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
The words Mat. 16. are only a promise in the future what Christ will afterward do and so the donation there set down only by way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or anticipation and if the making this promise to him peculiarly seem to make any thing for him then the repetition of that promise Mat. 18.18 which is made to all the Apostles indefinitely will take off that appearance where it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say unto you to all of them equally and without any peculiarity of restriction whatsoever ye shall bind c. The applying the words particularly to S. Peter hath one special energie in it and concludes that the Ecclesiastical power of oeconomy or stewardship in Christ's house of which the keyes are the token Isa 22.21 belongs to single persons such as S. Peter was and not only to Consistories or assemblies that whatsoever S. Peter acted by virtue of Christs power thus promised he should be fully able to act himself without the conjunction of any other and that what he thus did clave non errante no one or more men on earth could rescind without him which is a just ground of placing the power Ecclesiastical in Single persons and not in Communities in the Prelate of each Church and not in the Presbytery But still this is no confining of this power to S. Peter any more then to any other single Apostle who had this power as distinctly promised to each of them as here S. Peter is pretended and acknowledged to have To which purpose as the words of Scripture are most clear Mat. 18.18 and accordingly Mat. 19. the promise is again made of twelve thrones for each Apostle to sit on one to judge i. e. to rule or preside in the Church and when that promise was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit Act. 2. the fire that represented that Spirit was divided and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sat upon every one of them without any peculiar mark allowed S. Peter and they were all filled with the holy Ghost and so this promise equally performed as it was made to all so is this exactly the notion which the ancient Fathers of the Church appear to have had of them in Mat. 18. Thus Theophylact according to S. Chrysostomes sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Though the words I will give thee were delivered to S. Peter alone yet the power hath been conferred on all the Apostles Epist 27. S. Cyprian hath an eminent place to this purpose Dominus noster Episcopi honorem Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio loquitur dicit Petro Ego tibi dice Quia tu es Petrus tibi dabo claves Inde per temporum successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio Ecclesiae ratio decurrit ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernetur Christ meaning to set down the way of ordering his Church saith unto Peter I will give thee the keyes From this promise of his the ordination of Bishops and course of the Church hath continued by all successions and vicissitudes So that the Church is built upon Bishops in the plural and every Ecclesiastick act is governed by them So S. Ambrose De Dign Sacerd c. 5. 6. Claves illas regni Coelorum in beato Petro cuncti suscepimus Sacerdotes All we Bishops have in S. Peter received those keyes of the kingdome of heavens Ep. ad Dracont And accordingly S. Athanasius mentions the office of Bishop as one of those things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which Christ effigiated or formed in or by the Apostles And S. Basil the great calls Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Presidency of the Apostles the very same that Christ bestowed upon all and not only on one of them § 23. By all which it is evident again that the power which Christs commission instated on S. Peter was in like manner intrusted to every other single Apostle as well as to him and consequently that this of universal Pastor was no personal privilege or peculiarity of S. Peters § 24. The Romanists argument from Tu es Petrus evacuated Thirdly that argument which is taken by learned Romanists from the name of Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rock or foundation stone bestowed on him by Christ as if that were sufficient to found this pretended Supremacy is presently evacuated and retorted on the pretenders when 't is remembred 1. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directly the same signifies vulgarly a stone 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Homers Iliad 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of it self denotes no more but by the context Mat. 16.18 being applied to a building must needs signifie a foundation stone and then 2. that all the 12 Apostles are in like manner and not he only or above any other styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twelve foundations Apoc. 21.14 each of which stones having the name of an Apostle on it in respect of the power and dignity that belonged to every one is severally compared to a precious stone And it being there in vision apparent that the wall of the city i. e. of the Church being measured exactly and found to be an hundred fourty four i. e. twelve times twelve cubits 't is evident that that mensuration assignes an equal proportion whether of power or province to all and every of the Apostles which is again a prejudice to the Vniversal Pastorship of any one of them CHAP. V. The Evidences from the Bishop of Romes succeeding S. Peter examined § 1. No privilege by succession from S. Peter but such as S. Peter is proved to have himself FRom this argument of the pretenders as it respects S. Peters person and hath thus been manifested to be utterly incompetent to inferre the designed conclusion It is now very easie but withall very unnecessary to proceed to the other part of it as it concerns S. Peters successors in his Episcopal or which is all one as to this matter his Apostolical seat and power at Rome For certainly what he had not himself he cannot devolve to any of his successors upon that one skore of succeeding him and therefore as this of S. Peters personal power and eminence is the principal So it is in effect the only ground of the Romanists pretension this other of derivative power in his successor being like water that flowes from a spring apt to ascend no higher then the fountain stood and therefore I again think fit to remind the Romanist and peremptorily to insist on this exception that if he cannot make good S. Peters Oecumenical power and Pastorship over all the rest of the Apostles from the donation of Christ which I suppose hath been evidenced he cannot do and for any proofs made use of by any to that purpose and drawn either from Feed my sheep and lambs or from the mention
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
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
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
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