of Primacies or Patriarchates that of Justiniana Prima †Examples in Justiniana Prima c. 5. §. 8. forementioned and set down at large is an evident proof Justinian erecting that long after the rest of the Primates seats in the Empire to be an Archiepiscopal See absolute and independent and subjecting all Dacia the new to it And though the Pope Vigilius was by the Emperour appointed to ordain the first Bishop there yet were his successors to be ordained by his own Metropolitanes and the Bishops under him not to appeal to any others as hath in each particular formerly been evidenced § 11. Carthage The same also hath in like manner been shewn of Carthage which was by the same Justinian not originally dignified but †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 131. after the rescuing it out of the Vandales hands restored to a state of Primacie after the pattern or image of Justiniana Prima and two Provinces more annexed then had antiently belonged to that Bishops jurisdiction § 12. Ravenna Before either of these the Emperour Valentinian the 3 d Anno Christi 432. by his Rescript constituted Ravenna a Patriarchal seat And from his time that held the Patriarchate without any dependence on the Bishop of Rome to the time of Constantinus Pogonatus And though at that time the Greek Emperors Vicarii or Exarchs being not able to support the Bishop of Ravenna against the Longobards he was fain to flie for support to the Bishop of Rome and so submitted himself unto him and after Reparatus the next Bishop Theodorus did the like to Pope Agatho whether upon the score of great friendship with him or in despite to his own Clergie with whom he had variance saith Sabellicus yet the people of Ravenna thought themselves injured hereby and joyned with their next Bishop Foelix to maintain their privilege though Pope Constantine stirring up Justinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against them they were worsted and defeated in their attempt § 13. Other examples there are of this kinde * de privileg Patriar Balsamon points at some which from the †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Emperours charter had this privilege not to be subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were Archbishops independent So under Phocas the Patriarchate of Grado in Italie was erected saith * l. 4. c. 34. Grado Warnefridus de gestis Longobard Others as
it being thus farre evident that it is our avowed wish and our care should it be denied to be our lot a special mark of the Church of England's Reformation to preserve the Vnity of the Apostolical Faith and Primitive practises as intire as we would have done Christ's body or garment and the probability being not weak on our side that the fact of the crucifying souldiers which hath so much of our abhorrence and detestation shall never be our choice our known or wilfull guilt or if it be that we so farre recede from our Profession CHAP. IX The Second species of this Schisme examined as it is an offence against external peace or Communion Ecclesiastical § 1. This Church free from breach of Communion Ecclesiastical NOW for the second branch of this second sort of Schism as it is an offence against external peace or communion Ecclesiastical This cannot with any colour be charged on us As appears by six Considerations of whom these 6 things are manifest and that by the tenure of our Reformation 1. The first that we have alwaies retained the form of Government in and under which the Apostles founded Ecclesiastical assemblies or Communion viz that of the Bishop and his inferiour officers in every Church and so in that respect are in Ignatius his phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 within the altar have no part of that breach of Ecclesiastical communion upon us which consists in casting out that order 2. The second That as we maintain that Order so we regularly submit to the exercise of it acknowledge the due authority of these Governors profess Canonical obedience to them submit to their Censures and Decrees and give our selves up to be ruled by them in all things that belong to their cognizance secundum Deum according to God 3. The third That the circumstances which are necessary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the assembling our selves together for the publick worship whether 1. that of place our Churches consecrated to those offices or 2. that of time the Lords day and other primitive festivals and Fasts and in their degree every day of the week or 3. that of forms of Prayer and Praises celebration of Sacraments and sacramentals Preaching Catechizing c. or 4. that of Ceremonies such as the practise of the Primitive Church hath sent down recommended to us or lastly that of Discipline to binde all these performances upon every member of the Church in his office or place are all entered into our Confessions setled by Article as part of our establishment and so the want of either or all of those are not imputable to our Reformation § 2. The fourth Fourthly That in every of these three whatsoever the Romanist requires us to adde farther to that which we voluntarily and professedly receive 1. the supreme transcendent monarchick power of the Pope 2. the acknowledgment of and obedience to his supremacy 3. the use of more ceremonies festivals c. is usurpation or imposition of the present Romanists absolutely without Authority or Precedent from the antient Primitive Church from whom we are so unwilling to divide in any thing that we choose a conformity with them rather then with any later modell and if by receding from the Ordo Romanus in any particular we doe not approve our selves to come neerer to the first and purest times it is the avow'd Profession of our Church the wish and purpose of it which I may justly style part of our establishment to reduce and restore that whatsover it is which is most pure and Primitive in stead of it § 3. The fift Fiftly That as we exclude no Christian from our communion that will either filially or fraternally embrace it with us being ready to admit any to our assemblies that acknowledge the Foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles so we as earnestly desire to be admitted to the like freedome of external Communion with all the members of all other Christian Churches as oft as occasion makes us capable of that blessing of the one heart and one lip and would most willingly by the use of the antient method of literae Communicatoriae maintain this Communion with those with whom we cannot corporally assemble and particularly with those which live in obedience to the Church of Rome § 4. The sixt Sixtly that the onely hindrances that interpose and obstruct this desired freedome of external Communion are wholly imputable to the Romanists § 5. First their excommunicating and separating from their assemblies all that maintain communion with the Church of England which we know was done by Bull from the Pope about the tenth year of Q. Elizabeth before which time those English which had not joyned in our Reformation might and did come to our assemblies and were never after rejected by us but upon their avowed contumacie against the orders of our Church which consequently brought the censures on them and to that it is visibly consequent that we that were cast out cannot be said to separate as in the former part of this discourse hath been demonstrated § 6. Secondly their imposing such conditions on their Communion belief of doctrines and approbation of practises which we neither believe nor approve of and are ready to contest and maintain our Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by that we cannot without sinning or seeming to sin against conscience without wilfull falling on one side or dissembling and unsound confession on the other side or at least the scandal of one of these accept of their communion upon such conditions as hath formerly been demonstrated also § 7. A consideration concerning our Church And in this matter it were very well worthy our considering how farre the Articles of our Church of England proceed in accord with the present Roman doctrines and practises and in what particulars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot perswade our selves to consent to them and then to offer it to the Vmpirage of any rational arbitrator whether we that unfeignedly professe to believe so much and no more nor to be convinced by all the reasons and authorities proofs from Scripture or the first Christian writers those of the first three hundred years or the four General Councels produced by them being in full inclination and desire of minde ready to submit upon conviction are in any reason or equity or according to any example or precept of Christ or his Apostles or the antient Primitive Church to be required to offer violence to our mindes and to make an unsound profession or else for that one guilt of not doing so to be rejected as hereticks and denied the benefit of Christian Communion which we heartily desire to extend and propagate to them which deny it to us All this thus put together and applied to this present matter will certainly vindicate us from all appearance of guilt of this second branch of the second sort of Schisme CHAP. X. The third species of this Schism as