or practise which their Ancestors at their very departure from them had not discerned and then though those errors subscribed to by them had the Lenitive or Antidote of blameless ignorance yet because those that now really discern that truth which the Ancestors discerned not cannot lawfully professe not to discern it or professe against conscience to believe what they doe not believe it is therefore necessarily consequent that the return of such to the peace of the Roman Church may by this means be rendred impossible though their Ancestors continuance there lying under no such prejudice their separation were acknowledged unlawful CHAP. III. The several sorts of Schisme § 1. THus much hath been necessarily premised for the true notion of Schisme taken from the origination of the word as that includes in the neuter sense a recession or departure in the reciprocal a separating or dividing himself § 2. It is now time to proceed and inquire how many sorts there are of this schisme in the Ecclesiastical sense or by how many waies the guilt of this sin of the flesh may be contracted § 3. In which inquiry it will be first necessary to consider wherein Ecclesiastical unity consists viz Unity Ecclesiastical wherein it consists in the preserving all those relations wherein each member of the whole Church of Christ is concerned one towards another These relations are either of subordination paternal on one side and filial on the other or of equality fraternal Unity of Members subordinate The unity of those members that are subordinate one to the other consists in the constant due subjection and obedience of all inferiors to all their lawful superiors and in due exercise of authority in the superiors toward all committed to their charge Of fellow brethren And the unity of the fellow brethren in the performance of all mutual duties of justice and charity toward one another § 4. The former Of the former sort is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obedience to the Rulers of the Church Heb. 13.17 and back again the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 due feeding i. e. governing the flock of God among them 1 Pet. 5.2 And because there be under the King or Emperor or supreme power to whom all are subject in any his dominions many possible links in that subordination Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops Presbyters Deacons and the brethren or congregation the unity must be made up of the due subordination and Christian i. e. charitative exercise of power in all these § 5. The later Of the later sort there are as many branches as there are varieties of equalities The brethren or believers in every congregation i. e. all beside the Governors of the Church however unequal in other respects are in this respect equalized and comprehended all under the one title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the younger 1 Pet. 5.5 And this whether we respect all other fellow-members of the same or whether of any other congregation whether Parish or City or Diocese or Province or Nation of the West of the East of the whole Christian world as farre as each member is qualified to exercise any fraternal duty toward them So again the several Deacons or Presbyters of any Diocese the several Bishops of any Province the several Metropolitans of any Nation the several Primates or Patriarchs one with another as the several Apostles over the whole world are each of them to be looked on as equals to all others of the same sort And proportionably and together with the Pastors the flocks the several communities or congregations of Christian men considered in complexo the Parishes Dioceses Provinces Nations Climes of the whole Christian world And according to these so many equalities there are or ought to be so many sorts of unities so many Relations of that mutual fraternal charity which Christ came to plant in his Church § 6. Communion Having seen what the unity is to which Communion superadds no more but the relation of external association whether by assembling for the worship of God in the same place where the matter is capable of it or whether by letters communicatory by which we may maintain external Communion with those which are most distant from us It will be easie to discern what Schisme is viz the breach of that Vnity and Communion and what be the sorts or species of it either those that offend against the subordination which Christ hath by himself and his Apostles setled in his Church or those that offend against the mutual charity which he left among his disciples § 7. The branches of Schisme as it is an offence against Subordination For the first of these those that offend against the due subordination they are possibly of as many sorts as there be distinct links in the subordination As first those brethren or people which reject the ministerie of the Deacons or Presbyters in any thing wherein they are ordained and appointed by the Bishop and as long as they continue in obedience to him and of their own accord break off and separate from them Schism against the Deacons or Presbyters refuse to live regularly under them they are by the Antient Church of Christ adjudged and looked on as Schismaticks So Ignatius the holy Bishop and Apostolical person and Martyr of Antioch in Ep ad Trall admonishing them to beware of the poyson of seducers i. e. the Schismaticks of those times he directs them this one way to doe it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This ye shall doe saith he if ye be not puffed up and if ye be not separated from God from Christ from the Bishop He that continues within the sept is pure He that doth ought without the Bishop and Presbyterie and Deacon is not of a pure conscience accounting all that live out of this obedience to be so far infected and defiled with schisme So again in the former part of the same Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all revere the Deacons as the ministers of Jesus Christ and in like manner the Bishop as Jesus Christ the son of the Father the Presbyters as the Senate of God and College of Apostles without these it is not called a Church Where every particular Church being administred by these no man is farther deemed a member of the Church then he lives regularly within this obedience And the same is the importance of his exhortation to the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observe the Bishop and the Presbyters and the Deacons intimating this to be the only way of preserving unity against schisme as appears by that which had gone before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is one altar or sept as there is one Bishop together with his Presbyters and Deacons and the living in union with obedience to these is the only way to doe whatsoever ye doe according to the will of God Where this subordination being looked on as that which is placed in
it is evident that there were other Episcopal Sees in that Asia beside those seven named in the Revelation and those afterward appear to have been subject to the Metropolis of Ephesus which alone of all the seven continued till Constantin's time the rest being destroyed § 17. From these manifest footsteps of Metropolitical power in Scripture it is easie to descend through the first times and find the like In Ignatius As when Ignatius the Archbishop of Antioch the Primitive Martyr in his Epistle to the Romans styleth himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastor of the Church which was in Syria that whole region belonging then to that Metropolis of Antioch Agreeable to which is that of the author of the Epistle to the Antiocheni whosoever it was inscribing it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church of God in Syria that belongs as a Province to that of Antioch In the Bishop of Rome what his Province So the Epistle to the Romans is inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church which hath the Presidencie in the place of the Region or Province of the Romans which gives the Bishop of Rome a Metropolitical power over all other the Bishops of that Province the Vrbicarian region as it was styled and * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Sardic Epist ad Alex. ap Athan. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. Epist ad solit vit agent Ex Provinciâ Italiae civ Med ex Prov. Romanâ Civitate Portuensi Syn. Arelat 1. in nominibus Synodo praefixis distinguished from the Province of Italy properly so called confined to the seven Provinces of the civil jurisdiction of the Vicarius Italiae and the Ecclesiastical of the Archbishop of Milan the chief Metropolis thereof Of the circuit or compasse of this Province of the Bishop of Rome many learned men have discoursed excellently out of the Antient Surveys of the Provinces particularly that very learned Frenchman so rarely skilled and judicious in Antiquity Jacobus Leschaserius in his little tract de Region Suburbic but none with more evidence of conviction then our Modest countreyman M r Brerewood who thus describes the antient jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome that it contained all those Provinces of the Diocese of Italy which the old Lawyers term Suburbicarias of which there were ten three Islands Sicily Sardinia and Corsica and the other seven in the firm land of Italy taking up in a manner all the narrow part of it viz. all Italy Eastward but on the West no farther extended then to the River Magra the limit of Tuscanie toward the Tyrrhene sea and to the River Esino antiently Asius toward the Adriatick Sea For at that River Esino met both the Picenum Suburbicarium and Annonarium the former of which belonged to the Prefecture of Rome of which that city was the Metropolis And the later with all the other Provinces in the broader part of Italy seven of them in all to the Diocese of Italy of which Milan was the Metropolis Hist Eccl. l. 1· c. 6. Thus Ruffinus in his Paraphrase rather then translation of the Nicene Canon saith that the Bishop of Rome was thereby authorized Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum Sollicitudinem gerere to take and manage the care of the suburbicarian Churches and there is no reason to doubt but that he that lived so neer after that Councel and was of Italy knew competently what he affirmed of that matter And it being evident that in all other places the Ecclesiastical jurisdictions were proportioned to the temporal of the Lieutenants and that the Suburbicarian region and the so many and no more provinces in them pertain'd to the Praefecture of the city of Rome It must follow that these were the limits of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of that Bishop also But this by the way in passing § 18. In Alexandria Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So when of S. Mark it is affirm'd out of the ancâ—ent records by Eusebius that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first constituted Churches in the plural in Alexandria and under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Province of Alexandria put them all into the hands of Anianus in the 8 th of Nero Ibid. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is evident that Alexandria was a Metropolitical or Patriarchal See to which all Aegypt did belong § 19. In S. Cyprian So S. Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage to which the whole Province of Africk pertained is by the Councel of Constantinople in Trullo Can. 2. called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Archbishop of the Region of Africk And accordingly he often mentions the many Bishops in his Province Vniversis vel in nostrâ Provinciâ to all the Bishops in our Province Ep. 40. And Latiùs fusa est nostra Provincia habet etiam Numidiam Mauritanias duas sibi cohaerentes Our Province is extended farther hath Numidia and the two Mauritania's annexed to it Ep. 45. in each of which there being a Church and consequently a Bishop in every city as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 14.23 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every city Act. 16.4 they were all subject to this Metropolitane § 20. The subjection of Bishops to Archbishops By all this and much more which might be added it is manifest that as the several Bishops had Praefecture over their several Churches and the Presbyters Deacons and people under them such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schisme So the Bishops themselves of the ordinary inferior cities for the preserving of unity and many other good uses were subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropolitanes § 21. Of Archbishops to Primates c. Nay we must yet ascend one degree higher from this of Arch-Bishops or Metropolitanes to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs the division of which is thus cleared in the division and Notitia of the Roman Empire Original of Primates Constantine the Great instituted four Praefecti Praetorio two in the East as many in the West Of the Western one at Rome another at Triers this last then called Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum These Praefects had their several Vicarii who in their power and name judged the Provinces As for example The Praefectus Praetorio placed at Triers had three Vicarii or Lieutenants one placed at Triers a second at Lions a third at Vienna from the greatnesse of whose authority and the resort of all other cities and Provinces to them for justice sprang the splendor and dignity of those cities where they resided and the dependence of large Provinces and many other cities on each of them This whole circuit which was thus subject to or dependent on any such Lieutenant was by the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the style devolving from the civil to the Ecclesiastical divisions as the former both of cities and of Territories and of Metropoles
or Mother cities the chief in every Province had done the Bishop being answerable to the Defensor civitatis and the Archbishop to the Praesident in every Province from thence it came that every such Metropolis which was the seat of any Vicarius or Lieutenant General was over and above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Bishop thereof Primas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patriarcha a Primate Exarch or Patriarch and all that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is larger then a Province the joynt administration of many Provinces with the several Metropoles and Metroplitanes contained in it was subjected to him Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus S. Irenaeus being Bishop of Lyons is by Eusebius affirm'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have the over sight or Government of the Provinces of France either those only that were under that Primate or perhaps of all France Ibid. c. d. of which Lyons was then in the Ecclesiastical account the first Exarchate for so saith the same Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyons and Vienna but first Lyons were famously known to be beyond all others in those parts the principal Metropoles of France And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these were the most splendid illustrious Churches there To which first times I conceive belongs that verse of Guilielmus Brito in Philippeide Et Lugdunensis quo Gallia tota solebat Vt fama est Primate regi placing all France under the Primate of Lyons or affirming it from tradition ut fama est that it was wont antiently to be so placed which was not well understood or taken notice of by the learned Jos Scaliger In Notit Galliae p. 8â—2 when he affirms it nuperum novitium ex beneficio Romani Pontificis indultum a privilege lately granted to the Bishop of Lyons by the Pope quod Primatem sese vocari gaudeat that he calls himself Primate which privilege if not title did so long since belong to Irenaeus the Bishop of that Diocese § 22. I shall not need inlarge on this subject or set down the several Primates and Dioceses belonging to them It is known in the ancient notitiae of the Church that beside the three Patriarchs of Rome Alexandria and Antioch to which title afterward Constantinople and Jerusalem were advanced there were eleven Primates more there being fourteen Dioceses or joynt administrations of many Provinces for so the word anciently signified not in the modern sense of it one city and the territory The Primates power equal to that of the Patriarch the jurisdiction of an ordinary Bishop for which they then used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven in the East and the Praefecture of the city of Rome and six more in the West into which the whole Empire was divided And though the Patriarchs had in Councels the praecedence or deference in respect of place either because these three cities had the honour to disperse Christianity in a most eminent manner to other cities and nations or from the great dignity of the cities themselves * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Chalced. Can penult Rome being the seat and first city of the Empire and thereupon thus dignified saith the Councel of Chalcedon and Alexandria by †Or. 32. ad Alexandrin see Aristid Or. de Rom. Laud. Dio Chrysostome and others affirmed to be the second and Antioch the third saith Josephus yet it is certain that the power and jurisdiction of Primates was as great as of Patriarchs and the Office the same see Anacleâ—us Epist ad Episc Ital. and Gratian Dist 99. and many times in Authors the very titles confounded as appears by Justinian who commonly gives Primates the names of Patriarchs of the Dioceses And if it be now demanded whether there were not anciently some Summum Genus some one Supreme either of or over these Patriarchs I answer that if we respect order or priority of place again then the Bishop of Rome had it among the Patriarchs as the Patriarchs among the Primates that city of Rome being Lady of the World and the seat of the Empire But if we respect power And no power but of the Prince above them or authority there was none anciently in the Church over that of Primates and Patriarchs but only that of the Emperour in the whole Christian World as of every Soveraign Prince in his Dominions as may appear by the ancient power and practice of congregating or convoking of Councels Provincial by the Metropolitan Patriarchal by the Patriarch or Primate National by the Prince for the first 1000 years through the whole West and General by the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. l. 5. Prooem Ex Superioribus habetur Imperatores Sanctos congregationes Synodales Universalium Conciliorum totius Ecclesiae semper â—â—cisse Ita ego perlustrans gesta omnium Universalium usque ad octavum inclusivè Basiliitempore celebratum verum esse râ—peri Cusan de concord Cathol l. 3. c. 16. and c. 13. See S. Hierom in Apol. ad Ruffin l. 2. where speaking of a pretended Synod he adds Quis Imperator hanc Synodum jusserit congregari Emperor when for the conserving the unity or taking care for the necessities of the Church those last remedies appeared seasonable But this of General Councels being extraordinary and such as the Church was without them for the first three hundred yeers and are now morally impossible to be had we need not farther to ascend to these but content our selves with those standing powers in the Church the uppermost of which are Archbishops Primates and Patriarchs to whom the Bishops themselves are in many things appointed to be subject and this power and subjection defined and asserted by the Ancient Canons The Primitive Power of Primates c. and the most ancient even immemorial Apostolical tradition and Custome avouched for it as may appear Concil Nicen. 1. Can. 4.6 Concil Antioch c. 9.20 Concil Chalced. C. 19. In the Sixt Nicene Canon where the jurisdiction of all Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis is affirmed to belong to the Patriarch of Alexandria and order is taken that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or privileges of eminency which belong to the Bishop of Rome of Antioch and Metropolitanes of all other Provinces shall be conserved intire to them the Introduction is made in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Ancient customes be in force The very form which S. Ignatius useth concerning Apostolical customes which were to be solicitously retained in the Church and seems there particularly to refer to those orders which S. Mark had left in Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis subjecting all the Bishops there to the Patriarch by him constituted in Alexandria § 23. So in the 9 th Canon of the Councel of Antioch where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop presiding in the Metropolis is appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to undertake the
care of the whole Province and all the inferior cities and Bishops in them and the Bishops commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is straight added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the ancient Canon of the Fathers which hath continued in force from the first times also unto that Councel Where if it be demanded what is the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive the word to be best explained by Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should doubtlesse be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the meaning of the Canon to be agreeably to the expresse words of other Canons that as any ordinary Bishop hath full power in his own Church which he may in all things wherein that alone is concerned exercise independently from the commands or directions of any So in any thing of a more forein nature wherein any other Church is concerned equally with that and so falls not under the sole cognizance or judgement of either there the Bishop of that Church is to do nothing without directions from the Metropolitane and that is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that no Bishop must do any thing but what belongs particularly to him ratione officii any thing that another is concerned in as well as he without the Metropolitane § 24. Act. 15 Can. 9. So in the Councel of Chalcedon the direction is given for appeals in this order from the Bishop to the Metropolitane from the Metropolitane to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primate of the Diocese or Province as where there are more Metropolitanes then one as was shewed of Ephesus in Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ulp. Obser D. de Offic. Procons and elsewhere frequently there some one is Primate or Patriarch among them and to him lyes the appeal in the last resort and from him to no other see Justinian Novel 123. c. 22. and Cod. l. 1. tit 4. leg 29. who speaking of this calls it an ancient decree § 25. That which we find in the eighth Canon of the Great Councel of Ephesus shall conclude this matter when upon some claim of the Patriarch of Antioch for an interest in the ordaining of the Patriarch of Cyprus the Bishops of Cyprus deny his claim and deduce their privilege of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or independence from any forein Bishop from the very Apostles times A sanctis Apostolis say they nunquam possunt ostendere quòd adfuerit Antiochenus ordinaverit vel communicaverit unquam insulae ordinationis gratiam neque alius quisquam From the very Apostles times they can never shew that the Patriarch of Antioch or any other was present and ordained or being absent sent the grace of ordination to this Island but that the Bishops of Constantia the Metropolis of that Island by name Troilus Sabinus and Epiphanius and all the orthodox Bishops from the Apostles times ab his qui in Cypro constituti sunt have been constituted and ordained by their own Bishops of the Island and accordingly they required that they might continue in the same manner Sicut initio à temporibus Apostolorum permansit Cypriorum Synodus as they had done from the times of the very Apostles still appealing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the ancient manner the ancient custome the privileges which from their first plantation they had enjoyed and that from the Apostles themselves And accordingly that Councel condemned the pretension of the Patriarch of Antioch as that which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an innovation against the Ecclesiastical Lawes and Canons of the holy Fathers and orders not only in behalf of the Cypriots that the Bishops of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall continue to enjoy their right inviolate according to the ancient custome but extended their sentence to all other Dioceses in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same shall be observed in all other Dioceses and Provinces wheresoever that no Bishop shall lay hold of another Province which hath not been formerly and from the beginning under their or their Ancestors power And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This holy and Oecumenical Synod hath decreed that the privileges and rights of every Province shall be conserved pure and inviolate as they have enjoyed them from the beginning according to the custome that hath anciently been in force All deducing this power of Primates over their own Bishops and together excluding all forein pretenders from the Apostles and first planters of the Churches and requiring all to remain as they were first thus constituted Wherein as there be many things of useful observation which will be more fitly appliable in the progresse of this discourse so that which is alone pertinent to this place is only this that there may be a disobedience and irregularity and so a Schisme even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitanes and of the authority which they have by Canon and Primitive custome over them which was therefore to be added to the several Species of Schisme set down in the former chapters CHAP. IV. The pretended evidences of the Romanist against the Church of England examined and first that from the Bishop of Romes Supremacy by Christs donation to S. Peter § 1. THE Scene being thus prepared and the nature and sorts of Schisme defined and summarily enumerated our method now leads us to inquire impartially what evidences are producible against the Church of England whereby it may be thought lyable to this guilt of Schisme And these pretended evidences may be of several sorts according to the several Species of this sort of Schisme described and acknowledged by us § 2. The first charge against us Our casting out the Popes Supremacy The first evidence that is offered against us is taken from a presumed Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as Successor to S. Peter over all Churches in the world which being in the dayes of Henry VIII renounced and disclaimed first by both Vniversities and most of the greatest and famous Monasteries of this kingdome in their negative answer and determination of this question An aliquid Authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuiquam Episcopo extero Whether the Pope of Rome have of right any authority in the Realme of England more then any other forein Bishop hath and that determination of theirs testified under their hands and scales and after by Act of Convocation subscribed by the Bishops and Clergy and confirmed by their corporal oaths and at last the like imposed by Act of Parliament 35 Hen. VIII c. 1. all this is looked on and condemn'd as an Act of Schisme in this Church and Nation in renouncing that power of S. Peters Successors placed over all Christians by Christ § 3. This objection against us consisting of many branches every of which must be manifested or granted to have truth in it or else the objection will be of no
of the two swords or from Thou art Peter they have so little apparence of strength in them and have so often been answered by those of our perswasion that I cannot think it useful or seasonable to descend to any farther survey of them his other pretensions are at an end for the Vniversal Pastorship of the Pope his successor whose power and authority over all other Bishops cannot farther be extended upon this account of succession then S. Peter's was over all other Apostles the several Bishops of the world holding from as succeeding some Apostle or other as certainly as the Bishop of Rome can by any be supposed to succeed S. Pe-Peter according to that of * De Praescript c. 32. Tertullian Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia Polycarpum à Joanne collocatum refert Sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit perinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habent As the records of the Church of Smyrna deduce Polycarp their Bishop from S. John and as the Church of Rome relates that Clement their Bishop was ordained by S. Peter in like manner the rest of the Churches shew us the Bishops which they have had constituted by the Apostles and who have brought down and derived the Apostolick seed unto them § 2. What therefore I shall now adde in return to the second branch of this argument concerning the power of S. Peters successor as such will be perfectly ex abundanti more then needs and so I desire it may be looked on by the reader whose curiosity perhaps may require farther satisfaction when his reason doth not and in compliance therewith I shall propose these few considerations * The privileges attending S. Peters successor belonging rather to the Bishop of Antioch then of Rome First whether S. Peter did not as truly plant a Church of Jewish believers at Antioch and leave a successor Bishop there as at Rome he is supposed to have done 2. Whether this were not done by him before ever he came to Rome 3. Whether the Concession of these two unquestioned matters of fact doe not devolve all power and Jurisdiction on the Bishop of Antioch S. Peters successor there which by that tenure and claim of succession from S. Peter can be pretended to by the Bishop of Rome S. Peters successor also Nay Whether the right of Primogeniture be not so much more considerable on this side then any circumstance on the other side which can be offered to counterbalance it that he which succeeded him in his first seat Antioch is if there be force in the argument of succession to be looked on as the chief of his strength partaker of more power by virtue of that succession then he that afterward succeeded him at Rome § 3. This we know that anciently there were three Patriarchates and Antioch was one of them as Rome was another and though I who lay not that weight on the argument of succession from S. Peter am not engaged to affirme that Antioch was the chief of these yet this I contend that there is much lesse reason that any precedence which is afforded Rome by the ancient Canons should be deemed imputable to this succession from S. Peter when 't is evident that claim belongs to Antioch as well as to Rome and first to Antioch and afterwards to Rome and no otherwise to Rome then as it was first competible to Antioch § 4. The Primacy belonged to Rome upon another score Of Rome it is confessed that the primacy of dignity or order belonged to that the next place to Alexandria the third to Antioch which is an evidence that the succession from S. Peter was not considered in this matter for then Alexandria which held only from S. Mark must needs have yeelded to Antioch which held from S. Peter The original of this precedence or dignity of the Bishop of Rome is sure much more fitly deduced by the fourth General Councel holden at Chalcedon Can. penult confirming the decree of the Councel of Constantinople that that See shall have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges and dignities and advantages with Rome upon this account that Constantinople was New Rome and the seat of the Empire at that time which say they was the reason and not any donation of Christs to S. Peter or succession of that Bishop from him that Rome enjoyed such privileges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Fathers at Constantinople being moved with the same reasons had rightly judged that now the same privileges should belong to that Church or City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that this being next to Old Rome should in all Ecclesiastical affaires have the same dignity or greatnesse that Old Rome had Where as the Original of the dignity of that See is duly set down and which is observable in the whole contest never so much as quarelled at by the Legats viz. the residence of the Imperial Majesty there a thing very remarkable in the several degrees of dignity in the Church that of Patriarchs Primates Archbishops Bishops which generally observed their proportions with the civil state as hath been shewed so is the nature of it also no supremacy of power over all the Bishops of the world for that monarchical power is not at once competible to two equals or rivals and withall the moveablenesse or communicablenesse of that dignity as that which may follow the Imperial seat whithersoever it is removeable and is not fixed at Rome by any commission of Christ or succession from S. Peter § 5. The Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon rejected by the Romanists But because I shall suppose that a Canon though of an Vniversal Councel when it is found thus derogatory to the height which Rome now pretends to shall not by the Romanist be acknowledged to be authentick as wanting that which the Romanist makes absolutely necessary to the validity of Councels or Canons the suffrage of the Bishop of Rome and consent of his Legates and because I mean not here to goe out of my way to vindicate which I could very readily doe the authority of that Canon or to shew the strangenesse of this dealing not to admit any testimony against them but wherein they have given their own suffrage a method of security beyond all amulets if no man shall be believed against me till I have joyned with him to accuse and condemne my self I shall therefore lay no more weight on this then will without this support be otherwise upheld and is in some measure evident by the Romanists rejecting this Canon and adding that the Church of Antioch rejected it also which argues that that which the Church of Constantinople was willing to acquire by this decree was as derogatory to the dignity of Antioch as of Rome And as that concludes that Antioch had professedly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome the dignity of a
Patriarchate and the attendants and pompes of that So it proceeds on a concession that all that Constantinople wanted or in which this New came short of the Old Rome was only the dignity of a Patriarchate without any ordinary jurisdiction over other Churches Which again shewes us what was the nature of the preeminence of the Roman See at that time no supreme authoritative power over other Primates The dignity of Patriarchs reconcileable with the independency of Primates but only a precedence or priority of place in Councels an eminence in respect of dignity which is perfectly reconcileable with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and independence the no-subordination or subjection of other Primates § 6. The Canon of Ephesus against encroaching on any others Province This hath formerly been manifested when we discoursed of the original and power and dignity of Primates and Patriarchs and is put beyond all controll by that Canon of the Councel of Ephesus in the cause of the Archbishop of Cyprus over whom the Patriarch of Antioch though Patriarch of all the Orient was adjudged to have no manner of power And this independency of Cyprus not only from the Patriarch of Antioch but from all others whomsoever was contested then as from the Apostles times and asserted and vindicated by that Councel and order given indefinitely against all invasions for time to come in whatever Diocese that no Bishop shall encroach upon anothers Province or usurp a power where from the Apostles times he had not enjoyed it which how directly it is applicable to and prejudgeth the pretensions of Rome as well as of Antioch is so manifest that it cannot need farther demonstrating § 7. Instances of Independent power in Archbishops Of the same kind two farther instances I shall here adde first of the Archbishop of Carthage who being the chief Primate or Metropolitan for these two words in the African style different from the usage of other Churches are observeable to signifie the same thing in Africk i. e. in one of the thirteen Dioceses of the Empire appears to have been independent from all other power an absolute Primate subject to no superiour or Patriarch whether of Alexandria or Rome This is evident by Justinian in the 131 Novel where the Emperour gives the same privileges to the Archbishop of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Carthage which he had formerly given to the Bishop of Justiniana prima which being the second example I meant to mention I shall briefly shew what that Prerogative was which equally belonged to these two § 8. Justiniana Prima was the head of a Caetera Provinciae sub ejus sint authoritate i. e. tam ipsa mediterranea Dacia quà m Dacia Ripensis nec non Mysia Secunda Dardania Praevalitana Provincia secunda Macedonia pars secunda etiam Pannoniae quae in Bacenâ—i est civitate Justin de Privileg Archiep Just Prim ed à Gothofred Dacia the new a Diocese as that signifies more then a Province a b Volumus ut Primae Justinianae patriae nostrae pro tempore sacrosanctus Antistes non solùm Metroplitanus sed etiam Archiepiscopus fiat Ibid. Primat's a Patriarch's dominion erected by Justinian the Emperour and that city thus dignified as the c Multis variis modis nostram patriam augere cupientes in qua Deus praestitit nobis ad hunc modum So Gothofred reads but certainly it should be ad or in hunc mundum quem ipse condidit venire Ibid. Necessarium duximus ipsam gloriosissimam Praefecturam quae in Pannoniâ erat in nostrâ foelicissimâ patriâcollocare Ib. place where he had been born and the Archbishop thereof made Primate of all that Diocese This is thus expressed in the Imperial Constitutions Nov. 11. that he shall have omnem censuram Ecclesiasticam summum Sacerdotium summum fastigium summam dignitatem all power of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction the supreme Priesthood supreme honour and dignity And in the Constitutions set out by Gothofred out of an old MS. Copy Tu omnes Justinianae primae Antistites quicquid oriatur inter eos discrimen ipsi hoc dirimant finem eis imponant nec ad alium quendam eatur sed suum agnoscant Archiepiscopum omnes praedictae Provinciae that all the Provinces shall in the last resort make their appeal to him for all controversies And Nov. 131. c. 3. that in all that Diocese he shall have locum Apostolicae sedis the place or dignity of an Apostolical seat which gave Nicephorus occasion in his relation of this matter to affirme that the Emperour made it a free city and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an head unto itself with full power independent from all others And though the first Bishop thereof was consecrated by Vigilius Bishop of Rome as by some Bishop it is certain he must yet that is of no force against the conclusion to which I designe this instance it being evident that being consecrated he was absolute and depended not on any and his * Quando autem te ab â—âc luce decedere contigerit pro tempore Archiepiscopum ejus à venerabili suo Concilio Metropolitanorum ordinari sancimus quem ad modum decet Archiepiscopum omnibus honoratum Ecclesiis provehi Ibid. successors were to be ordained by his Councel of Metropolitanes and not by the Pope § 9. Which as it makes a second instance of the point in hand so when it is remembred that all this independent absolute power was conferred upon this city the Emperors favorite only by his making it a Primate's or chief Metropolitane's See and that Carthage's being the Prime Metropolis of Africk is expressed by having the same privileges that Justiniana Prima had It will follow what is most certain and might otherwise be testified by innumerable evidences that every Primate or chief Metropolitane was absolute within his own circuit neither subject nor subordinate to any forein Superiour whether Pope or Patriarch And that was all which was useful much more then was necessary to be here demonstrated And being so there remains to the See of Rome no farther claim to the subjection of this Island nor appearance of proof of the charge of schisme in casting off that yoke upon this first score of S. Peter's or his successors right to the Vniversal Pastorship § 10. The unreasonablenesse of confining the Catholick Church to the number of those that live in the Roman subjection Upon this head of discourse depends also all that is or can be said for the confining the Catholick Church to the number of those who live in obedience to the Roman Church or Bishop For if there have been from the Apostles times an independent power vested in each Primate or chief Metropolitane as hath been evidently shown then how can it be necessary to the being of a member of the Catholick Church to be subject to that one Primate 'T is certainly sufficient to the conservation of the unity of the whole Church that every
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
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
Eginartus Chancellor to Charles the Great and who wrote his life say it was done by Charles the Great And so doth Rhegino who lived in the next age And accordingly in Duarenus de Benef lib. 1. cap. 9. among the Minorum Gentium Patriarchatus that of Grado is reckoned for one and joyned with Aquileia Canterbury and Bourges § 14. Frequent in the East And that it was a frequent usage in the East may appear by the 12 th Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon where we finde mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cities honoured by letters patents from the Kings or Emperors with the name and dignity of Metropoles and where the Councel represses the ambition of Bishops which sought those privileges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Rescripts from the Emperours and censures it in them that so sought it as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not agreeable to the Ecclesiastical Canons repressing the ambition of the Bishops but not cassating the Rescripts nor withdrawing the honour from the Metropolis so erected Of this Canon Balsamon saith that when it was made many Emperours had erected many Metropolitanes and naming three adds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that other Bishopricks were thus honoured and that the Emperours did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the power that was given them Where it is farther to be observed 1. that this Councel was within 20 years after that grant of Valentinian and consequently if Balsamon say right that at that time many Emperours had erected many there must needs be others before Valentinian 2. That the 17 th Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon doth more expresly attribute this power to the Prince 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If a city be built or restored by the Kings power let the Ecclesiastical order follow the Political And the same power is acknowledged to belong to the Prince by the Councel in Trullo Can 38. And then 3. that these two last Canons are reconciled with that 12 th of Chalcedon by the law of Alexius Comnenus and assented to by the Synod under him See Balsam in Can 38. Concil in Trullo who concludes that the King might doe it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 upon his own incitation or motion but it should not be lawful for any by base sollicitation to seek or obtain it adding that in that case upon any such Rescript of the Emperour for such erection it might be lawful for the Patriarch to suspend the confirmation of the Charter untill he represented to the Emperour what the Canons were in that case and understood if the Emperour did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his own motion which appearing the Patriarch was to admit thereof And accordingly the same Balsamon on Concil Carthag Can 16. doth upon that Canon professedly found the authority of Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to advance an Episcopal See into a Metropolis and anew to constitute Bishops and Metropolitanes § 15. So also to translate As for the transplanting it also from one city to another besides that the power of doing that is consequent to the former the examples of this practise are antient Examples in England Concil Angl p. 26. and frequent in this kingdome The passage set down out of the Annals of Gisburne may be sufficient From Caeruske the Metropolitan seat was translated to S. Davids by King Arthur where it continued till Henry I. and then was reduced to Canterbury § 16. In like manner 't is evident that the Kings of England have divided Bishopricks and erected new ones About the year 630. Kinigilsa King of the West-Saxons and Oswald of the Northumbers erected an Episcopal See at Dorchester and placed Birinus in it so saith Guil Malmesb de Gest Pontif Angl l. 2. About the year 660 Kenewalch King of the West-Saxons divided this Bishoprick and left part to Dorchester and assigned the western part to be the Diocese of the new Bishop which he constituted at Winchester so saith Hen Huntingd Hist l. 3. Then Winchester was subdivided in the time of King Ina who also erected a new Bishoprick at Sherburne and gave it to Aldelme so Henr Huntingd l. 4. and Guil Malm de Reg Angl l. 1. c. 2. And after the Norman conquest Henry I. divided Cambridgeshire from the See of Lincolne and erected the Bishoprick of Elie so saith Guiliel Malm de Gest Pontif Angl l. 4. and Florentius Wigorn Anno 1109. who lived at that time So also saith Eadmer with some variation Regi Archiepiscopo caeterÃsque Principibus regni visum fuit de ipsâ Parochiâ Lincolniae sumendum quo fieret alter Episcopatus cujus cathedra Principatus poneretur in Abbatiâ de Eli It seemed good to the King the Archbishop and the rest of the Princes of the kingdome to take as much out of the Diocese of Lincolne as would make another Bishoprick the chair whereof should be set up in the Abbacie of Elie. Adding indeed that Anselme a zealous promoter of the Papal authority as the author Eadmer was a disciple and admirer of Anselme wrote to Pope Paschalis desiring his consent to it as a thing fit to be done and yet to which he assures him he would not give his consent but salvâ authoritate Papae reserving the rights of the Pope Which though it doth suppose the Popes pretensions to that authority at that time and Anselm's yeilding it to him yet it proves also this right of our Kings to have been even then adhered to preserved and exercised by them as the former authors had set it down § 17. So to exempt from Episcopal jurisdiction Of this nature also is the authority of Kings in exempting any Ecclesiastical person from the Bishops Jurisdiction and granting Episcopal Jurisdiction to such person which is largely asserted and exemplified in Cawdries case 5. Report 14. One instance of this will serve for all that of William the Conqueror who exempted Battel Abbey in Sussex from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Chichester and gave the Abbat Episcopal Jurisdiction in his Territorie and the words of the Charter are produced by M r Selden on Eadmer Hoc regali authoritate Episcoporum ac Baronum meorum attestatione constituo I appoint this by my royal authority by the attestation of my Bishops and Barons § 18. Kings Founders of Bishopricks and Patrons Adde even unto this that even the Westerne Princes in those parts where the Bishops of Rome have much hightned their power ever since the Kings were Christians the German Emperours the Kings of France and England alwayes claimed to be founders of all Bishopricks in their Dominions Patrons of them to bestow them by investiture that the Kings of France and England often claimed and were acknowledged to have right that no Legate from Rome might come into the Land and use jurisdiction without their leave All which put together are a foundation for this power of the Princes to erect or translate a Patriarchate It being withall acknowledged that
if it have respect to a civil right may in this or that nation be repealed is the judgment of Roger Widrington or Father Preston in his last rejoinder to Fitzherbert c. 11. § 44. and c. 8. he confirms it by the doctrine of Zuarez l. 2. de leg c. 19. and the reason of Zuarez is because such a law made at a general meeting of Princes is intrinsecally a civil law and hath not force by virtue of the law to binde the subjects of any particular kingdome or Common-wealth any otherwise then as it is enacted or received by the Governors and subjects of that kingdome § 23. And this is affirmed and extended by Balsamon to all Canons in general as the judgment of learned men in his notes on that 16 th Canon of the Councel of Carthage before cited § 24. So if alienated by prescription And for the matter of Prescription the decision of †Clav Reg l. 9. c. 12. Sayr is worth observing that in such cases as these Cum Praescriptio sit tantùm de jure Civili Canonico When the Prescription is neither of the law of Nature nor the Divine law nor the law of Nations but only of the Civil and Canon law there non plus se extendit quà m unusquisque supremus Princeps in suo Regno eam suis legibus extensam esse velit it extends no farther then every supreme Prince in his Realm by his laws is supposed to will that it shall be extended which saith he cannot be supposed in matters of this nature of exempting subjects from making their appeal to their King for saith he non est de mente alicujus Principis ut quispiam subditorum possit praescribere quòd ad Principem ab eo non appelletur aut quòd eum coercere non potest quando ratio justitia postulat It is not imaginable to be the minde of any Prince that any of his subjects should be able to prescribe that he is not to appeal to his Prince but to some other or that his Prince may not punish him when reason and justice requires It were easie to apply this distinctly to the confirming of all that I here pretend but I shall not thus expatiate CHAP. VII Their third Evidence from our casting off Obedience to the Bishop of Rome at the Reformation § 1. UPon that one ground laid in the former Chapter the power of Kings in general and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchates whatsoever can be pretended against the lawfulnesse of the Reformation in these kingdomes will easily be answered And therefore supposing the third and last objection to lie against our Reformation that it was founded in the casting off that obedience to the Bishop of Rome which was formerly paid him by our Bishops and people under them I shall now briefly descend to that first laying down the matter of fact as it lies visible in our records and then vindicating it from all blame of schisme which according to the premises can any way be thought to adhere to it § 2. The history of what was done against the Bishop of Rome in the Reformation And first for the matter of fact it is acknowledged that in the reigne of King Henry VIII the Papal and with it all forein power in Ecclesiastical affairs was both by acts of Convocation of the Clergie and by statutes or acts of Parliament cast out of this kingdome The first step or degree hereof was the Clergie's synodical recognizing the King singularem Ecclesiae Anglicanae Protectorem unicum supremum Dominum the singular Protector the only and supreme Head of the Church of England Upon this were built the statutes of 24 Hen VIII prohibiting all Appeals to Rome and for the determining all Ecclesiasticall suits and controversies within the kingdome The statute of 25 Hen VIII for the manner of electing and consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops and another in the same year prohibiting the payment of all impositions to the court of Rome and for the obtaining all such dispensations from the See of Canterbury which were formerly procured from the Popes of Rome and that of 26 Hen VIII declaring the King to be the supreme head which in Queen Elizabeth's reign was to avoid mistakes changed into supreme Governour of the Church of England and to have all honours and praeeminencies which were annexed to that title § 3. This was in the next place attended with the submission of the Clergie to the King agreed on first in Convocation and afterward in 25 Hen VIII enacted by Parliament to this purpose that as it was by the Clergie acknowledged that the Convocation of the Clergie then was alwaies had been and ought to be assembled by the Kings writ and as they submitting themselves to the King's Majestie had promised in verbo sacerdotis that they would never from thenceforth presume to attempt allege claim or put in ure enact promulge or exercise any new Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or other unlesse the King 's most royal assent may to them be had to make promulge execute the same so it was now enacted that none of the Clergie should enact promulge or execute any such Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial or Synodical without assent and authority received from the King upon pain of imprisonment and fine at the Kings pleasure § 4. The third and last step of this began with the debate of the Vniversities and most eminent Monasteries in the kingdome An aliquid authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuiquam Episcopo extero Whether any authority did of right belong to the Bishop of Rome in the Kingdome of England more then to any other forein Bishop and upon agitation it was generally defined in the negative and so returned testified under their hands and seals The like was soon after concluded and resolved by the Convocation of the Bishops and all the Clergie and subscribed and confirmed by their corporal oathes And at that time was written and printed the Tract de verâ differentiâ Regiae et Ecclesiasticae potestatis set out by the Prelates the chief composers of which were John Stokesly Bishop of London Cutbert Tunstall Bishop of Durham Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester and D r Thirlby afterward Bishop where from the practise of the Saxon and first Norman Kings they evidence the truth of that Negative out of story And what was thus concluded by the Clergie was soon turned into an Act of Parliament also in 28 Hen VIII called An Act extinguishing the authority of the Bishop of Rome and prescribing an oath to all Officers Ecclesiastical and lay of renouncing the said Bishop and his authority § 5. By these three degrees it is acknowledged that the Bishops and Clergie first then the King confirming the Acts of the Convocation and after making Acts of Parliament to the same purposes renounced the authority of the Roman See and cast it
out of this Island The Praemunire and though the first Act of the Clergie in this were so induced that it is easie to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung over them by a Praemunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it therefore I shall not pretend that it was perfectly an act of their first will and choice but that which the necessity of affairs recommended to them yet the matter of right being upon that occasion taken into their most serious debate in a synodical way and at last a fit and commodious expression uniformly pitch'd upon by joynt consent of both houses of the Convocation there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did professe the fear being the occasion of their debates but the reasons or arguments offered in debate the causes as in all charity we are to judge of their decision § 6. But I shall not lay much weight on that judgment of charity because if that which was thus determined by King and Bishops were falsly determined then the voluntarinesse or freenesse of the determination will not be able to justifie it and on the other side if the determination were just then was there truth in it antecedent to and abstracted from the determination and it was their duty so to determine and crime that they were unwilling to doe it And therefore the whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry Whether at that time of the reign of Henry VIII the Bishop of Rome were supreme head or Governour of this Church of England or had any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other viz to the Archbishop of Canterbury if he pleased § 7. The Right of the Bishop of Rome considered And this is presently determined upon the grounds which have been formerly laid and confirmed to have truth in them For the pretensions for the Popes supremacy of power among us being by the assertors thereof founded in one of these three either in his right as S. Peter's successour to the Vniversal Pastorship that including his power over England as a member of the whole or 2. by the paternal right which by Augustine's planting the Gospel among the Saxons is thought to belong to the Pope and his successours that sent him or 3. in the voluntary concession of some Kings the two former of these have been largely disproved already Chap. 4 5 and 6. in discourses purposely and distinctly applied to those pretensions The concession of Kings And for the third that will appear to have received its determination also I. by the absolutenesse of the power of our Princes to which purpose I shall mention but one passage that of †in Goldast de Mon G. de Heimburg some two hundred years since in the last words of his tract de Injust Vsurp Pap where speaking of the Emperors making oath to the Pope he saith that this is a submission in him and a patience above what any other suffers and proves it by this argument Nam eximius Rex Angliae Franciae Dux Marchio non astringitur Papae quocunque juramento factus Imperator jurare tenetur secundum Decretales eorum fabulosè fictas ita ut supremus Monarcha magis servilis conditionis quà m quilibet ejus inferior fieri censeatur The King of England and France any Duke or Marquesse of that Kingdome is not bound to the Pope by any oath yet the Emperour at his creation is thus bound to swear according to the Popes Decretals fabulously invented so that the supreme Monarch is made to be of a more servile condition then any his inferior Prince And 2. by the rights of Kings to remove or erect Patriarchates and will be farther confirmed in the Negative if answer be first given to this Dilemma § 8. A Dilemma against the plea drawn from that The authority of the Pope in this Kingdome which is pretended to be held by the concession of our Kings was either so originally vested in our Kings that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleased pleased and so did lawfully grant it to the Pope or it was not thus originally vested in our Kings If it were not then was that grant an invalid null grant for such are all concessions of that which is not ours to give presumptions invasions robberies in the giver which devolve no right to the receiver and then this is a pitiful claim which is thus founded But if that authority were so vested in the Kings of England that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleased which is the only way by which the Pope can pretend to hold any thing by this title of regal concession then certainly the same power remains still vested in the King to dispose it from him to some other as freely as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chancellour or any other of his officers from his place and commit it to another this way of arguing is made use of by the Bishops in Convocation Anno Chr 1537. in the Book by them intituled The Institution of a Christian man Or if the same power doe not still remain in the King then is the King's power diminished and he consequently by this his act of which we treat become lesse a King then formerly he was And then we know that such acts which make him so are invalid acts it being acknowledged to be above the power of the King himself to divest himself and his successors of any part of his regal power § 9. Two sorts of gifts To which purpose it must be observed 1. that some things are so ours that we may freely use them but cannot freely part with them as all those things wherein our propriety is not confined to our persons but intailed on our posterity and such the regal power is supposed to be 2. That as some things which are part of our personal proprieties are so freely ours to give that when they are given they are departed out of our selves and cannot justly be by us resumed again in which case that Maxim of the civil law stands good data eo ipso qu◠dantur fiunt accipientis what is given by the very act of being given becomes the goods of the receiver so other things are given to others so as we doe not part with them our selves they are as truly and properly ours after as before the Concession § 10. Some revocable Thus the Sun communicates his beams and with them his warmth and influences and yet retains all which it thus communicates and accordingly withdraweth them again And God the spring of all life and grace doth so communicate each of these that he may and doth freely withdraw them again and when he taketh away our breath we die And thus certainly the King being the fountain of all power and authority as he is free to communicate this power to one so is he equally free to recall
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