especially when that fails him yet methinks the jus Ecclesiasticum is not at all unbecoming his pretences who is sworn to govern the Church according to the Canons as they say the Pope is If it be pleaded that the Canons of the Fathers do invest the Pope with plenary Power over all Churches And if it could be proved too yet one thing more remains to be proved to subject the Church of England to that his power viz. that the Canon Law is binding and of force in England as such or without our own consent or allowance And 't is impossible this should be proved while our Kings are Supreme and the constitution of the Kingdom stands as it hath always stood However we decline not the examination of the plea viz. that the Popes Supremacy over the whole Church is granted by the Canons of Councils viz. general But when this is said it is but reasonable to demand which or in what Canons It is said the Pope receives his Office with an Oath to observe the Canons of the eight first general Councils in which of these is the grant to be found Sure so great a conveyance should be very legible and Intelligible We find it very plain that in some of those Councils and those the most ancient this Power is expresly denyed him and that upon such reason as is eternal and might justly and effectually prevent any such grant or usurpation of such power for ever if future Grants were to be just and reasonable or future Popes were to be governed by Right or Equity by the Canons of the Fathers or fidelity to the Church to God or their own solemn Oaths at their Inaugurations But we are prepared for the examination of the Councils in this matter by a very strong presumption That seeing Justinian made the Canons to have the force of Laws and he had ever shewed himself so careful to maintain the Rights of the Empire in all causes as well as over all persons Ecclesiastical even Popes themselves 't is not credible that he would suffer any thing in those Canons to pass into the body of the Laws that should be agreeable to the pretended donation of Constantine or to the prejudice of the Emperor 's said Supremacy and consequently not much in favour of the Supremacy claimed by later Popes Justinian's Sanction extended to the four Justin Sanction of four first great Councils Nic. Constant Ephes 1. and Calcedon in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sancimus Vicem Legum obtinere Sanctos Ecclesiasticos Canones qui à Sanctis quatuor Conciliis constituti sunt confirmati hoc est Niceno c. praedictorum enim Consdiorum dogmata sicut divinas Scripturas accipimus Canones sicut Leges observamus Perhaps it may be doubted why he did not Apostles Canons not mention reason confirm those Canons which were then well known by the Title of the Canons of the Apostles whether because their Authority was suspected especially many of them or because Vid. Bin. To. 1. p. 17. a. they were not made by a truly General Council or because they were Confirmed in and with the Council of Nice and Ephesus c. or lastly whether because the first fifty had before a greater Sanction from the general Reception of the whole Ibid. Church or the greater Authority of the Sacred Names of the Authors the Apostles or Apostolical men I venture not to declare my opinion But truly there seems something considerable for the later for that the Council of Nice do not pretend to confirm the Apostles Canons but their own by the Quotation of them taking Authority from them as Laws founded in the Church before to build their own and all future Canons and Decrees of Councils upon in such matters as were found there determined A great Instance of the probability of this Conjecture we have full to our present purpose given us by Binius Nicena Synodus Can. 6. c. the Nicene and Ephesine Synods followed those Bin. To. 1. p. 20. Canons of the Apostles appointing that every Bishop acknowledge suum primum their Chief and Metropolitane Can. Ap. allowed by C. Nice and Ephesus and do nothing without their own Diocess but rather the Bishop of Alexandria according to the Canons understand saith Binius those 35 36 of the Apostles must govern the Churches of Egypt the Bishop of the East the Eastern Churches the Ephesine Synod also saith it is besides the Canons of the Apostles that the Bishop of Antioch should ordain in the Provinces of Cyprus c. Hence it is plain that according to Apostles Canons interpreted and allowed as Authentick so far at least by the Synods of Nice and Ephesus the Metropolitan was Primate or Chief over the Churches within his Provinces and that he as such exclusive of all Forreign Superior Power was to govern and ordain within his own Provinces not consonant to but directly against the pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome But let us consult the Canons to which Binius refers and the matter is plainer SECT I. Can. Apostol THere is nothing in the Canons of the Apostles to our purpose but what we find in Can. 35 36. or in the Reddition as Binius gives it Can. 33 and 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. let the Bishops of 35 33. every Nation know or they ought to know who among them is accounted or is chief and esteem him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut caput and do nothing difficult aut magni momenti praeter ejus Conscientiam vel Sententiam but what if the matter were too hard for the Primate is no direction given to go to the Infallible Chair at Rome here was indeed a proper place for it but not a word of that In the 36 aliàs 34. it is added that a Bishop should not dare to ordain any beyond the bounds of his own Jurisdiction but neither of these Canons concern the Pope unless they signifie that the Pope is not Head of all Churches and hath not power in any place but within the Diocess of Rome or that Binius was not faithful in leaving out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Head in his Note upon these Canons SECT II. Concil Nicen. Gen. 1. Bellar. Evasion VVE find nothing in the true Canons of the Nicene Synod that looks our way except Can. 6. and 7. They are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let ancient Custom be kept through Can. 6. Egypt Libia and Pentapolis so as the Bishop of Alexandria may have power over all these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because also the like Custom is for the Bishop of the City of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as likewise at Antioch and other Provinces let the Priviledges be kept in their own Churches but suppose differences arise is no Liberty or Remedy provided by going to Rome no more than if differences arise in the Roman Church they may have
differ with a particular Church in Doctrine wherein She departs from the Catholick Faith but here we must take care not only of Schism but Damnation it self as Athanasius warns us Every one should therefore endeavour to satisfie himself in this great Question What is Truth or the true Catholick Faith To say presently that it is the Doctrine of the Roman Church is to beg a very great Question that cannot easily be given I should think Athanasius is more in the right when he saith this is the Catholick Faith c. in my opinion they must stretch mightily that can believe that the Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved and therefore which every man ought to understand takes in all the Doctrines of the Council of Trent Till the contrary be made evident I shall affirm after many great and learned men that he that believes the Scriptures in general and as they are interpreted by rhe Fathers of the Primitive Church the three known Creeds and the four first general Councils and knows and declares himself prepared to receive any further Truth that he yet knows not when made appear to be so from Reason Scripture or Just Tradition cannot justly be charged with Schism from the Catholick Faith Methinks those that glory in the Old Religion should be of this mind and indeed in all reason they ought to be so unless they can shew an Older and better means of knowing the Catholick Faith than this what is controverted about it we shall find hereafter in its due place In the mean time give me leave to Note that our more Learned and Moderate Adversaries do acquit such a man or Church both from Heresie and Schism and indeed come a great deal nearer to us in putting the issue of the Controversie very fairly upon this unquestionable Point They who first Separated themselves Mr. Knot in sid unm c. 7. s 112. p. 534. from the Primitive pure Church and brought in Corruptions in Faith Practise Lyturgy and use of Sacraments may truly be said to have been Hereticks by departing from the pure Faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the external Communion of the true uncorrupted Church 2. Object Worship A second band of external Communion is 2. Worship Publick Worship in which Separation from the Church is notorious But here Publick Worship must be understood only so far as it is a bond of Communion and no farther otherwise there is no breach of Communion though there be difference in Worship and consequently no Schism This will appear more plainly if we distinguish of Worship in its Essentials or Substantials and its Modes Circumstances Rites and Ceremonies 'T is well argued by the Bishop of Calcedon that none may Separate from the Catholick Church or indeed from any particular in the Essentials or Substantial Parts of Worship for these are God's ordinary means of conveying his Grace for our Salvation and by these the whole Church is knit together as Christ's visible body for Divine Worship But what are these Essentials of Worship Surely nothing else but the Divine Ordinances whether moral or positive as abstracted from all particular Modes not determined in the Word of God Such as Prayer the reading the Holy Canon interpreting the same and the Sacraments therefore that Church that worships God in these Essentials of Worship cannot be charged in this particular with Schism or dividing from the Catholick Church And as for the Modes and particular Rites of Worship until one Publick Liturgy and Rubrick be produced and proved to be the Rule of the Catholick Church if not imposed by it there is no such bond of Union in the Circumstantial Worship in the Catholick Church and consequently no Schism in this respect Much less may one particular Church claim from another par in parem non habet imperium exact Communion in all Rites and Ceremonies or for want thereof to cry out presently Schism Schism Indeed our Roman Adversaries do directly and plainly assert that about Rites and Ceremonies the guilt of Schism is not concerned and that particular Churches may differ from one another therein without breach of Communion Though for a Member of a particular Church to forsake the Communion of his own Church in the Essentials of Worship meerly out of dislike of some particular innocent Rites seems to deserve a greater Censure But the Roman Recusants in England have a greater difficulty upon them to excuse their total Separation from us in the Substantials of our Worship at which they can pretend to take no offence and wherein they held actual Communion with us many years together at the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign against the Law of Cohabitation observed in the Scripture where a City and a Church were commensurate contrary to the Order as one well observés which the Ancient Church took for preserving Vnity and excluding Schism by no means suffering such disobedience or division of the Members of any National Church where that Church did not divide it self from the Catholick And lastly contrary to the Common right of Government both of our Civil and Ecclesiastical Rulers and the Conscience of Laws both of Church and State But their pretence is Obedience to the Pope which leads us to consider the third great bond of Communion Government 3. Object Government Thirdly The last bond of Ecclesiastical external Government Communion is that of Government that is so far as it is lawful in it self and exerted in its Publick Laws This Government can have no influence from one National Church to another as such because so far they are equal par in parem but must be yielded by all Members of particular Churches whether National Provincial or truly Patriarchal to their proper Governours in all lawful things juridically required otherwise the guilt of Schism is contracted But for the Government of the Catholick we cannot find it wholly in any one particular Church without gross Vsurpation as is the plain sence of the Ancient Church indeed it is partly found in every Church it was at first diffused by our Vniversal Pastor and Common Lord into the hands of all the Apostles and for ought hath yet appeared still lies abroad among all the Pastors and Bishops of particular Churches under the power protection and assistance of Civil Authority Except when they are collected by just power and legal Rules into Synods or Councils whether Provincial National or General here indeed rests the weight of the Controversie but I doubt not it will at last be found to make its way against all contradiction from our Adversaries In the mean time we do conclude while we profess and yield all due obedience to our proper Pastors Bishops and Governours when there are no Councils sitting and to all free Councils wherein we are concerned lawfully convened we cannot be justly charged with Schism from the Government of the Catholick Church though we stiffly deny obedience to a Forreign Jurisdiction and will
Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem And that these had all their Jurisdictions limited to them and no one of them had any thing like a Vniversal Monarchy is evident both from Canons and History and also by this undeniable Observation that several Parts of the World had their own Primates independent and exempt from all these in the height of their power as Africk at Carthage the rest of Italy at Millain France at Arles or Lions Germany at Vienna and Britain also had the same priviledge 4. The sixth Canon of the Council of Nice C. Nice saith thus expresly Let Ancient Custom prevail according to which let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them of Egypt Libia and Pentapolis because this was likewise the Custom for the Bishop of Rome and accordingly in Antioch and other Provinces let the priviledges be preserved to the Churches The occasion of this Canon is said to be this Miletius a Bishop of Egypt ordained Bishops and others in Egypt without the Consent of the Bishop of Alexandria the Case heard in the Council they pronounce such Ordinations Null depose Miletius and by this Canon the more venerable because the first in such Cases confirm the Ancient Customs of that and all other Churches Object The Romanists object the Council did not assign any limits to those Jurisdictions Answ But 't is fully answered that the Council supposed such limits and proceed upon that supposition to allow of them and to enjoyn the observation of them and that is so much the more than a present limitation as it is a proof of the greater Antiquity of such limitation Object Sure Bellarmine was hard put to it when the words because the Roman Bishop hath so accustomed must be forced to speak against all Sence of Words and Scope of the Matter thus i. e. saith he the Roman Bishop hath so accustomed to let the Alexandrian Bishop govern them Answ The occasion of the Canon we had before the Words themselves are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who but Bellarmine seeth not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports a like Custom in the Church of Rome as the excellent and learned Doctor Stinlingfleet observes The Bishop of Rome had such Jurisdiction over the Churches under him and therefore ought the Bishop of Alexandria over the Churches under him upon this Consideration the Council concludes that so it should be If it be replied the Pope had limits as a Metropolitan but not as Head of the Church this grants the thing in present question that as a Patriarch the Pope's Jurisdiction was limited What Power he had as Head of the Church shall be examined in its due place What Power the Pope had anciently in confirming deposing and restoring Patriarchs will hardly be found so Ancient as the Council of Ephesus and indeed was challenged by him not as a private Patriarch but as Head of the Church and therefore is to be considered under that Head also PROP. III. The Ancient Patriarchate of Rome did not include Brittain excluded Brittain But according to Ruffinus a Roman who lived not long after the Council of Nice it Ruffinus was limited to the Suburbicary Cities i. e. a part of Italy and their Islands Sicily Sardinia and Corsica much less did it ever pretend to Brittain either by Custom Canon or Edict of any of our Princes Consequently we say the Papal Power over us was an after-encroachment and usurpation and a plain violation of the general Council of Ephesus Our Argument is this the General Council Par 2. Act. 7. of Ephesus declare that no Bishop should occupy any Province which before that Council and from the Beginning had not been under the Jurisdiction of him or his Predecessors and that if any Patriarch usurped any Jurisdiction over a free Province he should quit it for so it pleased the holy Synod that every Province should enjoy its Ancient Rites pure and inviolate But it is evident the Bishop of Rome had no Power in Brittain from the Beginning nor yet before that general Council nor for the first six hundred years after Christ as will appear when we speak of the next claim viz. Possession Now if the Pope had no Patriarchal Power in Brittain before the six hundredth year of Christ he could not well have any since for Pope Boniface Pope Boniface three years after Saint Gregorie's death disclaimed this Power by assuring an Higher Title so that had we been willing to admit him our Patriarch contrary to what Augustine found time had been wanting to settle his Power as such in England From the whole we conclude either the Pope is none of our Patriarch or if such he stands guilty of Contempt of a general Council and hath done so many hundred years i. e. he is no Patriarch at all or a Schismatical one PROP. IV. To be a Patriarch and Vniversal Bishop in the Inconsistent with Head of the Church Sence of the Romanist is inconsistent Therefore the Pope must let fall his Claim as a Patriarch if he pretend to be Vniversal Bishop Thus the great Arch-Bishop Bramhall reasons wisely and strongly but S. W. gives no answer to it only that he argues weakly and sillily The Lord Primate proves the inconsistency by Arguments not yet answered the Patriarch saith he professeth Humane the Vniversal Pastor challengeth Divine Institution the one hath a limited Jurisdiction over a certain Province the other pretendeth an Vniversal Jurisdiction over the World the one is subject to the Canons of the Fathers and a mere Executor of them and can do nothing either against or besides them the other challengeth an absolute Sovereignty above the Canons to make abrogate suspend them at his pleasure with a Non-obstante when where and to whom he pleaseth Therefore the Claim of this absolute Power disclaimeth the limited and the donation and acceptance of a limited Power convinceth that there was no such absolute Power before had the Pope been unlimited before by divine donation who can imagine that he would ever have taken gradum Simeonis in this Sence by stooping so low to receive from the hand of Just Vind. p. 282. man the narrower dignity of a Patriarch Besides it is fully proved by Doctor Hammond Patriarchs subject to Civil Power in his Book of Schism beyond all the little exceptions of the Romanists as more at large hereafter that the See of a Patriarch is disposable by the Civil Power and therefore what ever Power the Pope may be thought to have had heretofore in Brittain is now lawfully otherwise disposed of by the Kings of England as well as evidently rejected by the Vsurpation of an higher and an higher kind of Title inconsistent with it and justly forfeited many other ways as will appear hereafter But though our Adversaries would seem to say something in favour of this Title they dare not stand to it as indeed it is not convenient they should if they
would save their Head whole Therefore after much a do to very Schis diarm p. p. 157. little purpose S. W. concludes against Doctor Hammond thus Besides saith he were all this granted what is it to your or our purpose Since we accuse you not of Schism for breaking from the Pope's Subjection as a Private Patriarch but as the chief Pastor and the Head of the Church So there is an end of their Second Plea CHAP. V. The Third Papal Claim viz. Prescription or long Possession Case Stated Their Plea our Answer in three Propositions THe true state of the case here is this Case stated It cannot be denied but the Church of England was heedlesly and gradually drawn into Communion with the Roman Church in her additions superinduced upon the ancient Faith and Worship and likewise into some degrees of subjection to Papal Jurisdiction And in this Condition we had continued for some considerable time before King Henry the Eighth and that bold King upon what Motives is not here material with the consent of his three Estates in Parliament both houses of the Convocation and both the Vniversities of the Land threw off the Roman Yoke as a manifest Vsurpation and a very grievous oppression and recovered the people and Church of England to their ancient liberties of being governed by their own domestick Rulers Afterwards in the Reigns of Edward the Sixth and Queen Elizabeth and by their proper Authority we reformed our selves by throwing off the Roman Additions to our Faith and Worship Had we gone about a Reformation while we acknowledged subjection to the See of Rome or indeed before we had renounced it there had been more colour to charge us with Schism and disobedience But now the proper question is first whether the State of England did then justly reject the Jurisdiction of the Pope in England and only consequently whether we did afterwards lawfully Reform without him The cause of our Reformation belongs to another Argument which we shall meet hereafter The papal Plea here is the Popes Authority was established here by long Possession and therefore if nothing else could be pleaded for it Prescription was a good Title and therefore it was injurious and Schismatical first to dispossess him and then to go about to reform without him Our Answer is home and plain in these Three Propositions 1. The Church of England was never actually under the Popes Jurisdiction so absolutely as is pretended 2. The Possession which it had obtained here was not sufficient to create the Pope a good Title 3. Or if it were yet that Title ceased when he lost his Possession CHAP. VI. Prop. I. The Papacy had no Power here for the first Six Hundred Years St. Aug. Dionoth THe first Proposition is this that the Church of England was not actually under the Papal Jurisdiction so absolutely as is pretended that is neither Primarily nor Plenarily First not Primarily in that we were free from 1. Not Primarily the Papal Power for the first Six Hundred Years This is confirmed beyond all exception by the entertainment Augustine found among the sturdy Brittains when he came to obtrude that Jurisdiction upon them whence 't is evident that at that time which was near six hundred years after Christ the Pope had neither actual In Fact or Belief possession of Government over nor of the belief of the Brittains that he ought to have it The good Abbot of Bangor when pressed to submit to the Roman Bishop answered in the name of the Brittains That he knew no Obedience due to him whom they called the Pope but the Obedience Spel. conc an 601. of Love and adds those full peremptory exclusive words that under God they were to be Governed by the Bishop of Caerleon Which the Lord Primate Bramhall saith is a full demonstrative convincing proof for the whole time viz. the first six hundred years Vind. p. 84 But 't is added that which follows strikes the question dead Augustine St. Gregories Legate proposing three things to the Brittains 1. That they should submit to the Roman Bishop 2. That they should conform to the Roman Customs 3. Lastly That they should joyn with him in Preaching to the Saxons Hereupon the Brittish Clergy assembled themselves together Bishops and Priests in two several Synods one after another and upon mature deliberation they rejected all his propositions Synodically and refused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do with him upon those terms Insomuch as Augustine was necessitated to return over Sea to obtain his own Consecration and after his return hither to consecrate the Saxon Bishops alone without the assistance of any other Bishop They refused indeed to their own cost Twelve hundred innocent Monks of Bangor shortly after lost their lives for it The foundation of the Papacy here was thus laid in Blood Obj. 'T is objected that the story of the Abbot of Bangor is taken by Sir H. Spelman out of an old Welch Author of suspected credit but all Objections to that purpose are removed by my Lord Primate and Dr. Hammond Besides we have other Authority sufficient for it and beyond contradiction The Story in Bede himself as vouched by Bed li. 2. c. 2. T. H. himself against Dr. Hammond puts it beyond all doubt that the Abbot and Monks opposed Austin and would not subject themselves to the Pope of Rome but referred themselves only to their own Governours which is also the general result of other Authors account of this matter and if the matter of Fact be established 't is enough to disprove the Popes Posession at that time whether they did well or ill is not now considered Baleus speaking of that Convention saith Dinoth In Dinoth disputed against the Authority of Rome and defended stoutly fortitèr the Jurisdiction of St. Davids in the affairs of his own Churches The same is observed by Geoffrey of Monmouth and Sigebert and others for which Dr. Hammond refers us to the Collection of the Anglicane In an 602. Councils and Mr. Whelocks Notes on the Saxon Bede p. 115. And indeed the Author of the Appendix written on purpose to weaken this great instance confesseth as much when he concludes Austin in the Right from the miracles and divine vengeance upon the refusers continuing still refractory to his proposals Of the right of the cause we now dispute not and he acknowledgeth that Augustine had not Possession the thing we contend for However this instance being of great moment in the whole Controversie let us briefly examine what T. H. hath said against it Obj. 1 T. H. questions the Authority of the Welch M. S. An. But the account there is so perfectly agreeable to the general account given by others most competent Witnesses and even Bede himself that as we have no necessity to insist much upon it so they have no reason at all to question it Besides if the Reader would more fully satisfie himself he may
in his contraction of Baronius relates it as his positive Ad an 325. n. 42. Opinion that he rejected all but twenty whether Arabick or other as spurious So that it will bear no further contest but we may safely conclude the Arabick Canons and consequently this of the Popes Authority is a mere Forgery of later times there being no evidence at all that they were known to the Church in all the time of the four first general Councils Vid. c. 20. SECT VI. Practice interpreted the Canons to the same Sence against the Pope Disposing of Patriarchs Cyprian Aug. VVE have found nothing in the Canons of the ancient Councils that might give occasion to the belief of the Popes Jurisdiction in England in the Primitive Ages of the Church but indeed very much to the contrary But the Romanist affirms against my Lord of Canterbury that the Practice of the Church is always the best Expositor and Assertor of the Canons We are now to examine whether the ancient practice of the Church was sufficient to persuade a belief of the Popes Jurisdiction as is pretended In the mean time not doubting but that it is a thing most evident that the Pope hath practised contrary to the Canons and the Canons have declared and indeed been practised against the Pope But what Catholick Practice is found on Record that can be supposed a sufficient ground of this Faith either in England or any part of Christendom Certainly not of Ordinations or Appeals or Visitations Yea can it be imagined that our English Ancestors had not heard of the practice of the Brittains in maintaining their liberty when it was assaulted by Austin and rejecting his demands of Subjection to the See of Rome No doubt they had heard of the Cyprian Priviledge and how it was insisted on in barr of the universal Pastorship by their friends the Eastern Church from whom they in likelihood received the Faith and with whom they were found at first in Communion about the observation of Easter and Baptism and in practice divers from the Church of Rome Obj. But one great point of practice is here pitcht upon by Baronius and after him by T. C. It is the Popes Confirmation of the Election deposing and restoring of Patriarchs which they say he did as Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs and consequently of the whole Church Sol. But where hath he done these strange feats Certainly not in England And we shall find the instances not many nor very early any where else But to each Branch 1. 'T is urged that the Popes Confirmation Confirm Patriarchs is required to all new elected Patriarchs Admit it but the Arch-Bishop of Paris Petrus Dr. Still de Marca fully answers Baronius and indeed every body else that this was no token of Jurisdiction but only of receiving into Communion De conc l. 6. c. 5. s. 2. and as a Testimony of Consent to the Consecration If any force be in this Argument then the Bishop of Carthage had power Cypr. Ep. 52. p. 75. over the Bishop of Rome because he and other African Bishops Confirm'd the Bishop of Rome's Ordination Baronius insists much upon the Confirmation of Anatolius by Leo I. which very instance answers it self Leo himself tells us that it was Ep. 38. to manifest that there was but one entire Communion among them throughout the World Yet it is not to be omitted that the practice of the Church supposeth that the Validity of the Patriarchs Consecration depended not upon Consec depends not on Confirmation the Confirmation or indeed Consent of the Pope of Rome Yea though he did deny his Comunicatory letters that did not hinder them from the Execution of their Office Therefore Flavianus the Patriarch of Antioch though opposed by three Roman Bishops successively who used all importunity with the Emperor that he might be displaced yet because the Churches of the Orient did approve of him and Communicate with him he was allowed and their consent stood against the Bishops of Rome At last the Bishop of Rome severely rebuked for his Pride by the Emperor yielded and his Consent was given only by renewing Communion with him But where was the Popes power either to make or make void a Patriarch while this was in Practice 2. Doth Practice better prove the Popes Deposing Patriarchs power to depose unworthy Patriarchs The contrary is evident for both before and after the Council of Nice according to that Council the practice of the Church placed the power of deposing Patriarchs in Provincial Councils and the Pope had it not till the Council of Sardica decreed in the case of Athanasius as P. de Marca abundantly proves Vid. de Concord l. 7. c. 1. Sect. 6. Also that the Council of Sardica it self did not as is commonly said decree Appeals to Rome but only gave the Bishop of Rome power to review their Actions but still reserving to Provincial Councils that Authority which the Nicene Council had established them in Obj. But T. C. urgeth that we read of no less than eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome Sol. Where doth he read it In an Epistle of Pope Nicolaus to the Emperor Michael Well chosen saith Doctor Still a Popes Testimony in his own Cause And such a one as was then in Controversie with the Patriarch of Constantinople and so late too as the Ninth Century is when his power was much grown from the Infancy of it Yet for all this this Pope on such an occasion and at that time did not say that the Patriarchs mention'd by him were depos'd by the Popes sole Authority but not Ejected Sine Consensu Romani Pontificis without his Consent and his design was only to shew that Ignatius the Patriarch ought not to have been deposed without his Consent v. Nic. 1. 8. Mich. Imp. Tom. 6. Con. p. 506. Obj. Did not Sixtus the third depose Policronius Bishop of Jerusalem Sol. No. He only sent eight Persons from a Synod at Rome to Jerusalem who offered not by the Popes Authority to depose him as should have have been proved but by their means seventy Neighbour Bishops were Called by whom he was deposed besides Binius himself Tom. 2. Con. p. 685. Condemns those very acts that report this story for Spurious 3. But have we any better proof of the Popes power to restore such as were deposed Restoring Patriarchs The only Instance in this Case brought by T. C. is of Athanasius and Paulus restored by Julius and indeed to little purpose T is true Athanasius Cndemned by two Synods goes to Rome where he and Paulus are received into Communion by Julius not liking the decree of the Eastern Bishops Julius never pleads his Power to depose Patriarchs but that his consent for the sake of Vnity should also have been first desired and that so great a Matter in the Church required a Council both of the Eastern and
or a partial possession of power in some lesser things or a larger power in greater matters yielded out of curtesie ossitancy or fear or surprize and held only for a time while things were unsetled or by power craft or interest but soon after disclaimed and frequently interrupted for this is not such a Possession as our Adversaries plead for or indeed will stand them in stead But the Question in short is this whether the Pope had a quiet and uninterrupted possession of the Supreme Power over the Church of England in those great Branches of Supremacy denied him by Henry the Eighth for nine hundred years together or for many Ages together before that time This strictly must be the Question for the Complaint is that Hen. 8. disposessed the Pope of the Supremacy which he had enjoyed for so many Ages and made himself Head of the Church of England therefore those very things which that King then denied to the Pope or took from him must be those Flowers of the Supremacy which the Papists pretend the Pope had possession of for so many Ages together before his time Two things therefore and those only are needful to be sought here what those Branches of Power are which Henry the Eighth denied to the Pope and resumed to himself and his Successors and whether the Pope had quietly and without plain interruption possest the same for so many Ages before his time and in order thereunto when and how he got it CHAP. VIII What the Supremacy was which Henry the Eighth took from the Pope the Particulars of it with Notes 'T Is true Henry the Eighth resumed the Title of the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England and denied this Title to the Pope but 't is plain the Controversie was not so much about the Title as the Power the Honours Dignities Jurisdictions Authorities Profits c. belonging or appertaining to the said Dignity of Supreme Head of the Church of England as is evident by the Statute Hen. 8. 26. c. 1. The Particulars of that Power were such as these 1. Henry the Eighth prohibited all Appeals to the Pope An. 24. c. 12. and Legates from Rome 2. He also forbad all payments of money upon any pretence to the Pope An. 25. c. 12. 3. He denied the Pope and Nomination and Consecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops and Presentations An. 25. 20. 4. He prohibited all Suits for Bulls c. to be made to the Pope or the See of Rome 25. c. 21. 5. He prohibited any Canons to be executed here without the King's Licence An. 25. 19. I have perused the Statutes of King Henry the Eighth and I cannot find any thing which he took away from the Pope but it is reducible to these five Heads touching which by the way we note 1. The Controversie was not about a Primacy of Order or the beginning of Unity but a Supremacy of Power 2. All these things were then denied him not by the King alone but by all the States of the Kingdom in many Statutes 3. The denial of all these Branches of Supremacy to the Pope were grounded upon the Ancient Laws and Customs of the Realm as is usually noted in the Preamble of the said Statutes and if that one thing shall be made to appear we must conclude that the Pope might be guilty of an Vsurpation but could never have a Legal Possession of that Supremacy that is in the question 4. Note that the States of the Kingdom in the Reign of Queen Mary when by means of Cardinal Pool they recognized the Pope's Supremacy An. 1. 11. Mar. c. 8. it was with this careful and express Limitation that nothing therein should be understood to diminish any the Liberties of the Imperial Crown of this Realm which did belong unto it in the Twentieth year of Hen. 8. without deminution or enlargment of the Pope's Supremacy in England as it was in the Twentieth year of Hen. 8. So that Queen Mary and her Parliament added nothing to the Pope but only restored what he had before and when and how that was obtained is next to be examined CHAP. IX Whether the Pope's Supremacy here was in quiet Possession till Henry the Eighth WE have found what Branches of the Pope's Power were cut off by Hen. 8. The Question is whether the Pope had Possession of them without interruption before that time and that we may proceed dictinctly and clearly we shall consider each of the former Branches by themselves and first we begin with the Pope's Power of receiving Appeals from hence which carries a very considerable part of his pretended Jurisdiction SECT I. Of Appeals to Rome Three Notions of Appeal Appeals to Rome Locally or by Legates Wilfrid Anselm APpeals to Rome we have found among these things which were prohibited by Henry the Eighth Therefore no doubt the Pope claimed and in some sort possessed the power of receiving such Appeals before But what kind of Possession how free and how long is worthy to be enquired Appeal is a word taken several ways Sometimes it is only to accuse so we find it in the Statutes of the 11 and 21 Rich. 2. Sometimes 3 Senses Appeal to refer our selves for judgment to some worthy person so Francfort c. appealed to John Calvin 3. But now it is chiefly used for a removing a cause from an inferior to a Superior Court that hath power of disanulling what the other did In this last sense Historians tell us that Appeals to Rome were not in use with us till about five hundred years agon or a little more viz. the year 1140. These Appeals to Rome were received and judged either in the Popes Court at Rome or by his Legates in England A word or two of each For Appeals to the Pope at Rome the two famous instances of Wilfred and Anselm take up much of our History 1. Locally Wilfred But they both seem at least at first to have appealed to the Pope under the second notion of appeal Anselm Not to him as a proper or legal Judge but as a great and venerable Prelate But not to stick there 't is well known what effect they obtained As for Wilfred his account was of elder date and hath appeared before to the great prejudice of the Popes Possession in England at that time Anselm But Anselm is the great monument of Papal Obedience and as a learned man observes the first promoter of Papal Authority in England He began his Enterprise with a pretence that he ought not to be barr'd of visiting the Vicar of St. Peter causâ Regiminis Ecclesiae but he was not suffered to do that So far was the Pope then from having the power of receiving appeals that he might not receive the visit of a person of Anselm's quality without the Kings leave First he was told by the Bishops as well as Lay-Lords that it was a thing unheard of and altogether against the use
inconsiderable an Argument is this our Kings cannot give away the Power of the Crown during their own times without an Act of Parliament the King and Parliament together cannot dispose of any thing inherent to the Crown of England without a Power of Resumption or to the prejudice of Succeeding Kings besides no King of England ever did not King John himself either with or without his Parliament by any Solemn Publick Act transfer the Government of this Church to the Bishop of Rome or so much as Recognize it to be in Him before Henry the Eighth and what John did Harpf. ad 5. Re. 14. c. 5. was protested against by the Three States then in Parliament And although Queen Mary since made a higher acknowledgment of his Holiness than ever we read was done here before yet 't is evident she gave him rather the Complement of the Title of that uncertain Word Supreme Head than any real Power as we observed before and yet her New Act to that purpose was endured to remain in force but a very short time about four or five years But although neither Constantine for the Justinian whole World nor King John for England did or could devise the Supremacy to the Pope 't is confessed the Emperor Justinian endeavoured somewhat that look'd like it Justinian was a great friend of the Roman Bishop he saith Properamus honorem authoritatem Cod. inter Claras crescere sedis vestrae we labour to subject and unite all the Eastern Priests to the See of your Holiness But this is a plain demonstration that the See of Rome did not extend to the East near six hundred years after Christ otherwise that would have been no addition of honour or Authority to it neither would Justinian have endeavoured what was done before as it doth not appear that he afterwards effected it Therefore the Title that he then gave the Pope of the Chief and Head of all the Churches must carry a qualified sence and was only a Title of honour befitting the Bishop of the Chief and most eminent Church as the Roman Church then was and indeed Justinian was a Courtier and stiles the Bishop of Constantinople universal Patriarch too or at most can only signifie that his intentions were to raise the Pope to the chief Power over the whole Church which as was said before he had not yet obtained This is all that can be inferred if these Epistles betwixt the Emperor and the Pope be not forged as Learned Papists suspect because in Greg. Holiand Azo the eldest and allowed Books they are not to be found However if Justinian did design any thing in favour of the Pope it was only the subjecting of the Clergy to him as an Ecclesiastical Ruler and yet that no farther than might well enough consist with the Supremacy of the Empire in causes Ecclesiastical as well as Civil which memento spoils all the argument For we find the same Justinian under this imperial stile We command the most holy Arch-Bishops and Patriarchs of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem Authent Colla 1. We find him making Laws upon Monks Priests Bishops and all kind of Churchmen to inforce them to their duty We find him putting forth his Power and Authority for the sanction of the Canons of Councils and making them to have the force of Laws We find him punishing the Clergy and the Popes themselves yea 't is well known and confessed by Romanists that he deprived two Popes Sylverius and Vigilius Indeed Mr. Harding saith that was done by Theodora the Empress but it is otherwise recorded in their own Pontifical the Emperor demanded of Belsarius what he had done with the Romans and how he had deposed Sylverius and placed Vigilius in his stead Upon Conc. To. 2. in â— Vigil his answer both the Emperor and Empress gave him thanks Now it is a Rule in Law Rati habito retrotrabitur mandato comparatur Zaberel declares it to be Law that the Pope De Schis Conci in any notorious crime may be accused before the Emperor and the Emperor may require of the Pope an account of his Faith And the Emperor ought to proceed saith Harvy against De Potes Pap. c. 13. the Pope upon the request of the Cardinals And it was the judgment of the same Justinian himself that there is no kind of thing but Con. Const 5. Act. 1. it may be thorowly examined by the Emperor For he hath a principality from God over all men the Clergy as well as Laity But his erecting of Justiniana prima and giving the Bishop Locum Apostolicae sedis to which all the Provinces should make their last Appeal Goâ—â—op Nov. 13. c. 3. Nov. 11. whereby as Nicephorus affirms the Emperor made it a free City a Head to it self with full power independant from all others And as it is in the imperial constitutions the Primate thereof should have all power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the Supreme Priesthood Supreme Honour and Dignity This is such an instance both of Justinian's Judgment and Power contrary to the Popes pretensions of Supremacy as granted or acknowledged by the Emperor Justinian that all other Arguments of it are ex abundanti and there is no great need of subjoyning that other great and like instance of his restoring Carthage to its primacy after the Vandals were driven out and annexing two new Provinces that were not so before to its jurisdiction without the proviso of submitting it self to Rome though before Carthage had ever refused to do it Phocas the Emperor and Pope Boniface no doubt understood one another and were well enough agreed upon the point But we shall never yield that these two did legally represent the Church and the World or that the grant of the one and the greedy acceptance on the other part could bind all Christians and all mankind in subjection to his Holiness's Chair for ever Valentinian said all Antiquity hath given the principality of Priesthood to the Bishop of Rome But no Antiquity ever gave him a principality of Power no doubt he as well as the other Emperors kept the Political Supremacy in his own hands Charles the Great might complement Adrian and call him universal Pope and say be gave St. Wilehade a Bishoprick at his command But he kept the power of convocating Synods every year and sate in them as a Judge himself Auditor arbiter adfui he made Ecclesiastical Decrees in his own Name to whom this very Pope acquitted all claim in the Election of succeeding Popes for ever A great deal more in answer to both these you have in Arch-Bishop Bramhall p. 235 236. and King James's defence p. 50. c. CHAP. XIX The Popes pretended Ecclesiastical Right Not by General Councils 8 First To which Sworn Justi Sanction Can. Apost allowed by C. Nice and Ephesus THough it seem below his Holiness's present grandeur to ground his Right upon the Civil Power
Remedy from any other a Remedy is indeed provided by the Canon Sin duo aut tres c. if two or three do contradict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not go to Rome but obtineat Sententia plurimorum let the major Vote carry it In the seventh Canon Custom and Tradition Can. 7. both are the Grounds upon which the Council confirmed the like priviledge of the Church of Hierusalem because Custom and Ancient Tradition ut Aeliae Episcopus honoretur let him have have the consequence of Honour with a Salvo for the proper Dignity of the Metropolis but not a word of Rome Note that in Can. 6. the Power of the Alexandrian Bishop is grounded upon Ancient Custom Antiqua consuetudo servetur and not upon the Concession of the Roman Bishop as Berlarmine would force it and that the like manner or Custom of Rome is but another Example of the same thing as Antioch was and the rest of the Provinces but this ungrammatical and illogical Evasion was put off before SECT III. Concil Constantinop Gen. 2. An. 381. THe next Council admired by Justinian as one of the Gospels is that Famous Council of Constantinople adorned with 150 Fathers Hath this made any better provision for the Pope's Supremacy certainly no for the very Can. 1. Bin. p. 660. Alter Editio Bin. p. 664. Can. 2. first Canon chargeth us not to despise the Faith of the 318 Fathers in the Synod of Nice which ought to be held firm and Inviolate The Second Canon forbids the confusion of Diocesses and therefore injoyns Secundum Regulas constitutas i. e. the Rules of the Apostles and Nicene Fathers to be kept the Bishop of Alexandria must govern them in Egypt only and so the rest as are there mentioned more particularly than in Nicene Canons In the Third is reinforced the Canon of the former Council against Ordinations by Bishops Can. 3. out of their own Jurisdictions and adds this Reason that casts no countenance upon any Forreign Jurisdiction 't is manifest that the proper Provincial Synod ought to administer and govern all things per quasquc singulas Provincias within their peculiar Provinces secundum ea quae sunt in Nicaea definita This third Canon honours the Bishop of Constantinople next after the Bishop of Rome as Binius renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Binius is very angry that such a Canon is found there and urgeth many reasons against it and therefore we shall conclude that as none of the rest Bin. To. 1. 672. so neither doth this Canon confer the universal government of the Church upon the Bishop of Rome SECT IV. Concil Ephesin Gen. 3. An. Christi 431. THe third general Council whose Canons Justinian passed into Laws is that of Ephesus and this so far abhors from the grant that it is a plain and zealous contradicter of the Popes pretensions In Act the seventh 't is agreed against the invasion of the Bishop of Antioch that the Cyprian Prelates shall hold their Rights untouched and unviolated according to the Canons of the holy Fathers before mentioned and the ancient custom ordaining their own Bishops and let the same be observed in other Diocesses and in all Provinces that no Bishop occupy another Province or subject it by force which formerly and from the beginning was not under his power or his Predecessors Or if he have done so let him restore it that the Canons of the Fathers be not slighted nor Pride creep into the Church nor Christian Liberty be lost Therefore it hath pleased the holy Synod that every Province enjoy its Rights and Customs unviolated which it had from the beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice repeated whereby we are to learn a very great Rule that the bounds of primacies were settled very early before this Council or any other general Council before this even at the beginning and that those bounds ought to be observed to the end according to the Canons of the Fathers and ancient custom and consequently that such as are invaders of others Rights are bound to make restitution Now 't is evident we were a free Province in England in the beginning and when St. Augustine came from Rome to invade our Liberties 't is evident this Council gave the Pope no power or priviledge to invade us Yea that what power the Pope got over us in after times was a manifest violation of the Rights we had from the beginning as also of the Canons of the ancient Fathers in the three mentioned sacred and General Councils of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus all grounded upon the ancienter Canons called the Apostles Lastly such Usurpers were always under the obligation of the Canon to restore and quit their incroachments and consequently the Brittanick Churches were always free to vindicate and reassume their Rights and Liberties as they worthily did in Hen. 8. SECT V. Concil Calcedon Gen. 4. An 451. S. W's Gloss THere is little hope that this Council should afford the Pope any advantage seeing it begins Canones c. with the confirmation of all the Canons made by the Fathers in every Synod before that time and consequently of those that we have found in prejudice to his pretensions among the rest The Ninth Canon enjoyns upon differences Can. 9. betwixt Clerks that the Cause be heard before the proper Bishop betwixt a Bishop and a Clerk before the Provincial Synod betwixt a Bishop or Clerk and the Metropolitan before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the See of the Royal City of Constantinople To the same effect we read Can. 17. Can. 17. Si quis a suo c. If any one be injured by his Bishop or Metropolitan apud Exarchum seu Primatem Dioceseos vel Constantinopolitam sedem litiget But Where is any provision made for Remedy at Rome Indeed that could not consist with the sence of this Synod who would not endure the Supremacy or so much as the Superiority of Rome above Constantinople This is evident in Can. 28 the Fathers gave Can. 28. priviledge to the See of old Rome Quod Vrbs illa imperaret eadem consideratione saith the Canon and for the same reason an hundred and fifty Bishops gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal Priviledges to the Seat of new Rome recte judicantes rightly judging that that City that hath the Empire and the Senate should enjoy equal Priviledges with old Royal Rome etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus ac illa extolli ac magnifieri secundam post illam existentem Now to what purpose doth S. W. to Dr. Hammond trifle on the Canon and tell us that S. W's Gloss these Priviledges were only Honorary Pomps when the Canon adds in Ecclesiastical matters and names one the Ordination of Bishops and Metropolitans within themselves as before was declared by the divine Canons We conclude that this Bar against the Popes universal Pastorship will never be removed These are the four first general Councils honoured by
Furtivè as Baronius inter Actarelatus Ans This is beyond all colour for the Bishops of Rome opposed it as unfit yet never said it was forged Leo Gelasius Gregory all took it very ill but no one said it was false The Popes Legates also in the Council of Calcedon made mention of this Canon by way of Opposition but yet never offered at its being surreptitious But that which is instar omnium in this Evidence is this the Fathers of the Council of Calcedon in their Letters to Pope Leo say that with mutual consent they confirmed the Canon of 150 Bishops at Const notwithstanding that his Bishops and Legates did dissent therefrom Now what if a few Histories do not mention this Canon which is all that remains to be said Socrates and Zozomon do and two positive Witnesses are better than twenty Negative Besides though it s much against the Hair of Rome yet it 's so evident that Gratian himself reports that Canon verbatim as Acted in that Council SECT IV. Objections against the Third General Council at Ephesus answered Obj. 1 IT is said by Bellarmine that they confessed they deposed Nestorius by the Command of Pope Celestine Ans 1 We answer that Command should appear in the Popes Letters to them but it doth not the stile of Command was not then in use for almost 200 years after Pope Gregory abhors it Li 7. Ep. 30. 2. The words intended are these tum Ecclesiae canonibus tum Epistolà Patris Celestini Verb. Conc. de Nest l. 1. c. 4. Collegae nostri compulsi They were compelled both by the Canons and by his Letters therefore they did it by the Popes Command an excellent consequence from the part to the whole Indeed they first shew that they were satisfied both by his Words and Letters that he had deserved deposition and then acknowledge they ought by the Canons and no doubt would have deposed him as well as John of Antioch shortly after without the Popes Authority though they give this Complement to Celestine for his seasonable advice grounded upon the Canons and merits of the Cause Obj. 2 But the Council say they durst not Judge John Bishop of Antioch and that they reserved him to the Judgment of Pope Celestine Ans Strange Bellarmine hence 1. Denies matter of Fact mentioned in the very same Paragraph They durst not depose this Patriarch when they tell the Pope in terminis they had done it Se illum prius excommunicasse omni potestate sacerdotali exuisse What is this but Deposition 2. He hence concludes a wonderful Right that the Pope is absolutely above a General Council a conclusion denied by their own general Councils of Constance and Basil ever disclaimed by the Doctors of Paris as contrary to Antiquity and which no Council since the beginning of Christianity did expresly decree as Dr. Stapleton himself confesseth and therefore flies to Silence as consent Quamvis nullo decreto publico tamen tacito doctorum consensu definita c. doctr princ l. 13. c. 15. But all this is evidently against both the sence of the Council declared in this point and the reason of the Canon it self 1. They sufficiently declared their sence in the very Epistle alledged where speaking of the points constituted by the Pope We say they have judged them to stand firm wherofore we agree with you in one sentence and do hold them meaning Pelagius and others to be deposed So that instead of the Popes confirming Acts of Councils this Council confirms the Acts of the Pope whom indeed they plainly call their Colleague and Fellow-worker Epis Syn. 2. In the Acts or Canons their reason and very words establishing the Cyprian Priviledge as hath been shewn they bound and determine the power of Rome as well as other Patriarchates and certainly they therefore never intended to acknowledge the absolute Monarchy of the Pope over themselves by reserving John of Antioch to Celestine after they had deposed him they declare their own end plainly enough Vt illius temeritatem animi lenitate vinceremus that is as you have it in Binius Celestine might try whether by any reason he could bring him to a better mind that so he might be received into favour again SECT V. Objections touching the Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth General Councils especially Touching the Fourth General Council of Calcedon answered Conclusion Obj. 1 THis Council stiled the Pope Oecumenical Patriarch or Vniversal Bishop The Title was not given by the Council it self Bellar. but by two Deacons writing to the Council and of Paschasius the Popes Legate in the Council 2. Though the Council did not question the form of the Title yet no one can think that they either intended to grant or acknowledge the Popes Vniversal Authority by such their silence For 't is incredible that the same Council which gave equal Priviledges to Constantinople should give or acknowledge an Vniversal Jurisdiction to Rome over the whole Church 3. But the words answer themselves Vniversali Archiepiscopo magnae Romae Universal Arch. Bishop Conc. Calc Act. 3. not of the whole Church but of Great Rome Which grand Restriction denies that Universal Power which they would argue from it The stile of the Roman Emperor is Vniversal Emperor of Rome and thus is distinguished from the Emperor of Turky and all others and denieth him to be the Emperor of the whole world Obj. Saith Binius in Annot. in Conc. Calced Act 3. ex Baron The Title at first was the Bishop of the Vniversal Church because it is so read in the Epistle of Leo but was altered by some Greek Scribe in envy to the Church of Rome Ans 'T is likely that a private man could or durst alter the Stile of a General Council against the dignity of the Pope his Legate present but 't is more likely that some Latine Scribe hath added that Inscription to the Epistle of Pope Leo in honour of the Church of Rome as is confessed by Cusanus to have been done to the Epistle of Anacletus and by Baronius to have been done to the Epistle of Pope Boniface and by three other Popes themselves unto the Council of Nice viz. Zosimus Boniface and Celestinus And the rather because as was just now noted this Council at the same time honoured the Bishop of Constantinople with equal Priviledges to the Bishop of Rome Obj. 3 Pope Leo opposed this Decree of the Council and disclaimed it Ans No wonder but it seems General Councils were not always of the Popes mind and the Pope would then have had a greater Priviledge than a General Council and if that was a General Council as they themselves say it was the Controversie is ended For by their own confession this General Council made a Decree against the Popes pretences of Superiority and therefore it did not intend by the Title of Bishop of the whole Church to acknowledge that Superiority which he pretended and that Council of
hearty prayer of My Lord Your Lordships most obliged and devoted Servant FR. FULLWOOD A PREFACE TO THE READER Good Reader OUr Roman Adversaries claim the Subjection of the Church of England by several Arguments but insist chiefly upon that of possession and the Universal Pastorship if any shall deign to answer me I think it reasonable to expect they should attach me there where they suppose their greatest strength lies otherwise though they may seem to have the Advantage by catching Shadows if I am left unanswered in those two main Points the Substance of their Cause is lost For if it remain unproved that the Pope had quiet possession here and the contrary proof continue unshaken the Argument of Possession is on our side I doubt not but you will find that the Pope had not possession here before that he took not possession by Austine the Monk and that he had no such possession here afterwards sufficient to create or evince a Title 'T is confessed that Austine took his Arch-Bishoprick of Canterbury as the Gift of Saint Gregory and having recalled many of the People to Christianity both the Converts and the Converter gave great Submission and respect to Saint Gregory then Bishop of Rome and how far the People were bound to obey their Parent that had begotten them or he his Master that sent him and gave him the Primacy I need not dispute But these things to our purpose are very certain 1. That Conversion was anciently conceived to be the ground of their Obedience to Saint Gregory which Plea is now deserted and that Saint Gregory himself abhorred the very Title of Universal Bishop the only thing nowinsisted on 2. 'T is also certain that the Addition of Authority which the King's Silence Permission or Connivence gave to Austine was more than Saint Gregory's Grant and yet that Connivence of the new Converted King in the Circumstances of so great Obligation and Surprize who might not know or consider or be willing to exercise his Royal Power then in the Point could never give away the Supremacy inherent in his Crown from his Successors for ever 3. 'T is likewise certain that neither Saint Gregory's Grant nor that King's Permission did or could obtain Possession for the Pope by Austine as the Primate of Canterbury over all the Brittish Churches and Bishops which were then many and had not the same Reason from their Conversion by him to own his Jurisdiction but did stifly reject all his Arguments and Pretenses for it King Ethelbert the only Christian King at that time in England had not above the twentieth part of Brittain within his Jurisdiction how then can it be imagined that all the King of England's Dominions in England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland should be concluded within the Primacy of Canterbury by Saint Augustine's possession of so small a part 4. 'T is one thing to claim another to possess Saint Augustine's Commission was to subject all Brittain to erect two Arch-Bishopricks and twelve Bishopricks under each of them but what possession he got for his Master appears in that after the death of that Gregory and Austine there were left but one Arch-Bishop and two Bishops of the Roman Communion in all Brittain 5. Moreover the Succeeding Arch-Bishops of Canterbury soon after discontinued that small possession of England which Augustine had gotten acknowledging they held of the Crown and not of the Pope resuming the Ancient Liberties of the English Church which before had been and ought always to be Independent on any other and which of Right returned upon the Return of their Christianity and accordingly our Succeeding Kings with their Nobles and Commons and Clergy upon all occasions denied the Papal Jurisdiction here as contrary to the King 's Natural Supremacy and the Customs Liberties and Laws of this Kingdom And as Augustine could not give the Miter so neither could King John give the Crown of England to the Bishop of Rome For as Math. Paris relates Philip Augustus answered the Pope's Legate no King no Prince can Alienate or give away his Kingdom but by Consent of his Barons who we know protested against King John's endeavour of that kind bound by Knighs Service to defend the said Kingdom and in case the Pope shall stand for the contrary Error his Holiness shall give to Kingdoms a most pernitious Example so far is one unwarrantable act of a fearful Prince under great Temptations from laying a firm ground for the Pope's Prescription and 't is well known that both the preceeding and succeeding Kings of England defended the Rights of the Crown and disturbed the Pope's possession upon stronger grounds of Nature Custom and plain Statutes and the very Constitution of the Kingdom from time to time in all the main Branches of Supremacy as I doubt not but is made to appear by full and Authentick Testimony beyond dispute 2. The other great Plea for the Pope's Authority in England is that of Universal Pastorship now if this cannot be claimed by any Right either Divine Civil or Ecclesiastical but the contrary be evident and both the Scriptures Emperors Fathers and Councils did not only not grant but deny and reject the Pope's Supremacy as an Usurpation What Reason hath this or any other Church to give away their Liberty upon bold and groundless Claims The pretence of Civil Right by the Grant of Emperors they are now ashamed of for three Reasons 't is too scant and too mean and apparently groundless and our discourse of the Councils hath beaten out an unanswerable Argument against the claim by any other Right whether Ecclesiastical or Divine for all the General Councils are found first not to make any such Grant to the Pope whereby the Claim by Ecclesiastical Right is to be maintained but secondly they are all found making strict provisions against his pretended Authority whereby they and the Catholick Church in them deny his Divine Right 'T is plainly acknowledged by Stapleton himself that before the Council of Constance non divino sed humano Jure positivis Ecclesiae Decretis primatum Rom. Pont. niti senserunt speaking of the Fathers that is the Fathers before that Council thought the Primacy of the Pope was not of Divine Right and that it stood only upon the Positive Decrees of the Church and yet he further confesseth in the same place that the Power of the Pope now contended for nullo sane decreto publico definita est is not defined by any Publick Decree tacito tamen Doctorum Consensu Now what can remain but that which we find him immediately driven to viz. to reject the pretence of humane Right by Positive Decrees of the Church and to adhere only as he himself affirmeth they generally now do to the Divine Right Nunc inquit autem nemini amplius Catholoco dubium est prorsus Divino Jure quidem illustribus Evangelii Testimoniis hunc Primatum niti Thus how have they intangled themselves if they pretend a humane
not rebel against the Government that God hath placed immediatly over us This fair respect the Church of England holds to the Communion both of the Catholick and all particular Churches both in Doctrine Worship and Government and the main exception against her is that she denies obedience to a pretended Power in the See of Rome a Power not known as now claimed to the Ancient Church a Power when once foreseen warned against as Antichristian by a Pope himself and when usurped condemned by a General Council And lastly such a Power as those that claim it are not agreed about among themselves But the charge of Schism falls after another sort upon our Roman Adversaries who have disturbed the Vniversal and all particular Churches by manifest violation of all the three bonds of external Communion The Doctrine and Faith by adding to the Canon of the Scripture Apocriphal Books by adding to the revealed will of God groundless Traditions by making new Creeds without the Consent of the present and against the Doctrine and practice of the Ancient Churches and as for Worship how have they not corrupted it by Substraction taking away one essential part of a Divine Ordinance the Cup from the Laity c. by additions infinite to the Material and Ceremonial Parts of Worship and by horrid Alterations of the pure and Primitive Worship to childish Superstitions and some say dangerous Idolatry Lastly As to Government they have plainly separated themselves both from the Ancient and present Catholick Church and all other particular Churches by usurping a Dominion condemned by the Ancient and that cannot be owned without betraying the Liberty of the present Church By exerting this Usurpation in unlawful and unreasonable Conditions of Communion and as it is said by Excommunicating for Non-obedience to these Impositions not only the Church of England but three Parts of the Christian World The proof on both sides we are to expect in due place SECT IV. The Conditions of Schism Causless Voluntary THe fourth and last thing considerable in the Definition is the Condition which Condition adds the guilt and formality of Schism to Separation which is twofold it must be Causeless and Voluntary 1. It must be voluntary Separation or denial of Communion but of this I shall say nothing Voluntary a greater man received a check from his Romish Adversaries for the proof of it saying who knows not that every sin is voluntary S. W Causless 2. It must be causless or as it is usually expressed without sufficient cause 't is a Rule generally allowed that the Cause makes the Schism i. e. if the Church give cause of Separation there is the Schism if not the cause of Schism is in the Separatist and consequently where the cause is found there the charge of Schism resteth I know 't is said that there cannot be sufficient cause of Separation from the true Church and therefore this Condition is needless but they ever mean by the true Church the Catholick Church 'T is granted the Catholick Church cannot be supposed to give such cause she being the ordinary Pillar of Truth wherein the means of Salvation can be only found therefore we rarely meet with any such condition in the Definitions of Schism given by the Fathers of the Ancient Church because they had to deal with Schisms of that kind that separated from the whole Church But hence to infer that we cannot have just canse to separate from the Church of Rome will be found bad Logick However if we could grant this Condition to be needless it cannot be denied to be true and the lawfulness of Separation for just cause is an eternal verity and if the cause be supposed Just cannot be said to be unjust seeing there cannot be supposed a sufficient cause of Sin the Act is justified while it is condemned Besides it is not questioned by our Adversaries but there may be sufficient cause of separation from a particular Church then if at last we find that the Church of Rome is no more there is more than reason to admit this Condition in the present Controversie But the Cause must not be pretended to effect beyond its influence or Sufficiency Therefore none may be allowed to deny Communion with a Church farther than he hath cause for beyond its Activity that which is said to be a cause is no cause Hence we admit the distinction of partial and total separation and that known Rule that we may not totally separate from a true Church and only so far as we cannot communicate without sin The Reason is evident because the truth and very being of a Christian Church implieth something wherein every Christian Church in the very Foundation and being of it hath an agreement both of Union and Communion Far be it from us therefore to deny all kind of Communion with any Christian Church yea we franckly and openly declare that we still retain Communion out of fraternal charity with the Church of Rome so far as she is a true Church Only protesting against her Vsurpations and reforming our selves from those corruptions of Faith and Worship of which Rome is too fond and consequently the more guilty SECT V. The Application of Schism Not to our Church IF this definition of Schism be not applicable to the Church of England she is unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism If the Church of England doth not voluntarily divide in or from the Catholick Church or any particular Church either by separation from or denying Communion with it much less by setting another Altar against it without sufficient cause then the definition of Schism is not applicable to the Church of England But she hath not thus divided whether we respect the Act or the Cause With respect to the Act viz. Division We 1. In the Act. argue if the Church of England be the same for Substance since the Reformation that it was before then by the Reformation we have made no such Division for we have divided from no other Church further than we have from our own as it was before the Reformation as our Adversaries grant And therefore if we are now the same Church as to Substance that we were before we hold the same Communion for substance or essentials with every other Church now that we did before But for Substance we have the same Faith the same Worship the same Government now that we had before the Reformation and indeed from our first Conversion to Christianity Indeed the Modern Romanists have made new Essentials in the Christian Religion and determine their Additions to be such But so Weeds are of the essence of a Garden and Botches of the essence of a Man We have the same Creed to a word and in the same sence by which all the Primitive Fathers were saved which they held to be so sufficient that in a general Council they did forbid Con. Ept. p. 2. Act. 6. c. 7. all persons under pain of
deposition to Bishops and Clerks and Anathematization to Lay-men to compose or obtrude upon any persons converted from Paganism or Judaism We retain the same Sacraments and Discipline we derive our holy Orders by lineal succession from them It is not we who have forsaken the essence of the Modern Church by substraction or rather Reformation but they of the Church of Rome who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Roman Church by their corrupt Additions as a learned Man observes The plain truth is this the Church of Rome hath had long and much Reverence in the Church of England and thereby we were by little and little drawn along with her into many gross errors and superstitions both in Faith and Worship and at last had almost lost our liberty in point of Government But that Church refusing to reform and proceeding still further to usurp upon us we threw off the Vsurpation first and afterwards very deliberately Reform'd our selves from all the corruptions that had been growing upon us and had almost over-grown both our Faith and Worship If this be to divide the Church we are indeed guilty not else But we had no power to reform our selves Here indeed is the main hinge of the Controversie but we have some concessions from our worst and fiercest Adversaries that a National Church hath power of her self to reform abuses in lesser matters provided she alter nothing in the Faith and Sacraments without the Pope And we have declared before that we have made no alteration in the essentials of Religion But we brake our selves off from the Papal Authority and divided our selves from our lawful Governors 'T is confest the Papal Authority we do renounce but not as a lawful Power but a Tyrannical Usurpation and if that be proved where is our Schism But this reminds us of the second thing in the Definition of Schism the Cause For what 2. The Cause interpretation soever be put upon the Action whether Reformation or Division and Separation 't is not material if it be found we had sufficient Cause and no doubt we had if we had reason from the lapsed state and nature of our Corruptions to Reform and if we had sufficient Authority without the Pope to reform our selves But we had both as will be evident at last Both these we undertake for satisfaction to the Catholick Church but in defence of our own Church against the charge of Schism by and from the Church of Rome one of them yea either of them is sufficient For if the pretended Authority of the Church of Rome over the Church of England be ill grounded how can our Actions fall under their censure Especially seeing the great and almost only matter of their censure is plainly our disobedience to that ill grounded Authority Again however their Claim and Title stand or fall if we have or had cause to deny that Communion which the Church of Rome requires though they have power to accuse us our Cause being good will acquit us from the guilt and consequently the charge of Schism Here then we must joyn Issue we deny the pretended Power of the Church of Rome in England and plead the justness of our own Reformation in all the particulars of it SECT VI. The Charge as laid by the Romanists THis will the better appear by the indictment of Schism drawn up against us by our Adversaries I shall receive it as it is expressed by one of the sharpest Pens and in the fullest and closest manner I bave met with viz. Card. Perron against Arch-Bishop Laud thus Protestants have made this Rent or Schism by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneneous Doctrines contrary to the faith of Roman or Catholick Church by their rejecting the authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors both immediate and mediate By aggregating themselves into a separate Body or company of pretended Christians independent of any Pastors at all that were in lawful and quiet possession of Jurisdiction over them by making themselves Pastors and Teachers of others and administring Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully impowered to give it by instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of their own in matters of Religion contrary to those anciently received throughout all Christendom by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates of and from their respective Sees Cures and Benefices and intruding themselves into their places in every Nation where they could get footing A foul Charge indeed and the fouler because in many things false However at present we have reason only to observe the foundation of all lies in our disobedience and denying Communion with the Church of Rome all the rest either concerns the grounds or manner or consequences of that Therefore if it appear at last that the Church of England is independant on the Church of Rome and oweth her no such obedience as she requires the Charge of Schism removes from us and recoyls upon the Church or Court of Rome from her unjust Vsurpations and Impositions and that with the aggrevation of Sedition too in all such whether Prelates or Priests as then refused to acknowledge and obey the just Power and Laws of this Land or that continue in the same disobedience at this day SECT VII The Charge of Schism retorted upon the Romanists The Controversie to two Points IT is well noted by a learned Man that while the Papal Authority is under Contest the question Dr. Hammond is not barely this whether the Church of England be schismatical or no For a Romanist may cheaply debate that and keep himself safe whatsoever becomes of the Vmpirage but indifferently and equally whether we or the Romanist be thus guilty or which is the Schismatick that lies under all those severe Censures of the Scriptures and Fathers the Church of England or her Revolters and the Court of Rome Till they have better answered to the Indictment than yet they have done we do and shall lay the most horrid Schism at the door of the Church or Court of Rome For that they have voluntarily divided the Catholick Church both in Faith Worship and Government by their innovations and excommunicated and damned not only the Church of England but as some account three parts of the Christian Church most uncharitably and without all Authority or just cause to the scandal of the whole world But we shall lay the charge more particularly as it is drawn up by Arch-Bishop Bramhal The Church saith he or rather the Court of Rome are causally guilty both of this Schism and almost all other Schisms in the Church 1. By usurping an higer place and power in the Body Ecclesiastical than of right is due unto them 2. By separating both by their Doctrines and Censures three parts of the Christian World from their Communion and as much as in them lies from the Communion of Christ 3. By rebelling against general Councils Lastly by breaking or taking away all the lines of Apostolical
Succession except their own and appropriating all Original Jurisdiction to themselves And that which draws Sedition and Rebellion as the great aggravation of their Schism they Challenge a temporal Power over Princes either directly or indirectly Thus their Charge against us is Disobedience Our Charge against them is Usurpation and abuse of Power If we owe no such Obedience or if we have cause not to obey we are acquitted If the Pope have both power and reason of his side we are guilty If he fail in either the whole weight of Schism with all its dreadful Consequences remains upon him or the Court of Rome The Conclusion TThus we see the Controversie is broken into two great points 1. Touching the Papal Authority in England 2. Touching the Cause of our denying Communion in some things with the Church of Rome required by that Authority Each of these I design to be the matter of a distinct Treatise This first Book therefore is to try the Title The Sum of this first Treatise betwixt the Pope and the Church of England Wherein we shall endeavour impartially to examine all the Pleas and Evidences produced and urged by Romanists on their Masters behalf and shew how they are answered and where there appears greatest weight and stress of Argument we shall be sure to give the greatest diligence Omitting nothing but vnconcluding impertinencies and handling nothing lightly but colours and shadows that will bear no other Now to our Work CHAP. II. An Examination of the Papal Authority in England Five Arguments Proposed and briefly reflected on THis is their Goliah and indeed their whole Army if we rout them here the day is our own and we shall find nothing more to oppose us but Skirmishes of Wit or when they are at their Wits end fraud and force as I am troubled to observe their Use hath been For if the See of Rome hath no just claim or Title to govern us we cannot be obliged to obey it and consequently these two things stand evident in the light of the whole world We are no Schismaticks though we deny obedience to the See of Rome seeing it cannot justly challenge it 2dly Though we were so yet the See of Rome hath no power to censure us that hath no power to govern us And hereafter we shall have occasion further to conclude that the Papal Authority that hath nothing to do with the English Church and yet rigorously exacts our obedience and censures us for our disobedience is highly guilty both of Ambition in its unjust claim and of Tyranny in unjust execution of an usurped power as well in her Commands as Censures which is certainly Schism and aliquid ampliùs They of the Church of Rome do therefore mightily bestir themselves to make good their claim without which they know they can never hope either to gain us or secure themselves I find five several Titles pretended though methinks the power of that Church should be built but upon one Rock 1. The Pope being the means of our first Conversion as they say did thereby acquire a Right 1. Conversion for himself and successors to govern this Church 2. England belongs to the Western Patriarchate 2. Patriarch and the Pope is the Patriarch of the West as they would have it 3. Others found his Right in Prescription and 3. Prescription long continued possession before the Reformation 4. Others flee much higher and derive this power of Government from the Infallibility of 4. Infallibility the Governor and indeed who would not be led by an unerring Guide 5. But their strong hold to which at last resort 5. Succession is still made is the Popes Vniversal Pastorship as Successor to St. Peter and supreme Governor not of Rome and England only but of the whole Christian World Before we enter upon trial of these severally we shall briefly note that where there are many Titles pretended Right is justly suspected especially if the Pretences be inconsistent 1. Now how can the Pope as the Western Patriarch or as our first Converâ—â—r pretend to be our Governor and yet at the same time pretend himself to be universal Bishop These some of our suttlest Adversaries know to imply a contradiction and to destroy one another 2. At first sight therefore there is a necessity on those that assert the universal Pastorship to wave the Arguments either from the Right of Conversion or the Western Patriarchate or if any of them will be so bold as to insist on these he may not think the Chair of St. Peter shall be his Sanctuary at a dead lift 3. Also for Possession what need that be pleaded if the Right be evident Possession of a part if the Right be universal unless by England the Pope took livery and Seisen for the whole world Besides if this be a good plea it is as good for us we have it and have had it time out of mind if ours have not been quiet so neither was theirs before the Reformation 4. For Infallibility that 's but a Qualification no Commission Fitness sure gives no Authority nor desert a Title and that by their own Law otherwise they must acknowledge the Bishops of our Church that are known to be as learned and holy as theirs are as good and lawful Bishops as any the Church of Rome hath Thus we see where the Burthen will rest at last and that the Romanists are forced into one only hold One great thing concerns them to make sure or all is lost the whole Controversir is tied to St. Peters Chair the Supremacy of the Pope must be maintained or the Roman and Catholick are severed as much as the Church of England and the Church of Rome and a great breach is made indeed but we are not found the Schismaticks But this is beside my task Lest we should seem to endeavour an escape at any breach all the said five Pleas of the Romanists shall be particularly examined and the main Arguments and Answers on both sides faithfully and exactly as I can produced And where the Controuersie sticks and how it stands at this day noted as before we promised CHAP. III. Of the Popes Claim to England from our Conversion by Eleutherius Gregory THis Argument is not pressed with much confidence in Print though with very much in Discourse to my own knowledge Perhaps 't is rather popular and plausible than invincible Besides it stands in barr against the Right of St. Peter which they say was good near six hundred years before and extends to very many Churches that received grace neither by the means of St. Peter or his pretender Successor except they plead a right to the whole Church first and to a part afterwards or one kind of right to the whole and another to a part The truth is if any learned Romanist shall insist on this Argument in earnest he is strongly suspected either to deny or question the Right of St. Peter's Successor as
nor the Western Church among their Eight first general Councils Why did the English Church omit it in their Number in the Synod of Hedifeld in the year 680. and embrace only unto Apud Spel. An. 680. l. 169. this day the Council of Nice the first of Constantinople the first of Ephesus and the first and second of Calcedon The five first general Councils were therefore incorporated into our English Laws but this Council of Sardica never was Therefore contrary to this Canon of Appeal 't is the Fundamental Law of England in that Famous Memorial of Clarendon All Appeals in England must proceed Regularly from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and if the Arch-Bishop failed to do justice the last Complaint must be to the King to give Order for redress 'T is evident the great Council of Calcedon P. 2. ac 14. c. 9. contradicted this Canon for Appeals to Rome where Appeals from the Arch-Bishop are directed to be made to every Primate or the Holy Calcedon See of Constantinople as well as Rome from which Evidence we have nothing but silly Evasions as that Primate truly observs v. Sch. guarded p. 374. Besides if our Fore-fathers had heard of rhe Canons of the Councils truly general as no doubt they had how could they possibly believe the unlimited Jurisdiction of Rome the Council of Calcedon is not denied to give equal Priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch of Rome And the Council of Constantinople conclude thus for the Nicene Fathers did justly give Priviledges to the Seâ—â— of Constantinople old Rome because it was the Imperial City and the 150 godly Bishops moved with the same consideration did give equal Priviledges to the See of new Rome that that City which was the Seat of the Empire and Senate should enjoy equal Priviledges with the Ancient Imperial City of Rome and be extolled and magnified in Ecclesiastical Affaires as well as it being the Second in order from it and in the last Sentence of the Judges upon Review of the Cause the Arch-Bishop of the Imperial City of Const or new Rome must enjoy the same Priviledges of Honour and have the same Power out of his own Authority to ordain Metropolitans in the Asiatick Pontick and Thracian Diocess Are these the Words of a General Council could these Fathers imagine the Pope at that time Monarch of the whole Church or could this be acknowledged by England at first and they yet give up their Faith to the Pope's Universal Power Can these things consist Yea is there not something in all the Councils allowed by the Ancient Brittains and the Ancient English Church sufficient to induce a Faith quite contrary to the Roman Pretensions Object But as to this Canon of Constantinople S. W. quits his hands roundly telling us that it was no free Act but voted Tumultuously after most of the Fathers were departed Sol. S. W. had been safer if he had been wiser for that which he saith is altogether false and besides such a cluster of Forgeries as deserves the Whet-stone to purpose as my Lord Bramhall manifests against him Sch. guard p. h. 4. 1. False the Act was made before the Bishops had license to depart it had a Second Hearing and was debated by the Pope's own Legates on his behalfe before the most glorious Judges and maturely Sentenced by them in the Name of the Council This was one of those four Councils which Saint Gregory honoured next to the four Gospels This is one of those very Councils which every succeeding Pope doth swear to observe to the least tittle 2. For his Forgeries about it he is sufficiently shamed by the Primate in the place cited 't is pity such shifts should be used and 't is folly to use them when the Truth appears what remains but both the Person and the Cause reproach'd See more of the Councils at the latter end SECT V. Arabic Canons forged no Canons of the Council of Nice Object YEt 't is a Marvellous thing that the Romanist should dare to impose upon so great and learned a Primate as the late Arch-Bishop Laud that by the third Canon of the Council of Nice the Patriarch is in the same manner over all those that are under his Authority as he who holds the See of Rome is Head and Prince of the Patriachs resembling Saint Peter and his Equal in Authority Answ When 't is most evident to the meanest capacity that will search into it that that is no Canon of the true Council of Nice and that in stead of the third it is the thirty ninth of the suppositious and forged Canons as they are set forth in the Arabick Editions both by Pisanus and Turrianus In these Editions there are no less than eighty Canons pretended to be Nicene whereas the Nicene Council never passed above twenty as is evident from such as should know best the Greek Authors who all reckon but twenty Hist Ecl. l. 1. c. 7. Canons of that Council Such as Theodoret Nicephorus Calistus Gelasius Cricenus Alphonsus Ecl. Hist l. 8. c. 19. Act. Conc. Nic. lib. 2. Pisanus and Binnius himself confesseth that all the Greeks say there were no more but twenty Canons then determined Yea the Latins themselves allowed no more for although Ruffinus make twenty two 't is by splitting of two into four And in that Epitome of the Canons which Pope Hadrian sent to Charles the Great for the Government of the Western Churches Anno 773. the same Number appears and in Hincmarus's M. S. the same is proved from the Testimonies of the Tripartite History Ruffinus the Carthaginian Council the Epistles of Ciril of Alex. Atticus of Constant and the twelfth Action of the Council of Calcedon and if we may believe a Pope viz. Stephen in Gratian saith the Roman Church did allow of no more Gra. dis 16. c. 20. than twenty The truth is put beyond all question lastly both by the proceedings of the African Fathers in the case of Zosimus about the Nicene Canons when an early and diligent search made it evident and also by the Codex Canonum Eccl. Afric p. 58. where it is expresly said there was P. 363. but twenty Canons But this matter is more than clear by the P. 391 392 elaborate pains of Dr. Still defence of the late Arch-Bishop Laud to whom I must refer my Reader Obj. Yet Bellarmine and Binius would prove there were more than twenty Sol. But their proofs depend either upon things as suppositions as the Arabick Canons themselves such as the Epistles of Julius and Athanasius ad Marcum or else they only prove that some other things were determined by that Council viz. Concerning Rebaptization and the keeping of Easter c. which indeed might be Acts of the Council without putting them into the Ad an 325. P. 108. Canons as Baronius himself confesseth and leaves the patronage of them and Spondanus
Western Bishops Vid. P. de Marca l. 7. c. 4. s. 6. But saith Dr. Still when we consider with what heat and stomach this was received by the P. 401. Q. ac Eastern Bishops how they absolutely deny that the Western Bishops had any more to do with their proceedings than they had with theirs When they say that the Pope by this Vsurpation was the cause of all the mischief that followed You see what an excellent instance you have made choice of to prove the Popes power of Restoring Bishops to be acknowledged by the whole Church Sure so far the Churches practice abroad could not prevail to settle his right of Jurisdion in the English Faith especially considering the Practice of our own Church in opposing the Letters and Legates of Popes for six years together for the Restoring of Arch-Bishop Wilfred by two of our own successive Kings and the whole State of England Ecclesiastical and Civil as appeared above Moreover St. Cyprian professeth in the Council of Carthage neque enim quisquam c. for no one of us hath made himself Bishop of Bishops or driven his Fellow Bishops to a necessity of Obedience Particularly relating to Stephen then Bishop An. 258. n. 24. of Rome as Baronius himself resolves But upon a matter of Fact St. August gave his St. August own judgment both of the Popes Power and Action in that known case of the Donatists First they had leave to be heard by foreign Bishops 2. Forti non debuit yet perhaps Melciades the Bishop of the Roman Church ought not to usurp to himself this Judgment which had been determined by seventy African Bishops Tigisitanus sitting Primate 3. St. Augustine proceeds and what will you say if he did not usurp this Power For the Emperor being desired sent Bishops Judges which should sit with him and determine what was just upon the whole cause So that upon the whole 't is easily observed that in St. Augustines judgment both the Right and the Power by which the Pope as the rest proceeded was to be resolved to the Emperor as a little before ad cujus curam to whose care it did chiefly belong de qua rationem Deo redditurus est of which he was to give account to God Could this consist with the belief of the Popes universal Pastorship by Divine Right if there can possibly after so clear evidence need Vid. Dr. Ham. disp p. 398. c. Still Rationale p. 405. more to be said of St. Augustines judgment in this it is only to refer you to the Controversies between the African Bishops and the Bishop of Rome in case of Appeals SECT VII Not the Sayings of Ancient Popes or Practice Agatho Pelagius Gregory Victor VVE can find nothing in the ancient Canons or ancient practice to ground Popes claimed a belief of the Popes Authority in England upon yet sure Popes themselves claimed it and used Expressions to let us know it Were it so indeed experience tells us how little Popes are to be believed in their own cause and all reason persuades us not to believe them against the Councils and Practice of the Church and the judgment of the Fathers But some of the ancient Popes have been found so honest as to confess against themselves and acknowledge plain truth against their own greatness The Popes universal headship is not to be believed from the words of Pope Agatho in his Agatho Letter to the Emperor where St. Paul stands as high as St. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. To. 2. p. 61. B. both are said by him to be heads or chief of the Apostles Besides he expresly claimed only the Western Patriarchate But Pope Pelagius the Second is more plain Pelagius and home to Rome itself Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus the Pope of Decret p. 1. dis 99. n. 1◠Rome is not to be called universal Bishop This was the opinion of that Pope of Rome himself as it is cited out of his Epistle and put into the Body of the Law by Gratian now one would think that the same Law denied the Power that denied the Title properly expressing that Power How triflingly doth S. W. object these words are not found in the Council of Carthage while they are found in the Corpus Juris the Law now of as much force at Rome as that Council 'T is weaker to say they are Gratians own Addition seeing his Addition is now Law and also proved to be the Sense of the Pope Pelagius in his Epistle he saith let none of the Patriarchs ever use the name of Universal applying in the conclusion to himself being then Pope as one of that Number and so if he were either Pontifex Maximus or a Patriarch and neither himself nor any Patriarck might be called Universalis then sure nothing was added Dr. Ham. disp disp p. 418 419. by him that said in his Title to the fourth Chapter as Gratian did Nec etiam Pontifex not even the Bishop of Rome must be called Vniversal Bishop But what shall be said to Saint Gregory who Gregory in his Epistle to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria tells him that he had prohibited him to call him Vniversal Father that he was not to do it that reason required the contrary that Epis ex Reg. l. 8. indic 1. c. 30. c. 4. ind 13. c. 72 76. it 's derogatory to his Brethren that this honour had by a Council that of Calcedon been offered to his Predecessors but refused and never used by any Again higher he tells Mauritius sidenter dico who ever calls himself Vniversal Priest or L. 7. Ep. 30. desires to be so called is by his pride a Forerunner of Antichrist his pride is an Indication of Antichrist approaching as he saith to the Empress l. 4. Ep. 34. Yea an Imitation of none Lib. 4. Ep. 38. but the Devil endeavouring to break out to the top of Singularity as he saith to John himself yea elsewhere he calls this Title the name of Blasphemy and saith that those that consent to it do fidem perdere destroy the Ibid. Ep 32 40. Faith A strong Title that neither Saint Gregory nor as he saith any one of his Predecessors no Pope that went before him would ever accept of and herein saith he I plead not my own cause but the cause of God of the whole Church Ibid. Ep. 32. of the Laws the Venerable Councils the Commands of Christ which are all disturbed with the invention of this proud pompatick stile of Vniversal Bishop Now can any one imagine except one prejudiced as S. W. that the Power is harmless when the Title that doth barely express it is so develish a thing Can any one imagine that Saint Gregory knew himself to be that indeed which in Word he so much abominates or that he really exercised that Vniversal Authority and Universal Bishoprick though he
so prodigiously lets flie against the Stile of Vniversal Bishop yet all this is said and must be maintained lest we should exclude the Vniversal Pastorship out of the Primitive Church There is a great deal of pitiful stuff used by the Romanist upon this Argument with which I shall not trouble the Reader yet nothing shall be omitted that hath any shew of Argument on their Side among which the words of Saint Gregory following in his Argument are most material Object Saint Gregory saith the care of the whole Church was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles Saint Peter and yet he is not called the Vniversal Bishop Sol. 'T is confessed that Saint Gregory doth say that the care of the whole is committed to Saint Peter again that he was the Prince of the Apostles and yet he was not called Vniversal Apostle 't is hence plain that his being Prince of the Apostles did not carry in it so much as Vniversal Bishop otherwise Saint Gregory would not have given the one and denied him the other and 't is as plain that he had the care of all Churches and so had Saint Paul but 't is not plain that he had Power over all Churches Doctor Hammond proceeds irrisistibly to prove the contrary from Saint Gregory himself in the Novels if any Complaint be made saith he against a Bishop the Cause shall be judged before the Metropolitane Secundum Regulas Ex Reg. lib. 11. Ep. 54. Sanctas Nostras Leges if the Party stand not to his Judgment the Cause is to be brought to the Arch-Bishop or Patriarch of that Diocess and he shall give it a Conclusion according to the Canons and Laws aforesaid no place left for Appeal to Rome Object Yet it must be acknowledged Saint Gregory adds si dictum fuerit c. where there is no Metropolitane nor Patriarch the Cause may be heard by the ApostolickSee which Gregory calls the Head of all Churches Sol. Now if this be allowed what hath the Pope gained if perhaps such a Church should be found as hath neither Primate nor Patriarch how is he the nearer to the Vniversal Authority over those Churches that have Primates of their own or which way will he by this means extend his Jurisdiction to us in England who have ever had more than one Metropolitane the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was once acknowledged by a Pope to be Alterius Orbis Apostolicus Patriarch But admitting this extraordinary Case that where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch there they are to have recourse to the See Apostolick 't is a greater wonder that the Romanist should insist upon it then that his late Grace should mention it at which A. C. so much admires for this one observation with the assistance of that known Rule in Law exceptio confirmat Regulam in non exceptis puts a plain and speedy end to the whole Controversie for if recourse may be had to Rome from no other place but where there is neither Primate nor Patriarcb then not from England either when Saint Gregory laid down the Rule or ever since and perhaps then from no other place in the World and indeed provision was thus made against any such extraordinary Case that might possibly happen for it is but reason that where there is no Primate to appeal to appeal should be received somewhere else and where better than at Rome which Saint Gregory calls Caput omnium Ecclesiarum and this is the utmost advantage the Romanist can hope to receive from the Words Object But we see Saint Gregory calls Rome the Head of all Churches Sol. 'T is true whether he intends a Primacy of Fame or visible Splendor and Dignity being the Seat of the Emperor or Order and Vnity is not certain but 't is certain he intends nothing less by it than that which just now he denied a Supremacy of Power and Vniversal ordinary Jurisdiction he having in the words immediately sore-going concluded all ordinary Jurisdiction within every proper Primacy or Patriarchate Object But saith S. W. Saint Gregory practised the thing though he denied the Word of Vniversal Sol. What Hypocrisie damn the Title as he doth and yet practise the thing you must have good proof His first Instance is of the Primate of Byzacene wherein the Emperor first put forth his Authority and would have him judged by Gregory Piissimus Imperator eum per nos voluit Vid. Ep. 65. l. 7. judicari saith Gregory Hence as Doctor Hammond smartly and soundly observes that Appeals from a Primate lie to none but the Supreme Magistrate To which purpose in the Cause of Maximus Bishop of Solana decreed excommunicate Ep. l. 3. Ep. 20. by Gregory his Sentence was still with this reserve and submission nisi prius unless I should first understand by my most Serene Lords the Emperors that they commanded it to be done Thus if this perfect instance as S. W. calls it have any force in it his Cause is gone what ever advantage he pretends to gain by it Besides the Emperors Command was that Gregory should judge him juxta Statuta Canonica and Gregory himself pleads quicquid esset Canonicum Judicaremus Thus S. W's Cause is killed twice by his own perfect instance for if Saint Gregory took the Judgment upon him in obedience to the Emperor and did proceed and was to proceed in judging according to the Canons where was then the Vniversal Monarchy Yet it is confessed by Dr. Hammond which is a full answer to all the other not so perfect instances that in case of injury done to any by a Primate or Patriarch there being no lawful Superior who had power over him the injured person sometimes made his complaint to the Pope as being the most Eminent Person in the Church and in such case he questionless might and ought in all fraternal Charity admo nish the Primate or Patriarch or disclaim Communion with him unless he reform But it ought to be shewn that Gregory did formally excommunicate any such Primate or Patriarch or juridically and authoritively act in any such Cause without the express license of the Emperor which not being done his instances are answered besides Saint Gregory always pleads the Ancient Canons which is far from any claim of Vniversal Pastorship by Divine Right or Donation of Christ to Saint Peter I appeal saith Doctor Hammond to S. W. whether that were the Interpretation of secundum Canones and yet he knows that no other Tenure but that will stand him in stead Indeed the unhappiness is as the Doctor observes that such Acts at first but necessary Vid. dispat disp p. 408. to p 423. fraternal charity were by ambitious men drawn into example and means of assuming power of Vniversal Pastorship which yet cannot be more vehemently prejudiced by any thing than by those Ancient examples which being rightly considered pretend no higer than Ecclesiastical Canons and the Universal Laws of Charity but never made
claim to any Supremacy of power over all Bishops by Divine Institution It yet appears not that Saint Gregory practised the thing but to avoid Arrogance disclaims the name of Vniversal Bishop A. C. against my Lord of Canterbury goes another way to work he grants the Title and also the thing signified by it to be both renounced by Saint Gregory but distinguishes of the Term Vniversal Bishop into Grammatical to the exclusion of all other Bishops from being properly Bishops and Metaphorical whereby the Bishops are secured as such in their respective Diocesses yet all of them under the Jurisdiction of the Vniversal Bishop viz. of Rome Sol. This distinction Doctor Stillingfleet destroys not more elaborately than fully and perfectly shewing that 1. 't is impossible Saint Gregory should understand the Term of Vniversal Bishop Lib. 4. Ep. 32. in that strict Grammatical Sense for the reason why this Title was refused was because it seemed to diminish the honour of other Bishops when it was offered the Bishops of Rome in a Council of six hundred and thirty Bishops who cannot be imagined to divest themselves by their kindness of their very Office though they hazarded somewhat of their honour Can we think the Council that gave the same Title to John intended thus to depose themselves how comes it to pass that none of John's or Ciriacus's Successors did ever challenge this Title in that literal sence if so it was understood But to wave many things impertinent 't is evident Saint Gregory understood the Title Metaphorically from the reasons he gives against it which also equally serve to prove against S. W. that it was not so much the Title as the Authority of an Vniversal Bishop which he so much opposed He argueth thus to John the Patriarch What wilt thou answer to Christ the Head of the Vniversal Lib. 4. Ep. 38. Church in the day of Judgment who doest endeavour to subject all his Members to thee under the name of Vniversal Bishop Again doth he not arise to the height of Singularity Ibid. that he is Subject to none but Rules over all and can you have a more perfect description of the present Pope than is here given or is it the Title or the Power that makes him Subject to none that Rules over all Again he imitates the pride of Lucifer endeavouring Ibid. to be Head not sure in Title but Power of the Church Triumphant as the Pope of the Church Militant Exalting his Throne Ibid. not his Name as Gregory adds above the Stars of God viz. the Bishops and the height of the Clouds Again Saint Peter was the first Member of the Church Paul Andrew and John what are they else but Heads of particular Churches and yet they are all Members of the Church under one Head i. e. Christ as before he had said we see he allows not Peter himself to be Head of the Church None that was truly Holy was ever called by that name of Vniversal Bishop which he makes to be the same with the head of the Church But Lastly suppose St. Gregory did mean that this Title in its strict grammatical sence was to be abhorred and not as Metaphorically taken What hath the Pope gained who at this day bears that Title in the highest and strictest sence imaginable as the Dr. proves and indeed needs no proof being evident of it self and to the observation of the whole world Thus all the hard words of St. Gregory uttered so long agon against such as admitted or desired that Title unavoidably fall upon the Modern Roman Bishops that take upon them to be the sole Pastors of the Church and say that they are Oecumenical Bishops and that all Jurisdiction is derived from them They are Lucifers and Princes of Pride using a vain new rash foolish proud profane erroneous wicked hypocritical singular presumptuous blasphemous Name as that holy Pope inveighed against it Moreover as he also adds they transgress Gods Laws violate the Canons dishonour the Church despise their Brethren and cause Schism Istud nomen facere L. 6. ep 30 31. in dissessionem Ecclesiae Obj. But it is said that Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches all at once Therefore saith A. C. the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bishops and by consequence over the whole Church And this appears in that Irenaus in the name of the Gallican Bishops writes to Victor not to proceed so rashly in this Action as appears in Eusebius Sol. 1. We answer that those Bishops among whom Irenoeus was one did severely rebuke that Pope for offering to excommunicate those Asian Vid. Eus l 5. c. 24. Churches Therefore they did not believe him to be the Supreme Infallible Pastor of the whole Church 2. His Letters declaring that Excommunication Ibid. not pleasing all his own Bishops they countermanded him Surely not thinking him to be what Popes would now be esteemed 3. Hence Card. Perron is angry with Eusebius and calls him an Arrian and an enemy to the Church of Rome for hinting that though the Pope did declare them excommunicate yet it took no effect because other Bishops continued still in Communion with them 4. But the force of the whole Argument leans upon a plain mistake of the Ancient Discipline both in the Nature and the Root or Ground of it For the nature of Ancient Excommunication Mistake of the nature Root of Discipline especially when practised by one Church against another did not imply a Positive Act of Authority but a Negative Act of Charity or a declaring against the Communion of such with themselves And therefore was done by Equals to Equals and sometimes by Inferiors to Superiors In Equals thus Johannes Antiochenus in the Ephesine Council excommunicated Cyril Patriarch Vict. Tu. nu cro p. 10. of Alexandria and in Inferiors in the sence of our Roman Adversaries for the African Bishops excommunicated Pope Vigilius Hence also Acacius the Patriarch of Const expunged the Name of Foelix Bishop of Rome out of the Dipticks of the Church And Hilary anethamatized Pope Liberius therefore Victors declaring the Asian Churches to be excommunicate is no argument of his power over them 2. The Root or Ground of the ancient Discipline is also as plainly mistaken which was not Authority always but Care and Charity Care I say not only of themselves who used it but also of the Church that was censured and indeed of the whole Church 'T is here proper to consider that though Bishops had their peculiar Seats and Limits for their Jurisdictions yet they had all a charitive inspection and care of that universal Church and sometimes denominations accordingly Hence we deny not that the ancient Bishops of Rome deservedly gained the Title of Oecumenical Bishops a thing of so great moment in the Controversie that if well considered might advance very far towards the ending of it For so the Title hath been given to others as well as
the Bishop of Rome and therefore it could not argue any Authority peculiar to him Also the same universalcare of the Church the occasion of the Title hath been acknowledged in others as well as in him and indeed the power which is the Root of that Care as the occasion of that Title is founded in all Bishops Here are three things noted which may be 3 Notes distinctly considered 1. Power is given to all Bishops with an immediate respect to the good of the whole Church So that if it were possible that every particular Bishop could take care of the whole Church they have Authority enough in their Function to do it though it be impossible and indeed inconsistent with peace and order that all should undertake it And therefore they have their bounds and limits set them hence their particular Diocesses therefore as St. Cyprian there is but one Bishoprick in the whole World a part of which is held by every Bishop 2. Thus we find in the primitive Church that every Bishop had his particular Charge yet they still regarded the common good extending their care the second thing observed sometimes beyond their own division by their council and direction yea and exercised their functions sometimes in other places Of which Dr. Stillingsleet Rat. aâ— p. 424 425. gives many instances in Polycarp Ignatius Irenaeus St. Cyprian Faustus Yea upon this very ground Nazianzen saith Or. 18. p. 281. of St. Cyprian that he not only governed the Churches of Carthage but all the Western parts and even almost all the Eastern Southern and Northern too as far as he went Arsenius speaks more home to Athanasius Atha ap ad Iâ—p Const p. 786 c. We embrace saith he Peace and Vnity with the Catholick Church over which Thou through the Grace of God dost preside Whence Gregory Or. 21. p. 392. Ep. 52. Naz. saith of Athanasius that he made Laws for the whole Earth And St. Basil writes to him that he had care of all the Churches as of his own and calls him the Head and Chief of all And St. Chrisostom in the praise of Eustathius the Patriarch of Antioch saith that he was instructed Tom. 5. p. 631. Savil. by the divine Spirit that he was not only to have care of that Church over which he was set but of the whole Church throughont the world Now what is this but to say in effect these great men were universal Bishops though indeed they none of them had power of Jurisdiction over any Church but their own as notwithstanding the general care of the ancient good Bishops of Rome had of the good of the whole and their Influence and Reverence in order thereunto the Bishops of Rome had not 3. Upon the former ground and occasion some Bishops in the most famous Churches had the honour of the Title of Oecumenical or Universal Bishops But here we must confess the Bishops of Rome had the advantage being the most famous of all both by reason of their own primitive merit and the glory of the Empire especially the latter The Roman Empire was it self accounted universal and the greatness of the Empire advanced the Church to the same Title and consequently the Bishops of that Church above others 1. That the Roman Empire was so appears by a multitude of Testimonies making orbis Romanus R. ac p. 425 426. orbis humanus Synonimous collected by Dr. Still Hence Am. Marcellinus calls L 14. c. 16. Rome Caput Mundi the head of the World And the Roman Senate Asylum Mundi totius And it was usual then to call whatever was out of the Roman Empire Barbaria as the same Dr. proves at large Therefore that Empire was Ibid. called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 11. 28. 2. Some Bishops in the great Churches in the Roman Empire were called Oecumenical as that relates to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. the Roman Empire This appears because the very ground of the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople was the greatness of the City as appears in the Councils of Constantinople and Calcedon about it and the priviledges of old Rome gave the measure of the priviledges of new Rome And in probability the ground of that Patriarch's usurping the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch was but to correspond with the greatness of his City which was then the Seat of the P. 426. Empire as Dr. Still very reasonably Conjectures Moreover all the three Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople had expressions given them tantamount to that Title The government of the whole World the care of all the Churches the government as it were of the whole R. ac p. 426. body of the Church as Dr. Stillingfleet particularly shews But most clear and full to that purpose as he observes is the Testimony of Theodoret Tâ—â—od Haer. fab l. 4. â— 14. p. 2. 5. To. 4. oper concerning Nestorius being made Patriarch of Constantinople He was intrusted with the Government of the Catholick Church of the Orthodox at Constantinople and thereby of the whole World Where shall we find so illustrious a Testimony for the Bishop of Rome or if we could we see it would prove nothing peculiar to him Therefore if the Council of Calcedon did offer the Title of universal Patriarch or if they did not but as the truth rather is some Papers received in that Council did give him that Title it signifieth nothing to prove the Popes universal Authority Therefore Sim. Vigorius ingeniously confesseth Comâ—â—â—o ad Res Syn. Coâ—â— Bas p. 36. that when the Western Fathers call the Roman Bishops Bishops of the universal Church they do it from the custom of their Churches not that they look on them as universal Bishops of the whole Church but in the same sence that the Patriarchs of Constantinople Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem are called so or as they are universal over the Churches under their own Patriarchate or that in Occumenical Councils they preside over the whole Church and after acknowledgeth that the Title of universal or oecumenical Bishop makes nothing for the Popes Monarchy It is too evident that that humble Pope Gregory seems to glorifie himself while he so often mentions that offer of the Title of Vniversal and his refusing of it and inveighing against it and that these were Engines used by him to deprive others of the same Title if not to advance his own See to the power signified by it though if he did indeed design any such thing it is an argument that he was ashamed openly to claim or own it while he rails against the Title in the effects of it which depended upon the power it self as such an abominable thing However if the Council of Calcedon did indeed offer or only record that Title to Gregory it is more than manifest it could not possibly be intended to carry in it the Authority of the whole Church or any more than that
to put an eternal end to this Controversie and consequently to the claim of the universal Pastor in this Age but an account of the Judgment of this Council when they had received the Copy of the Nicene Canons on which the point depended out of the East This you have in that excellent Epistle of theirs to Pope Celestine who succeeded Boniface and the elaborate Dr. Stillingfleet who searcheth R. ac p. 410 411. all things to the bottom hath transcribed it at large as a worthy Monument of Antiquity and of very great light in the present Controversie To him I shall refer the Reader for the whole and only note some few expressions to the purpose We say they humbly beseech you to admit no more into your Communion those whom we have cast out For your Reverence will easily perceive that this is forbid in the Council of Nice For if this be taken care for as to the inferior Clergy and Laity how much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops The Decrees of Nice have subjected both the inferior Clergy and Bishops to their Metropolitans for they have most wisely and justly provided that every business be determined in the place where it begun Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one if he be offended to appeal to the Council of the Province or even to an universal Council Or how can a Judgment made beyond the Sea be valid to which the Persons of necessary Witnesses cannot be brought by reason c. For this sending of men to us from your Holiness we do not find it commanded by any Synod of the Fathers And as for that Council of Nice we cannot find it in the truest Copies sent by holy Cyril Bishop of Alexandria and the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople which also we sent to your Predecessor Boniface Take heed also of sending any of your Clerks for Executors to those who desire it lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ and concerning our brother Faustinus Apiarius being cast out we are confident that our brotherly Love continuing Africa shall no more be troubled with him This is the sum of that famous Epistle the Pope and the African Fathers referred the point in difference to the true Canons of the Nicene Council The Canons determine against the Pope and from the whole story 't is inferred evidently 1. That Pope Boniface himself implieth his Jurisdiction was limited by the general Council of Nice and that all the Laity and Clergy too except Bishops that lived beyond the Seas and consequently in England were exempted from his Jurisdiction by that Council 2. Pope Boniface even then when he made his claim and stood upon his terms with the African Fathers pleads nothing for the appeals of transmarine Bishops to Rome but the allowance of the Council of Nice no tu es Petrus then heard of 3. Then it seems the practices of Popes themselves were to be ruled and judged by the ancient Canons and Laws of the Church 4. The African Fathers declared the Pope fallible and actually mistaken both to his own power and sense of the Council Proving substantially that neither Authority from Councils nor any foundation in Justice Equity or order of Government or publick Conveniency will allow or suffer such Appeals to Rome and that the Pope had no authority to send Legates to hear causes in such cases All these things lye so obviously in prejudice both of the Popes Possession and Title as universal Pastor at that time both in his own the Churches sence that to apply them further would be to insult which I shall for bear seeing Baronius is so ingenious as to confess there are some hard things in this Epistle And Perron hath hereupon exposed his Wit with so much sweat and so little purpose but his own Correction and Reproach as Dr. Still notes Yet we may modestly conclude from this one plain instance that the sence of the Nicene Council was defined by the African Council to be against the Popes Supremacy and consequently they did not submit to it nor believe it and a further consequence to our purpose is that then the Catholick Church did not universally own it i. e. the Popes Supremacy then had not Possession of the faith of the whole Church For as A. C. p. 191. maintains the Africans notwithstanding the contest in the sixth Council of Carthage were always in true Communion with the Roman Church even during the term of this pretended Separation And Caelestine himself saith that St. Augustine one of those Fathers lived and dyed in the Communion of the Roman Church SECT IX The Conclusion touching Possession Anciently VVE hope it is now apparent enough that the Popes Supremacy had no possession in England from the beginning or for the first six hundred years either de facto or in side Our Ancestors yielded not to it they unanimously resisted it and they had no reason to believe it either from the Councils or practice of the Church or from the Edicts and Rules of the imperial Law or the very sayings of the Popes themselves Thus Sampson's Hair the strength and Pomp of their best Plea is cut off The foundation of the Popes Supremacy is subverted and all other pleas broken with it If according to the Apostles Canons every Nation had its proper Head in the beginning to be ackonwledged by them under God And according to a general Council all such Heads should hold as from the beginning there can be no ground afterwards for a lawful possession to the contrary If tu es Petrus pasce Oves have any force to maintain the Popes Supremacy why did not the ancient Fathers the Authors of those Canons see it Why was not it shewn by the Popes concerned in bar against them when nothing else could be pleaded When both Possession and Tradition were to be begun and had not yet laid their Foundation Yea when actual opposition in England was made against it when general Councils abroad laid restraints upon it and the Eastern Church would not acknowledge it Indeed both Antiquity Universality and Tradition it self and all colour of Right for ever fails with possession For Possession of Supremacy afterwards cannot possibly have either a divine or just Title but must lay its Foundation contrary to Gods Institution and Ecclesiastical Canon And the Possessor is a Thief and a Robber our Adversaries being Judges He invades others Provinces and is bound to Restore And long Possession is but a protracted Rebellion against God and his Church However it be with the secular Powers Christs Vicar must certainly derive from him must hold the power he gave must come in it at his door And S. W. himself P. 50 against Dr. Hammond fiercely affirmeth That Possession in this kind ought to begin near Christs Time and he that hath begun it later unless he can Evidence that he was driven out from an
Ancient Possession is not to be stiled a Possessor but an Vsurper an Intruder an Invader Disobedient Rebellious and Schismatical Good Night S. W. Quod ab initio fuit invalidum tractu temporis non Convalescit is a Rule in the Civil Law Yea whatever Possession the Pope got afterwards was not only an illegal Vsurpation but a manifest Violation of the Canon of Ephesus and thereby Condemned as Schismatical CHAP. VII The Pope had not full Possession here before Hen. 8. I. Not in Augustine 's Time II. Nor After T Is boldly pleaded that the Pope had Possession of the Supremacy in England for nine hundred years together from Augustine till Hen. 8. And no King on Earth hath so long and so clear prescription for his Crown To which we answer 1. That he had not such Possession 2. If he had 't is no Argument of a jus Title SECT I. Not in Austin 's Time State of Supremacy questioned VVE shall consider the Popes Supremacy here as it stood in and near St. Augustine's time and in the Ages after him to Hen. 8. 1. We have not found hitherto that in or about the time of Augustine Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Pope had any such power in England as is pretended Indeed he came from Rome but he brought no Mandate with him and when he was come he did nothing without the King's licence at his arrival he petitions the King the King commands him to stay in the Isle Thanet till his further pleasure was known he obeyed afterward the King gave him licence to preach to Bed l. 1. c. 25. his Subjects and when he was himself converted majorem pradicandi licentiam he enlarged his licence so to do 'T is true Saint Gregory presumed Iargly to subject all the Priests of Brittain under Augustine and to give him power to erect two Arch-Bishopricks and twelve Bishopricks under each of them but 't is one thing to claim another thing to possess for Ethelbert was then the only Christian King who had not the twentieth part of Brittain and it appears that after both Saint Gregory and Austine were dead there were but one Arch bishop and two Bishops throughout the Brittish Islands of the Roman Communion Indeed the Brittish and Scotch Bishops were Bed l. 2. c. 2 c. 4. many but they renounced all Communion with Rome as appeared before We thankfully acknowledge the Pope's sending over Preachers his commending sometimes Arch-Bishops when desired to us his directions to fill up vacant Sees all which and such like were Acts of Charity becoming so eminent a Prelate in the Catholick Church but sure these were not Marks of Supremacy 'T is possible Saint Milet as is urged might bring the Decrees of the Roman Synod hither to be observed and that they were worthy of our acceptance and were accepted accordingly but 't is certain and will afterwards appear to be so that such Decrees were never of force here further than they were allowed by the King and Kingdom 'T is not denied but that sometimes we admitted the Pope's Legates and Bulls too yet the Legantine Courts were not Anciently heard of neither were the Legates themselves or those Bulls of any Authority without the King's Consent Some would argue from the great and flattering Titles that were antiently given to the Pope but sure such Titles can never signifie Possession or Power which at the same time and perhaps by the very same Persons that gave the Titles was really and indeed denied him But the great Service the Bishop of Calcedon hath done his Cause by these little Instances before mentioned will best appear by a true state of the question touching the Supremacy betwixt Vid. Bramh. p. 189. c. the Pope and the King of England in which such things are not all concerned The plain question is who was then the Political Head of the Church of England the King or the Pope or more immediately whether the Pope then had possession of the Supremacy here in such things as was denied him by Hen. 8. at the beginning of our Reformation and the Pope still challengeth and they are such as these 1. A Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Causes 2. A Dispensative Power above and against the Laws of the Church 3. A liberty to send Legates and to hold Legantine Courts in England without Licence 4. The Right of receiving the last Appeals of the King's Subjects 5. The Patronage of the English Church and Investitures of Bishops with power to impose Oaths upon them contrary to their Oath of Allegiance 6. The First Fruits and Tenths of Ecclesiastical Livings and a power to impose upon them what Pensions or other Burthens he pleaseth 7. The Goods of Clergy-men dying Intestate These are the Flowers of that Supremacy which the Pope claimeth in England and our Kings and Laws and Customs deny him as will appear afterwards in due place for this place 't is enough to observe that we find no foot-steps of such possession of the Pope's Power in England in or about Augustine's time As for that one instance of Saint Wilfred's Appeal it hath appeared before that it being rejected by two Kings successively by the other Arch-Bishop and by the whole Body of the English Clergy sure 't is no full instance of the Pope's Possession of the Supremacy here at that time and needs no further answer SECT II. No clear or full possession in the Ages after Austine till Hen. 8. Eight Distinctions the Question stated IT may be thought that though the things mentioned were not in the Pope's possession so early yet for many Ages together they were sound in his Possession and so continued without interruption till Hen. 8. ejected the Pope and possest himself and his Successors of them Whether it were so or not we are now to examine and least we should be deceived with Colours and generalities we must distinguish carefully 1. Betwixt a Primacy of Order and Dignity and Unity and Supremacy of Power the only thing disputed 2. Betwixt a Judgment of direction resulting from the said Primacy and a Judgment of Jurisdiction depending upon Supremacy 3. Betwixt things claimed and things granted and possessed 4. Betwixt things possessed continually or for sometime only 5. Betwixt Possession partial and of some lesser Branches and plenary or of the main body of Jurisdiction 6. Betwixt things permitted of curtesie and things granted out of duty 7. Betwixt incroachment through craft or power or interest or the temporary Ossitancy of the People and Power grounded in the Laws enjoyed with the consent of the States of the Kingdom in times of peace 8. Lastly betwixt quiet possession and interrupted These Distinctions may receive a flout from some capricious Adversary but I find there is need of them all if we deal with a subtle one For the Question is not touching Primacy in the Bishop of Rome or an acknowledged Judgment of direction flowing from it or a claim of Jurisdiction which is no Possession
of the Realm for any of the great men especially himself to presume any such thing without the Kings Licence Notwithstanding he would and did go but what followed His Bishoprick was seiz'd into the Kings hand And the Pope durst not or thought not good to give him either Consilium or Auxilium as Sir Rog. Twisd p. 11. 12. makes appear out Eadmer p. 20 26 38 39 53. In the dispute the King told Anselm the Pope had not to do with his Rights and wrote that free Letter we find in Jorvalensis Col. 999 30. and upon the ambiguous answer of the Pope the King sent another letter by Anselm himself to Rome who spake plainly his Master nec amissione Eadem 73 13. Regni c. for the loss of his Kingdom he would not lose the investiture of his Churches Obj. But Anselm as Arch-Bishop took the Oath that was appointed by the Pope to be taken at the receiving of the Pall which allowed his Power to receive Appeals Ans 'T is true but Pope Paschalis himself who devised that Oath acknowledgeth that it was as Anselm signified to him not admitted but wondred at and lookt on as a strange innovation both by the King and the great men of the Kingdom Baron an 1102. nu 8. The King pleaded the Fundamental Laws and customs of the Land against it it is a custom of my Kingdom instituted by my Father that no Pope may be appealed unto without the Kings licence He that takes away the customs of the Kingdom doth violate the Power and Crown of the King And 't is well noted by Arch-Bishop Bramhall Malms l. 1. degest Pont. Ang. that the Laws established by his Father viz. William the Conqueror were no other than the Laws of Edward the Confessor that is to say the old Saxon Laws who had before yielded to the request of his Barons as Hoveden notes to In Hen. 2. confirm those Laws But though Anselm had obliged himself by the said Oath to the Pope yet the rest of the Bishops refused the Yoke and thereupon Malmsb. tells us in his c. that in the execution of these Malm. ibid. things all the Bishops of England did deny their Suffrage to their Primate Consequently the Vnanimity of the whole Realm appeared in the same Point in the Reign of this Kings Grandchild in the Statute of Clarendon confirming the former Brittish English custom not only by their consents but Math. Par. 1164. Hoved. in Hen. 2. their Oaths wherein generally every man is interdicted to appeal to Rome This Statute of Clarendon was made when Popery seemed to be at the height in England It was made to confirm the Customs and Liberties of Henry the Seconds Predecessors that is to say as the words of the Statute are his Grandfather Henry the first Son of the Conqveror and other Kings Now the Customs of England are our common Laws and the customs of his Predecessors were the Saxon Danish and Norman Laws P. 73. and therefore ought to be observed of all as my Lord Bramhall reasons What these customs were I may shew more largely hereafter at present this one is pertinent All appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Arch Bishop and if the Arch-Bishop fail to do his duty the last must be to the King to give order for redress that is by fit delegates In Ed. the Thirds time we have a plain Law to the same purpose in these words Whosoever 27 Ed. 3. c. 1. should draw any of the Kings Subjects out of the Realm in plea about any cause whereof the Cognizance belongeth to the Kings Court or should sue in any foreign Court to defeat any Judgment given in the Kings Court viz. by appealing to Rome they should incur the same penalties and upon the same ground the body of the Kingdom would not suffer Edward the First to to be cited before the Pope Obj. 'T is confest that in the Laws of Hen. 1. 't is granted that in case a Bishop erring in Faith and on Admonition appearing incorrigible ad summos Pontifices the Arch-Bishops vel sedem Apostolicam accusetur which passage as Sir Ro. Twisden guesses was inserted afterwards or the grant gotten by the importunity of the then Pope Ans But the same learned Mans Note upon it is that this is the only Cause wherein I find any English P. 32. Law approve a foreign Judicature 'T is plain Anselm's Appeal now on foot was disapproved by the whole Kingdom 't is evident that this Clause was directly repugnant to the Liberties and Customs of the Realm upon which Anselm's Appeal was so ill resented 'T is manifest in those days and after appeals to Rome were not common yea this very Pope Paschalis complains to this King Vos oppressis Apostolicae sedis appellationem substrahitis which was an 1115. and that they were held Eadm p. 113. 3. a cruel intrusion on the Churches Liberty so as at the Assize at Clarendon 1164. this Law if it were so was annulled and declared to be contrary to the liberties and customs of the Realm the eighth Chapter whereof is wholly spent in shewing the Right of the Kingdom in this point quod non appellaretur for any Cause ad sedem Apostolicam without leave had first from the King and his Officials as Joh. Sarisb interprets Ep. 159. p. 254. Obj. Indeed the King did personally yield afterwards an 1172. not to hinder such appeals in Ecclesiastical Causes Ans But the whole Kingdom four years after would not quit their interest but did again renew the assize of Clarendon 1176. using this close expression Justitiae faciant quaerere per consuetudinem Hoved. f. 314. b. 3. terrae illos qui a regno recesserunt nisi redire voluerint stare in curia domini Regis ut legentur c. as Gervase also notes au 1176. Col. 1433. 19. Accordingly was the practice during K. Rich. the seconds time Geffrey Arch-Bishop of York was complained of that he did not only refuse Appeals to Rome but imprisoned those that made them and though upon that complaint a time was assigned to make his defence to the Pope yet he refused to go because of the Kings Prohibition and the indisposition of the Air. After this upon a difference with the King the Arch-Bishop went to Rome and made his peace with the Pope and returns but the King offended with it committed the care even of the spirituals of his Arch-Bishoprick to others till he had reconciled himself to the Crown which was nere two years after about 1198. After this again he received complaint from Innocentius III. non excusare te potes c. Thou canst not excuse thy self as thou oughtest that Hov. an 1201. thou art ignorant of the priviledge of Appeals to us seeing thou thy self has sometimes done the same And near about the same time as Twisden observes
Robert Abbot of Thorney deposed by Hubert Arch-Bishop was kept in Prison a year and an half without any regard had to his appeal Hov. f. 430. b. 37. made to the Pope Obj. Indeed that Pope Innocent the Third and his Clergy great instruments in obtaining Magna Charta from that Prince had got that clause inserted liceat unicuique it is lawful for any one to go out of our Kingdom and to return nisi in tempore Guerrae per aliquod breve tempus After which saith Twisden it is scarce imaginable how every petty cause was by appeals removed to Rome which did not only cause Jealousie at Rome that the grievance would not long be born and put the Pope in prudence to study and effect a mitigation by some favourable priviledges granted to the Arch-Bishoprick but it did also awaken the King and Kingdom to stand upon and recover their ancient liberty in that point Hereupon the Body of the Kingdom in their Matth. Par. p. 668. 3. querelous Letter to Innocent the fourth 1245. or rather to the Council at Lions claim that no Legate ought to come here but on the King's desire ne quis extra Regnum trahatur in Causam which Math. Par. left out but is found in Mr. Roper's M. S. and Mr. Dugdale's as Sir Roger Twisden observes agreeable to one of the Gravamina Angliae sent to the same Pope 1246. viz. quod Anglici extra Regnum in Causis Apostolica Authoritate trahuntur Therefore it is most remarkable that at the revising of Magna Charta by Edw. 1. the former clause liceat unicuique c. was left out Since which time none of the Clergy might Reg. 193. Coke Inst 3. p. 179. 12 R. 2. c. 15. go beyond Seas but with the King's leave as the Writs in the Register and the Acts of Parliament assure us and which is more if any were in the Court of Rome the King called them home The Rich Cardinal and Bishop of Winchester knew the Law in this case and that no man was so great but he might need pardon for the offence and therefore about 1429. caused a Petition to be exhibited in Parliament that neither himself nor any other should be troubled by the King c. for cause of any provision or offence done by the said Cardinal against any Statute of Provisions c. this was in the Rot. Parl. 10 Hen. 6. n. 16. Eighth of Henry the Sixth and we have a plain Statute making such Appeals a premunire in Edward 9 Ed. 4. 3. the Fourth Sir Roger Twisden observes the truth of this barring Appeals is so constantly P. 37. averred by all the Ancient Monuments of this Nation as Philip Scot not finding how to deny it falls upon another way that if the Right of Appeals were abrogated it concludes not the See of Rome had no Jurisdiction over this Church the Concession gives countenance to our present enquiry the consequence shall be considered in its proper place What can be further said in pretence of a quiet possession of Appeals for nine hundred years together since it hath been found to be interrupted all along till within one hundred years before Hen. 8. Especially seeing my Lord Bramhall hath made it evident by clear Instances that it is the Vnanimous Judgment of all Christendom that not the Pope but their own Sovereigns in their Councils are the last Judges of their National Liberties vid Bramh. p. 106. to 118. SECT II. Of the Pope's Possession here by his Legates Occasion of them Entertainment of them IT is acknowledged by some that citing Englishmen to appear at Rome was very inconvenient therefore the Pope had his Legates here to execute his Power without that inconvenience to us How the Pope had possession of this Legantine Power is now to be enquired The Correspondence betwixt us and Rome at first gave rise to this Power the Messengers from Rome were sometimes called Legati though at other times Nuncii After the Erection of Canterbury into an Arch-Bishoprick the Arch-Bishop was held quasi Alterius Orbis Papa as Vrban 2. stiled him he exercising Vices Apostolicas in Anglia that is used the same Power within this Island Malms f. 127. 15. the Pope did in other Parts Consequently if any question did arise the determination was in Council as the deposing Stygand and the setling the precedency betwixt Wigorn. An. 1070. Canterbury and York The Instructions mentioned of Henry the First say the Right of the Realm is that none should be drawn out of it Authoritate Apostolicâ and do assure us that our Ancient Applications to the Pope were Acts of Brotherly Confidence in the Wisdom Piety and Kindness of that Church that it was able and willing to advise and assist us in any difficulty and not of obedience or acknowledgment of Jurisdiction as appear by that Letter of Kenulphus c. to Pope Leo the Third An. 797. Malms de Reg. l. 1. f. 16. quibus Sapientiae Clavis the Key of Wisdom not Authority was acknowledged therein Much less can we imagine that the Pope's Messengers brought hither any other Power than that of Direction and Counsel at first either to the King or Arch-Bishop the Arch-Bishop was nullius unquam Legati ditioni addictus Therefore none were suffered to wear a Miter within his Province or had the Crocier carried nor laid any Excommunication upon this ground in Diaecesi Archiepiscopi Apostolicam non tenere Sententiam Gervas Col. 1663. 55. An. 1187. Col. 1531. 38. The Church of Cam. being then esteemed omnium nostrum Mater Communis sub sponsi Jesu Christi dispositione ibid. True the Pope did praecipere but that did not argue the acknowledgment of his Power so John Calvin commanded Knox the question Knox Hist Scot. 93. is how he was obeyed 't is certain his Precepts if disliked were questioned Eadm p. 92. 40. opposed Gervas Col. 1315. 66. and those he sent not permitted to medle with those things they came about ibid. Col. 1558. 54. But Historians observe that we might be Occasion of Legates wrought to better temper some Persons were admitted into the Kingdom that might by degrees raise the Papacy to its designed height these were called Legates but we find not any Courts kept by them or any Power exercised with effect beyond what the King and Kingdom pleased which indeed was very little The Pope's Legate was at the Council touching the precedence of the Arch-Bishops but he subscribed the sixteenth after all the English Bishops and not like the Pope's Person or Proctor as Sir Roger Twisden proves p. 20. The first Council wherein the Pope's Legate preceded Arch-Bishops was that of Vienna a little more than three hundred years agon viz. 1311. as the same Author observes wherein he looked like the Legate of his Holiness indeed But let us examine what entertainment the Power of a Legate found here the Arch-Bishop Math. Par. p.
440. 17. An. 1237. was jealous that a Legate residing here would prove in suae dignitatis praejudicium and the King himself was not without suspitions and therefore would suffer none so much as to be taken for Pope but whom he approved nor any to receive so much as a Letter from Rome without acquainting him with it and held it an undoubted Right of the Crown that ut neminem c. none shauld be admitted to do the office Eadm p. 125. 53. p. 6. 25. p. 113. 1. of a Legate here if he himself did not desire it Things standing thus in 1100. the Arch-Bishop of Vienna coming over reported himself that he had the Legantine Power of all Brittain committed no him but finding no encouragement Eadm p. 58. 41. to use his Commission departed à nemine c. by none received as Legate nor doing any part of that office Fourteen years after Paschalis the Second by Letters expostulates with the King about Eadm p. 113. p. 116. several things in particular his non-admitting either Messenger or Letter without his leave A year after addrest Anselm Nephew to the late Arch-Bishop shewing his Commission Vices gerere Apostolicas in Anglia this made known the Clergy and Nobility in Council at London sent the Arch-Bishop to the King in Normandy to make known unto him the Ancient Custom of Eadm p. 118. 120. the Realm and by his advice to Rome ut haec nova annihilaret After this An. 1119. the King sent his Bishops to a Council held by Calixtus the Eleventh at Rhemes with Instructions among other things that they should humbly hear the Pope's Precepts but bring no superfluas adinventiones into his Kingdom In November following the Pope and King had a meeting at Gisors in Normandy where Calixtus confirmed unto him his Father's Usages in special that of sending no Legate hither but on the King's desire and when the same Pope not full two years after his Grant to the contrary addrest another Legate to these parts Eadm p. 137 46. p. 138. 21. the Kings wisdom so ordered it that qui Legati c. he which came to do the office of a Legate in all Brittain was sent as he came without doing any part of that Office Obj. But it is said that Calixtus confirmed unto the King his Fathers usages Therefore it was in the Popes power originally and by delegation and not in the King Accordingly in our best Authors and in particular Eadmer we find these words Collata Concessa Impetrata Permissa as is urged in answer to my Lord Cook Ans These words indeed intimate the Popes kindness and peaceable disposition at present viz. that he will not disturb but allow our enjoyment of our ancient priviledges Concessa fungi permissa the same Eadm calls Antiqua Angliae consuetudo libertas Regni p. 118. 33 40. 2. The words do seem also to intimate the Popes claim at that time but the true question is about his Possession which in placing Legates there was ever denied him not as a thing granted formerly by the Pope but as one of the dignitates usus consuetudines as Hen. 1. claimed and defended 3. Lastly they rather intimated the Popes want of power than proved his Authority here and what our Princes did in their own right he would continue to them as a Priviledge for no other reason but because he could not take it from them or durst not deny it to them so he dealt with Edw. the Confessor Vobis Regibus Angliae committimus advocationem ejusdem loci but long before that our Kings looked upon it as their Office regere populum Domini Ecclesiam Baron an 1059. n. 23. ejus which the Pope knew well enough Therefore a Legate landing in England in Ed. 4. time was obliged to take Oath that he would attempt nothing to the derogation of the Rights of the King or Crown In Hen. 4's Nonage his Vncle was sent Legate Edw. 4. 16. by Martin 5. Rich. Cawdry the Kings Attorney made protestation that None was to come as Legate from the Pope or enter the Kingdom without the Kings appointment a Right enjoyed from all memory In the Reign of Hen. 5. the design of sending a Legate from Rome though it were the Kings own Brother was opposed the enterprise took no effect during that Kings Reign Vir. Arch. chic p. 78 80. And in the eleventh of the same King the Judges unanimously pronounce that the Statutes mentioned were only declaratory of the common custom of England fol. 69 76. It was in the Year 1242 when the whole Matth. par 1245 1246. State of England complained of the Popes infamous Messenger non obstante by which Oaths Customs c. were not only weakned but made void And unless the grievances were removed Opportebit nos ponere Murum pro domo Domini libertate Regni Yea long after this in the year 1343. Edw. 3. made his Addresses likewise to Rome which the Pope branded with the Title of Rebellion But to requite him that wise and stout Prince made the Statutes of Proviso's and Praemunire directly opposed to the Incroachments and Vsurpations Walsing p. 161. of the Court of Rome whereby he so abated their power in England for sundry Ages following that a Dean and Chapter was able to deal Bramhall p. 99. with the Pope in England and to foil him too an 1420. The Sum is during the Reigns of all the Brittish and Saxon Kings until the Norman Conquest Legations from Rome were seldom and but Messengers A Legantine or Nuncio's Court we find not Gregory Bishop of Ostium the Popes Spel. conc an 784. own Legate did confess that he was the first Roman Priest that was sent into those parts of Brittain from the time of St. Austin When these Legates multiplied and usurped Authority over us the Kingdom would not bear it as appears by the Statute of Clarendon confirming the ancient Brittish English Custom with the consent and Oaths of all the Prelates and Peers of the Realm and upon this custom was the Law grounded Si quis inventus c. If any one be found bringing in the Popes Letter or Mandate let him be apprehended let justice pass upon him without delay as a Traitor to the King and Kingdom Math. Par. an 1164. Hoved. in Hen. 2. And all along afterwards we have found that still as occasion required the same custom was maintained and vindicated both by the Church and State of the Realm till within an hundred years before Hen. 8. So that the rejection of the Popes Legate is founded in the ancient Right the common and Statute Laws of the Realm and the Legantine power is a plain Vsurpation contrary thereunto and was ever lookt upon as such it never having any real possession among us by Law or quiet possession in Fact for any considerable time together but was still interrupted by the whole Kingdom by new
declaratory Laws against it Thus we have seen how the Popes Possession of the formal branch of Jurisdiction by Appeals and Legates stood here from St. Austin to Hen. 8. and that it was quiet and uninterrupted for nine hundred together passeth away as a Vapour The Contrary being evident by as Authentick Testimonies as can be desired and now what can be imagined to enervate them Obj. If it be urged that it was once in the body of our Laws viz. In Magna Charta liceat unicuique de caetero exire de Regno nostro redire salvo securè per terram per aquam salva fide nostra nisi in tempore Guerrae per aliquod breve Tempus 't is confest Ans But here is no expression that plainly and in terms gives license of Appeals to Rome 'T is indeed said that it is lawful for any to go out of the Kingdom and to return safe But mark the Conditions following Nisi in c. 'T is likely these words were inserted in favour of Appeals but it may be the Authors were timerous to word it in a more plain contradiction to our ancient Liberties 2. The very form of words as they are would seem to intimate that the Custom of England was otherwise 3. Lastly If it be considered how soon after and with what unanimity and courage our ancient Liberty to the contrary was redeemed and vindicated and that clause left out of Magna Charta ever since though revised and confirmed by so many Kings and Parliaments successively it is only an argument of a sudden and violent torrent of Papal Power in King John's time c. not of any grounded or well settled Authority in the English Laws as our English Liberties have I Conclude with those weighty words of the Statute of Ed. 3. an 27. c. 1. Having regard to the said Statute made in the time of his said Grandfathers which Statute holdeth always in force which was never annulled or defeated in any point And for as much as he is bound by his Oath to do the same to be kept as the Law of the Realm though that by sufferance and negligence it hath been since attempted to the contrary Vid. Preamble of the Statute Whereupon it is well observed that Queen Acts Mon. Mary her self denyed Cardinal Pelow to appear as the Popes Legate in England in her time And caused all the Sea-ports to be stopped and all Letters Briefs and Bulls to be intercepted and brought to her CHAP. X. The Pope's Legislative Power in England before Hen. 8. No Canons of the Pope oblige us without our Consent our Kings Saxons Danes Normans made Laws Ecclesiastical WE have found possession of the Executive Power otherwise than was pretended we now come to consider how it stood with the Legislative the Pope indeed claimed a Power of making and imposing Canons upon this Church but Henry the Eighth denied him any such Power and prohibited any Canons whatsoever to be executed here without the King's Licence An. 25. 19. The question now is whether the Pope enjoyed that Power of making and imposing Canons effectually and quietly here from the time of Saint Augustine to Henry the Eighth or indeed any considerable time together and this would invite us to a greater Debate who was Supreme in the English Church the Pope or the King during that time or rather who had the exercise of the Supremacy for the Power of making Laws is the chief Flower or Branch of the Supremacy and he that freely and without interruption enjoyed this Power was doubtless in the Possession of the Supremacy That the Pope had it not so long and so quietly as is pleaded by some and that our Kings have generally enjoyed it will both together appear with evidence enough by the Particulars following 1. If none were to be taken for Pope but by the King 's Appointment Sure his Laws were not to be received but with the King's Allowance 2. If not so much as a Letter could be received from the Pope without the King's Knowledge who caused words prejudicial to the Crown to be renounced Sure neither his Laws Both the Antecedents we find in Eadm p. 626. p. 131. 1. 3. If no Canons could be made here without the King's Authority or being made could have any force but by the King's Allowance and Confirmation where was the Pope's Supremacy that Canons could not be made here without Convocations by Kings the King's Authority is evident because the Convocations themselves always were and ought to be Assembled by the King 's Writ Eadm p. 24. 5. 11. Besides the King caused some to sit therein to Supervise the Actions Legato ex parte Regis Regni inhiberent ne ibi contra Regiam Coronam dignitates aliquid statuere attentaret and when any did otherwise he was forced to retract what he had done as did Peckham or were in paucis Servatae as those of Boniface Math. Par. An. 1237. p. 447. 51. Lindwood c. 1. Glos 1. If Canons were made though the Popes Legate and consequently all his power was at Can. confir by Kings the making of them yet had they no force at all as Laws over us without the Kings allowance and confirmation The King having first heard what was decreed Consensum praebuit authoritate Regiâ potestate confirmavit Statuta concilii by his Kingly power he confirmed the Statutes of the Council of William Arch-Bishop of Cant. and the Legate of the holy Church celebrated at Westminster by the Assent of the King and primorum omnium Regni the Chapters subscribed were promulged Eadm p. 6. 29. Flor. Wigorn. an 1127. p. 505. Gervase an 1175. Col. 1429. 18. Twisden Concludes as for Councils it is certain none were here called from Rome till 1127. P. 19 20. If they did come to any as to Calcuith the King upon the advice of the Arch-Bishop Statuit diem appointed the day of the Council So when William the first held one at Winchester 1070. for deposing Stygand though there came to it three sent from Alexan. 2. Yet it was held Jubente presente Rege who was President of it wherein as before was noted the Popes Legate subscribed the sixteenth after all the English Bishops Vita Lanfranci c. 7. p. 7. Col. 1. d. All our Canons are therefore as they are justly Canons Kings Laws called the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws because no Canons have the power of Laws but such as he allows and confirms and whatsoever Canons he confirmed of old that had their original from a foreign power he allowed for the sake of their Piety or Equity or as a means of Communion with the Church from whence they came but his allowance or confirmation gave them all the Authority they had in England 'T is a point so plain in History that it is beyond Before Conquest question that during all the time from St. Gregory to the Conquest the Brittish Saxon and
Danish Kings without any dependance on the Pope did usually make Ecclesiastical Laws Witness the laws of Excombert Ina Withred Alfrede Edward Athelstan Edmond Edgar Athelred Canutus and Edward the Confessor among which Laws one makes it the Office of a King to Govern the Church as the Vicar of God Indeed at last the Pope was officiously kind and did bestow after a very formal way upon the last of those Kings Edward the Confessor a Priviledge which all his Predecessors had enjoyed as their own undoubted Right before viz. the Protection of all the Churches of England and power to him and his Successors the Kings of England for ever in his stead to make just Ecclesiastical Constitutions with the advice of their Bishops and Abbots But with thanks to his Holiness our Kings still continued their ancient custom which they had enjoyed from the beginning in the right of the Crown without respect to his curtesie in that matter After the Conquest our Norman Kings did also exercise the same Legislative power in Ecclesiastical After Conquest Causes over Ecclesiastical Persons from time to time with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Hence all those Statutes concerning Benefices Tythes Advowsons Lands given in Mortmain Prohibitions Consultations Praemunires quare impedits Priviledge of the Clergy Extortions of Ecclesiastical Courts or Officers Regulation of Fees Wages of Priests Mortuaries Sanctuaries Appropriations and in sum as Bishop Bramhall adds All things which did belong to the external subsistence Regiment and regulating of the Church and this in the Reigns of our best Norman Kings before the Reformation Arch Bishop Bramh. p. 73. But what Laws do we find of the Popes making in England or what English-Law hath he ever effectually abrogated 'T is true many of the Canons of the Church of Rome were here observed but before they became obliging or had the force of Laws the King had power in his great Council to receive them if they were judged convenient or if otherwise to reject them 'T is a notable instance that we have of this in Ed. 3. time When some Bishops proposed 20 Ed. 3. c. 9. in Parliament the reception of the Ecclesiastical Canon for the legitimation of Children born before Marriage all the Peers of the Realm stood up and cried out with one voice Nolumus leges Angliae mutari we will not have the Laws of England to be changed A clear evidence that the Popes Canons were not English Laws and that the Popish Bishops knew they could not be so without the Parliament Likewise the King and Parliament made a legislative exposition of the Canon of the Council of Lions concerning Bigamy which they would 4 Ed. 1. c. 5. not have done had they not thought they had power according to the fundamental Laws of England either to receive it or reject it These are plain and undeniable evidences that when Popery was at highest the Popes Supremacy in making Laws for the English Church was very ineffectual without the countenance of a greater and more powerful viz. the Supremacy of our own Kings Obj. Now admit that during some little space the Pope did impose and England did consent to the authority of his Canons as indeed the very Consent admitted rejecting of that authority intimates yet that is very short of the Possession of it without interruption for nine hundred years together the contrary being more than evident However this Consent was given either by By Permission Permission or Grant If only by Permission whether through Fear or Reverence or Convenience it signifies nothing when the King and Kingdom see cause to vindicate our ancient Liberties and resolve to endure it no longer If a Grant be pretended 't was either from Or by Grant the King alone or joyned with his Parliament If from the King alone he could grant it for his time only and the power of resuming any part of the prerogative granted away by the Predecessors accompanies the Crown of the Successor and fidelity to his Office and Kingdom obligeth him in Justice to retrieve and recover it I believe none will undertake to affirm that the Grant was made by the Law or the King with his Parliament Yet if this should be said and proved too it would argue very little to the purpose for this is to establish Iniquity by a Law The Kings Prerogative as Head of this Church lieth too deep in the very constitution of the Kingdom the foundation of our common Law and in the very Law of Nature and is no more at the will of the Parliament than the fundamental liberties of the Subject Lastly the same Power that makes can repeal a Law if the Authority of Papal Canons had been acknowledged and ratified by Parliament which cannot be said 't is most certain it was revoked and renounced by an equal Power viz. of Henry the Eighth and the whole Body of the Kingdom both Civil and Ecclesiastical It is the Resolution both of Reason and Law that no Prescription of time can be a bar to the Supreme Power but that for the Publick good it may revoke any Concessions Permissions or Priviledges thus it was declared in Parliament in Edward the Third his Reign when reciting the Statute of Edward the First they say the Statute holdeth alway his force and that the King is bound by Oath to cause the same to be kept and consequently if taken away to be restored to its Observation as the Law of the Land that is the Common Fundamental unalterable Law of the Land Besides the Case is most clear that when Henry the Eighth began his Reign the Laws asserting the Supreme Authority in Causes and over Persons Ecclesiastical were not altered or repealed and Henry the Eight used his Authority against Papal Incroachments and not against but according to the Statute as well as the Common Law of the Land witness all those Noble Laws of Provisors and praemunire which as my Lord Bramhall saith we may truly call 25 Ed. 1. 27 Ed. 3. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3 4. 7 Hen. 4. c. 6. the Palladium which preserved it from being swallowed up in that vast gulph of the Roman Court made by Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. CHAP. XI Of the Power of Licences c. here in Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Hen. 7. THough the Pope be denied the Legislative and Judiciary or Executive Power in England yet if he be allowed his Dispensatory Power that will have the effect of Laws and fully supersede or impede the Execution of Laws in Ecclesiastical Causes and upon Ecclesiastical Persons 'T is confest the Pope did usurp and exercise this strange Power after a wonderful manner in England before Henry the Eighth by his Licences Dispensations Impositions Faculties Grants Rescripts Delegacies and other such kind of Instruments as the Statute 25 Hen. 8. 21. mentions and that this Power was denied or taken from him by the same
Statute as also by another 28 Hen. 8. 16. and placed in or rather reduced to the Jurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury saving the Rights of the See of York in all Causes convenient and necessary for the Honour and Safety of the King the Wealth and Profit of the Realm and not repugnant to the Laws of Almighty God The Grounds of removing this Power from the Pope as they are expressed in that excellent Preamble to the said Statute 25 Hen. 8. are worthy our Reflexion they are 1. The Pope's Vsurpation in the Premises 2. His having obtained an Opinion in many of the people that he had full Power to dispence with all humane Laws Uses and Customs in all Causes Spiritual 3. He had practised this strange Usurpation for many years 4. This his practice was in great derogation of the Imperial Crown of this Realm 5. England recognizeth no Superior under God but the King only and is free from Subjection to any Laws but such as are ordained within this Realm or admitted Customs by our own Consent and Usage and not as Laws of any Forreign Power 6. And lastly that according to Natural Equity the whole State of our Realm in Parliament hath this Power in it and peculiar to it to dispence with alter Abrogate c. our own Laws and Customs for Publick good which Power appears by wholsom Acts of Parliament made before the Reign of Henry the Eighth in the time of his Progenitors For these Reasons it was Enacted in those Statutes of Henry the Eighth That no Subject of England should sue for Licences c. henceforth to the Pope but to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Now 't is confessed before and in the Preamble to the Statute that the Pope had used this Power for many years but this is noted as an Aggravation of the Grievance and one Reason for Redress but whether he enjoyed it from the time of Saint dustine or how long quietly is the proper question especially seeing the Laws of the Land made by King Henry's Predecessors are pleaded by him in contradiction to it Yea who will come forth and shew us one Instance No Instance 1110 years after Christ of a Papal Dispensation in England for the first eleven hundred years after Christ if not five hundred of the nine hundred years Prescription and the first five hundred too as well as the first eleven hundred of the fifteen are lost to the Popes and gained to the Prescription of the Church of England But Did not the Church of England without any reference to the Court of Rome use this Power during the first eleven hundred years what man is so hardly as to deny it against the multitude of plain Instances in History Did not our Bishops relax the Rigor of Ecclesiastical Canons did not all Bishops all over the Christian World do the like before the Monopoly was usurped In the Laws of Alured alone and in the conjoynt Laws of Alured and Gunthrun how many Gervis Dorober p. 1648. sorts of Ecclesiastical Crimes were dispensed with by the Sole Authority of the King and Church of England and the like we find in the Laws of Spel. Conc. p. 364. c. some other Saxon Kings Dunstan the Arch Bishop had Excommunicated a great Count he made his peace at Rome the Pope commands his Restitution Dunstan answered I will obey the Pope willingly when I Ibid. p. 481. see him penitent but it is not God's will that he should lie in his sin free from Ecclesiastical Discipline to insult over us God forbid that I should relinquish the Law of Christ for the Cause of any Mortal man this great Instance doth two things at once justifieth the Arch-Bishops and destroyeth the Pope's Authority in the Point The Church of England dispensed with those irreligious Nuns in the days of Lanfrank with the Council of the King and with Queen Maud the Wife of Henry the First in the like Case in the days of Anselm without any Suit to Rome or Forreign Dispensation Lanfr Ep. 32. Eadm l. 3. p. 57. These are great and notorious and certain Instances and when the Pope had usurped this Power afterwards As the Selected Cardinals Stile the avaritious Dispensations of the Pope Sacrilegious Vulnera Legum so our Statutes of Provisors expresly 27 Ed. 3. say they are the undoing and Destruction of the Common Law of the Land accordingly The King Lords and Commons complained of this abuse as a Mighty Grievance of the frequent coming among them of this Infamous Math. Par. Au. 1245. Messenger the Pope's non-obstante that is his Dispensations by which Oaths Customs Writings Grants Statutes Rights Priviledges were not only weakned but made void Sometimes these dispensative Bulls came to legal Trials Boniface the Eighth dispensed with the law where the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was Visitor of the University of Oxford and by his Bull exempted the Vniversity from his Jurisdiction and that Bull was decreed void in Parliament by two Successive Kings as being obtained to the prejudice of the Crown the weakning of the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom and the probable Ruine of the said University Ex Arch. Tur. Londini Ex Antiq. Acad. Cantab. p. 91. In interruption of this Papal Vsurpation were those many Laws made in 25 Edw. 1. and 35 Et 12 Rich. 2. Edw. 1. 25 Edw. 3. and 27 and 28 Edw. 3. and afterwards more expresly in the sixteenth of Richard the Second where complaining of Processes and Censures upon Bishops of England because they executed the King's Comandments in his Courts they express the mischiefs to be the Dismherison of the Crown the Destruction of the King Laws and Realm that the Crown of England is subject to none under God and both the Clergy and Laity severally and severely protest to defend it against the Pope and the same King contested the Point himself with him and would not yield it An Excommunication by the Arch-Bishop albeit it be disanulled by the Pope is to be allowed Lord Coke Cawdrie's Case by the Judges against the Sentence of the Pope according to the 16 Edw. 3. Titl Excom 4. For the Pope's Bulls in special our Laws have abundantly provided against them as well in case of Excommunication as Exemption vid. 30 Edw. 3. lib. Ass pl. 19. and the abundant as is evidenced by my Lord Coke out of our English Laws in Cawd Case p. 15. he mentions a particular Case wherein the Bull was pleaded for Evidence that a Person stood Excommunicate by the Pope but it was not allowed because no Certificate appeared from any Bishop of England 31 Edw. 3. Title Excom 6. The same again 8 Hen. 6. fol. 3. 12 Edw. 4. fol. 16. R. 3. 1 Hen. 7. fol. 20. So late as Henry the Fourth if any Person of Stat. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3. Religion obtain of the Bishop of Rome to be Exempt from Obedience Regular or Ordinary he is in
them yet are reputed both Vid. Twisd ibid. Arch-Bishops and Saints and of others in that series it is not easie to prove they ever used it nor Adilbaldus till the fourth year after his Investiture And Gregory the Great saith that it ought not to be given nisi fortiter Postulanti What this Honorary was anciently seems uncertain but 't is most certain it could evacuate the Kings Legal and natural Patronage of our Church or discharge the Bishops from their dependance on and Allegiance to his Crown 'T is true indeed when Pope Nicolaus could not deny it he was graciously pleased to grant this Patronage to Edward the Confessor Vobis posteris c. commattimus advocationem c. We Baron an 1059. n. 23 commit the Advowson of all the Churches of England to you and your Successors Kings of England It might have been replied Nicolaus Papa hoc domino meo privilegium quod ex Paterno jure susceperat praebuit as the Emperors Advocate said This is too mean as well as too remote a spring of our Kingly power in the Church of England though it might ad hominem sufficiently supersede one would think all Papal practises against so plain and full a grant if any thing passed by it certainly it must be that very power of Advowson that the Popes afterwards so much pretended and our Laws mentioned were made on purpose to oppose them in We see no reason therefore against the Statute of Hen. 8. so agreeable to the ancient Rights and Laws of this Realm Be it enacted that no person shall be Presented Nominated or Commended to the Pope to or for the dignity of an Arch-Bishop or Bishop within this Realm nor shall send or procure thence for any manner of Bulls Briefs Palls or other things requisite for an Arch-Bishop or Bishop all such viz. Applications and Instruments shall utterly cease and no longer be used within this Realm and such as do contrary to this Act shall run in danger of the Statutes of Provision and Praemunire H. 8. 25 20. CHAP. XIII Of Peter Pence and other Moneys formerly paid to the Pope UPon Complaint by Parliament in 25 Hen. 8. 21. Henry the Eighth's Reign of intolerable exactions of great Sums of money by the Pope as well in Pensions Censes Peter-pence Procurations c. and for infinite sorts of Bulls c. otherwise than by the Laws and Customs of the Realm should be permitted It was enacted that no Person should thenceforth pay any such Pensions Peter pence c. but that all such payments should thence-forth clearly surcease and never more be levied taken or paid and all Annates or First-Fruits and Tenths of 25 Hen. 8. 20. Arch-Bishops and Bishops were taken away and forbidden to be paid to the Pope the year before Our Payments to the Court of Rome seem to have been of four sorts Peter-pence First-Fruits and Tenths Casual for Palls Bulls c. and extraordinary Taxations briefly of each 1. For Peter-pence the only Ancient payment Peter-pence it was at first given and received as an Alms Eleemosina Beati Petri saith Paschalis 2. Ep. Hen. 1. apud Eadm p. 113. 27. Perhaps rendred out of Gratitude and Reverence to the See of Rome to which England was no doubt frequently obliged for their care and Council and other assistances and by continuance this Alms and gratitude obtained the name of Rent and was Metaphorically called sometimes Tributum but never anciently understood Vid. Twisd p. â—5 to acknowledge the Pope as Superior Lord of a Lay-fee But when the Pope changed Advice into Precept and Counsel into Law and Empire and required Additions with other grievous Exactions unto his Peter-pence it was a proper time to be better advised of our selves and not to encourage such a wild Vsurpation with the continuance of our Alms or gratitude This Alms was first given by a Saxon King but by whom it is not agreed but that there was no other payment besides this made to Rome before the year 1246. appears for that though there was much complaint and controversie about our payments we find the omission of no payment instanced in but of that duty only neither do the Body of our Kingdom in their Remonstrance to Innocent the Fourth 1246. mention any other as claimed from hence to Rome Yet this payment as it was not from the beginning and as it was at first but an Alms so it was not continued without some interruptions when Rome had given Arguments of sufficient provocation both in the times of William the First and Henry his Son and Henry the Second this latter during the Dispute with Becket and Alex. 3. commanded the Sheriffs through England that Peter-pence should be gathered and kept quousque inde Dominus Rex voluntatem suam praeceperit Historians observe that Edward the Third during the French war gave command that no Peter-pence should be gathered or paid to Rome Stow An. 1365. and the Restraint continued all that Prince's time for his Successor Richard the Second at the beginning of his Reign caused John Wickliff to consider the Point who concludes those payments being no other than Alms the Kingdom was not obliged to continue them longer Vid. Twisden p. 76. than it stood with its Convenience and not to its detriment or Ruine according to the Rule in Divinity extra Casus Necessitatis Superfluitatis Eleemosyna non est in praecepto Indeed in the Parliament held the same year the question was made and a Petition preferred which surely was some kind of disturbance of the payment against them with no effect the King restored them and the payment of them continued till Hen. 8. So much for Peter-pence for the other payments 2. First-Fruits viz. First-Fruits and Tenths and the Casual payments for Bulls c. they so evidently depend on the Pope's Supremacy for Legislation Jurisdiction and Dispensation that they are justly denied with it however we shall briefly examine the Rise and the Possession of them For the Annates and Tenths which the Pope Clemang Platina Pol. Virg. received from our Arch-Bishops and Bishops the Historians agree that England of all Nations never submitted to the full extent of the Papal Commands or Expectations which no doubt was occasioned by the good Laws made here against them There is difference amongst Writers in De Scysm 6. lib. 2. c. 9. whose time the First-Fruits began to be taken Theodoricus a Niem saith Boniface 9. about the Tenth year of his Government was the first that reserved them with whom Platina agrees In vit Bon. 9. de inven Rer. l. 8. c. 2. and Polid. Virgil and many others as Twisden notes and Walsingham reduces them but to 1316. Hist An. 1316. p. 84 85. But the question is how long the Pope quietly enjoyed them the Kingdom was so intolerably burthened with Papal Taxes before of which we shall speak hereafter and these First-Fruits and Tenths
and not as our Lord. The true Question is whether God hath given the power of Government to the Pope and directly appointed him to be the Vniversal Pastor of his Church on Earth so that the Controversie will bear us down to the last Chapter what ever can be said here and Infallibility is such a Medium as infallibly runs upon that Solicism of Argument obscurum per obscurius and indeed if there be any inseperable Connexion betwixt Infallibility and the Vniversal Pastorship as is pretended the contrary is a lawfuller way of concluding viz. if there be no one man appointed to govern the Church as Supreme Pastor under Christ then there is no necessity that any one man should be qualified for it with this wonderful grace of Infallibility But it doth not appear that God hath invested any one man with that Power therefore not with that Grace But least this Great Roman Argument should suffer too much let us at present allow the Consequence but then we must expect very fair Evidence of the Assumption viz. that the Pope is indeed Infallible I am aware that there are some vexing Questions about the Manner and Subject of this Infallibility but if we will put them out of the way then the Evidence of the Pope's or Church of Rome's Infallibility breaks out from three of the greatest Topicks we can desire Scripture Tradition and Reason let them be heard in their Order SECT 1. Argument from Scripture for Infallibility viz. Example High Priest of the Jews Apostles 1. VVHether it be an excess or defect of Charity in me I know not but I cannot bring my self to believe that the fiercest Bigot of Popery alive can seriously think the Pope Infallible in the Popish Sence of the Word especially that the holy Scriptures prove it I know that some flie the Absurdity by hiding the Pope in the Church but if the Church be Infallible 't is so as it is Representative in General Councils or diffusive in the whole Body of Christians and then what is Infallibility to the Church of Rome more than to any other and how shall that which is Common to all give power to one over all or what is it to the Pope above another Bishop or Patriarch But the Pope is the Head and Universal Bishop as he is Bishop of Rome that is begging a great question indeed for the proof of the Pope's Infallibility which his Infallibility ought to prove and to prove the Medium by the thing in question after a new Logick Besides if the proper Seat of Infallibility be the Church in either of the Sences it concerns our Adversaries to solve Divine Providence who use to argue for this wonderful gift in the Church if there be no Infallibility God hath not sufficiently provided for the safety of Souls and the Government of his Church for seeing the Church diffusive cannot be imagined to govern it self but as Collected and seeing as the Christian World is now circumstantiated it is next to impossible we should have a General and free Council how shall this so necessary Infallible Grace in the Church be exerted upon all occasions for the Ends aforesaid It is therefore most Consonant to the Papal Interest and Reason to lodge this Infallible gift in the Pope or Court of Rome however let us attend their Arguments for the evidence of it either in the Pope or Court or Church of Rome in any acception which is first drawn from Scripture both Examples and Promises Arg. 1. From Scripture-Examples they reason thus the High Priest with his Clergy in the time of the Low were Infallible therefore the Pope and his Clergy are so now the High Priest with his Clergy in the time of the Law were so as appears Deut 17. 8. where in doubts the people were bound to submit and stand to their Judgment which supposeth them Infallible in it as A. C. argues with Arch-Bishop Lawd p. 97. n. 1. Ans Dr. Stillingfleet with others hath exposed this Argument beyond all reply In short the Consequence of it supposeth what is to be proved for the proof of Infallibility viz. That the Pope is High-Priest of the Christian Church and we must still expect an Argument for the Popes Headship if this must be granted that we may prove him Infallible to the end we may prove his Headship Were it said to the Christian Church when any Controversie of Faith ariseth go to Rome and there enquire the judgment of the Bishop and believe his determinations to be Infallible there had been no need of this consequence but seeing we read no such thing the consequence is worth nothing Besides the minor affirming the Infallibility of the High-Priest from that Law of Appeale in Minor Deut. 17. 8. is justly questioned There was indeed an obligation on the Jews to submit and stand to the judgment of that high Court but no obligation nor ground to believe the judgment Infallible The same obligation lies upon Christians in all judiciary Causes especially upon the last Appeal to submit in our practices though not in our judgment or Conscience to believe that what is determined to be Infallibly true A violence that neither the whole world nor a mans self can sometimes do to the Reason of a man The Text is so plain not to concern matters of Doctrine to be decided whether true or false but matters of Justice to be determined whether right or wrong that one would think the very reading of it should put an end for ever to this debate about it The words are viz. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment between Blood and Blood between Plea and Plea and between Stroke and Stroke being matters of Controversie within thy Gates Then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the Place which the Lord thy God shall chuse c. Thus God established a Court of Appeals a Supreme Court of Judicature to which the last application was to be made both in case of Injury and in case of Difficulty called the great Sanhedrin But note here is no direction for address to this Court but when the case had been first heard in the lower Courts held in the Gates of the Cities Therefore the Law concerned not the momentous Controversies in Religion which never came under the Cognizance of those inferior Courts Therefore it is not said whosoever doth not believe the Judgment given to be true but whosoever Deut. 17. 12. acts contumaciously in opposition to it And the man that will not hearken but do presumptuously even that man shall die Besides God still supposeth a possibility of Error in the whole Congregation of Israel Lev. 4. 15. and chargeth the Priests with Ignorance and forsaking his way frequently by the Prophets But alas where was the Infallibility of the High-Priest c. when our blessed Saviour was condemned by him and by this very Court of the Sanhedrin And when Israel had been for a long season without
Justinian as the four Gospels to which he gave the Title and force of Laws By which all Popes are bound by solemn Oath to Rule the Church Yet we find not one word in any of them for the Popes pretended universal Pastorship Yea in every one of them we have found so much and so directly against it that as they give him no power to govern the whole Church so by swearing to observe them in such government as the Canons deny him he swears to a contradiction as well as to the ruine of his own pretensions Argument We conclude from the premises that now seeing all future Councils seem to build upon the Nicene Canons as that upon the Apostles if the Canons of Nice do indeed limit the power of the Bishop of Rome or suppose it to have limits if his cause be tried by the Councils it must needs be desperate Now if those Canons suppose bounds to belong Minor to every Patriarchate they suppose the like to Rome But 't is plain that the bounds are given by those Canons to the Bishop of Alexandria and the reason is because this is also customary to the Bishop of Rome Now 't is not reasonable to say Alexandria must have limits because Rome hath if Rome have no limits Pope Nicolas himself so understood it whatever I. E. Pis 8. S. W. did Nicena c. the Nicene Synod saith he conferred no increase on Rome but rather took from Rome an example particularly what to give to the Church of Alexandria Whence Dr. Hammond strongly concludes that if at the making of the Nicene Canons Rome had bounds it must needs follow by the Ephesine Canon that those bounds must be at all times observed in contradiction to the universal Pastorship of that See The matter is ended if we compare the other Latin Version of the Nicene Canon with the Canon as before noted Antiqui moris est ut Vrbis Romae Episcopus habeat principatum ut suburbicana loca omnem provinciam suâ sollicitudine gubernet quae vero apud Aegyptum sunt Alexandrinae Episcopus omnem habeat sollicitudinem Similiter autem circa Antiochiam in caeteris Provinciis privilegia propria serventur Metropolitanis Ecclesiis Whence it is evident that the Bishop of Rome then had a distinct Patriarchate as the rest had and that whatever Primacy might be allowed him beyond his Province it could not have any real power over the other Provinces of Alexandria c. And 't is against the plain sence of the Rule that the Antiquus mos should signifie the custom of the Bishop of Rome's permission of Government to the other Patriarchs as Bellarmine feigneth This Edition we have in Christopher Justellus's Library rhe Canon is in Voel Biblioth Jur. Cano. Tom. 1. p. 284. SECT VI. Concil Constant 2. The Fifth General Conc. of 165 Bishops An. 553. BAronius and Binius both affirm that this was Bar. an 553. nu 224. a general Council and so approved by all Popes Predecessors and Successors of St. Gregory and St. Gregory himself Bin. To. 2. Not. in con Const 5. The cause was Pope Agapetus had condemned Anthinius the matter was afterwards ventilated in the Council Now where was the Popes Supremacy we shall see immediately After Agapetus succeeded Vigilius When the Council condemned the Tria Capitula Pope Vigilius would defend them but how did he carry it in Faith or Fact Did the Council submit to his Judgment or Authority No such thing But quite contrary the Council condemned the tria capitula and ended The Pope for not consenting but opposing the Council is banished by the Emperor Justinian Then Vigilius submits and confirms the Sentence of the Council and so is released from Banishment This is enough out of both * Ibid. N. 223. Baronius and Binius The Sum is we condemn say they as is expressed in the very Text all that have defended the Tria Capitula but Vigilius say the Historians defended the Tria Capitula therefore was Vigilius the Pope condemned by this Council such Authority they gave him SECT VII Concil Constant of 289 Bishops 6 General An. 681 vel 685. Concil Nic. 7 General of 350 Bishops An. 781. BEllarmine acknowledgeth these to be sixth and seventh general Councils and both these he acknowledgeth did condemn Pope Honorius for an Heretick lib. 4. de Pont. C. 11. For Bellarmine to urge that these Councils were deceived in their Judgment touching his opinion is not to the point we are not disputing now whether a Pope may be a Heretick in a private or publick Capacity in which the Councils now condemned him though he seems to be a bold man to prefer his own bare conjecture a thousand years after about a matter of Fact before the judgment of two general Councils consisting of 659 Bishops when the cause was fresh Witnesses living and all circumstances visibly before their eyes But our question is whether these Councils did either give to the Pope as such or acknowledged in him an uncontroulable Authority over the whole Church The Answer is short they took that power to themselves and condemned the Pope for Heresie as they also did Sergius of Constantinople SECT VIII Concil Gen. 8. Constant 383 Bishops An. 870. Conclusions from them all HOw did this eighth general Council recognize the Popes Supremacy Binius himself Tom. 3. p. 149. tells us this Council condemned a custom of the Sabbath-Fast in Lent and the practice of it in the Church of Rome and the word is We will that the Canon be observed in the Church of Rome inconfuse vires habet 'T is boldly determined against the Mother Church Rome concerned reproved commanded Where is the Authority of the Bishop of Rome Rome would be even with this Council and therefore saith Surius she receives not this 55 Canon Tom. 2. in conc Const 6. p. 1048. ad Can. 65 in Not. Bin. But why must this Canon only be rejected Oh! 't is not to be endured that 's all the reason we can have But was not this a general Council Is it not one of the eight sworn to by every Pope Is not this Canon of the same Authority as of the Council with all the rest Or is it tolerable to say 't is not Authentick because the Pope doth not receive it and he doth not receive it because it is against himself Quia Matrem Ecclesiarum omnium Rom. Ecclesiam reprehendit non recipitur saith Surius ibid. These are the eight first general Councils allowed by the Roman Church at this day What little exceptions they would defend their Supremacy with against all that hath appeared are answered in the Postscript at the latter end of the book whither I refer my Readers for fuller satisfaction In the mean time we cannot but conclude Conclus 7 Infer 1. That the Fathers during eight hundred and seventy years after Christ knew no such thing as the Popes Supremacy by divine
Right or any right at all seeing they opposed it 2. That they did not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome 3. That they had no Tradition of either that Supremacy or Infallibility 4. That 't is vain to plead Antiquity in the Fathers or Councils or Primitive Church for either 5. That the Judgment of those 8 general Councils was at least the Judgment and Faith not only during their own times but till the contrary should be decreed by a following Council of as great Authority and how long that was after I leave to themselves to answer 6. That the Canons of those 8 first general Councils being the sence both of the ancient and the professed Faith of the present Church of Rome the Popes Authority stands condemned by the Catholick Church at this day by the ancient Church and the present Church of Rome her self as she holds Communion at least in profession with the Ancient 7. That this was the Faith of the Catholick Church in opposition to the pretended Supremacy of the Pope long after the eight first General Councils is evident by the plain Sence of it in the said Point declared by several Councils in the Ages following as appears both in the Greek and Latin Church a word of both SECT IX The Latin Church Constance Basil Councils c. THe Council of Constance in Germany long after of almost a thousand Fathers An. 1415 Say they were inspired by the Holy Ghost and a General Council representing the whole Church and having immediate power from Christ whereunto obedience is due from all Persons both for Faith and Reformation whether in the Head or Members this was expresly confirmed by Pope Martin to be held inviolable in Matters of Faith vid. Surium Concil Const 99. 4. Tom. 3. Conc. Their great Reason was the Pope is not Head of the Church by Divine Ordinance as the Council of Calcedon said a thousand years before Now where was necessary Union and Subjection to the Pope where was his Supremacy Jure divino where was Tradition Infallibility or the Faith of the present Church for the Pope's Authority Concil Basil Bin. To. 4. in Conc. Basil initio The Council of Basil An. 1431. decreed as the Council of Constance Pope Eugenius would dissolve them the Council commands the contrary and suspend the Pope concluding that who ever shall question their power therein is an Heretick the Pope pronounceth them Schismaticks in the end the Pope did yield and not dissolve the Council this was the Judgment of the Latine Church above 1400 years after Christ and indeed to this day of the true Church of France and in Henry the Eighth's time of England as Gardner said the Pope is not a Head by Dominion but Order his Authority is none with us we ought not to have to doe with Rome the Common Sence of all in England Bellarmine saith that the Pope's Subjection to De Conc. li. 2. c. 14. General Councils is inconsistent with the Supreme Pastorship 't is Repugnant to the Primacy of Saint Peter saith Gregory de Valentiâ yet nothing Anal. fid l. 8. c. 14. is more evident than that General Councils did exercise Authority over Popes deposing them and disposing of their Sees as the Council of Constance did three together and always made Canons in opposition to their Pretensions Yea 't is certain that a very great Number if not the greater of the Roman Church it self were ever of this Faith that General Vid. Dr. Hammond's dispute p. 102. Councils are Superior have Authority over give Laws unto and may justly censure the Bishop of Rome Pope Adrian the Sixth and very many other Learned Romanists declared this to be their Judgment just before or near upon the time that Henry the Eighth was declared Supreme in England So much for the Latine Church SECT X. The Greek Church African Can. Synod Carth. Concil Antiochen The Faith of the Greek Church since THat the Greek Church understood the first General Councils directly contrary to the Pope's Supremacy is written with a Sun-beam in several other Councils 1. By the Canons of the African Church Can. 27 The 27th Canon forbids all Transmarine Appeals threatens such as make them with Excommunication makes order that the last Appeal be to the proper Primate or a General Council to the same effect is the 137 Canon and the Notes of Voel upon these Canons put it beyond question that in the Transmarine Appeals Tom. 1. p. 425. they meant those to Rome as it is expressed the Church of Rome and the Priests of the Roman Church 2. Const Concil Antiochen This Council is more plain it saith if any Bishop in any Crime be judged by all the Bishops in the Province he shall be judged in no wise by any Other the Sentence given by the Provincial Bishops shall remain firm Thus the Pope is excluded even in the case of Bishops out of his own Province contrary to the great pretence of Bellarmine ibid. 3. Syn. Carthag Can. 4 This Synod confirmed the twenty Canons of Nice and the Canons of the African Councils and then in particular they decreed ab Vniversis Si Criminosus est non admittatur again if any one whether Bishop or Presbiter that is driven from the Church be received into Communion by another even he that receives him is held guilty of the like Crime Refugientes sui Episcopi regulare Judicium Again if a Bishop be guilty when there is no Synod let him be judged by twelve Bishops Secundum Statuta Veterum Conciliorum the Statutes of the Ancients knew no reserve for the Pope in that Case Further no Clergy-man might go beyond the Seas viz. to Rome without the Advice of his Metropolitan and taking his Formatam vel Commendationem The 28 Canon is positive that Priests and Deacons shall not Appeal ad Transmarina Judicia viz. to Rome but to the Primates of their own Provinces and they add Sicut de Episcopis saepè constitutum est and if any shall do so none in Africa shall receive them and Can. 125. 't is renewed adding the African Councils to which Appeals are allowed as well as to the Primates but still Rome is Barr'd The Sence of the Greek Church since Now when did that Church subject it self to Rome in any Case our Adversaries acknowledg the early contests betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches in the point of Supremacy where then is the Consent of Fathers or Vniversality of time and place they use to boast of Bellarmine confesseth that An. 381. to the time of the Council of Florence viz. 1140 years the Greek Church disclaimed subjection to the Pope and Church of Rome and he confesseth they did so in several general Councils And he doth but pretend that this Church submitted it self to Rome in the Council of Florence An. 1549. for the contrary is evident in that they would not yield that the Pope should choose them a Patriarch as Surius
and consequently hath no force in England especially being urged in a matter contrary to the Famous Memorial of Clarendon a Fundamental Law of this Land all Appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and from him to the King to give order for Redress But to wipe away all colour of Argument what ever Authority these Canons may be thought to have in other matters 't is certain they have none in this matter of Appeals for as to this Point the undoubted General Councils afterward decreed quite otherwise reducing and limiting Appeals ultimately to the Primate of the Province or a Council as hath been made to appear When I heare any thing of moment urged from any other Council as a Grant of the pretended Supremacy to the Pope I shall consider what may be answered till then I think there is an end of his Claim Jure humano either by a Civil or Canonical Grant by Emperors or General Councils So much hath been said against and so little to purpose for the Council of Trent that I shall excuse my self and my Reader from any trouble about it But I must conclude that the Canons of the Council of Trent were never acknowledged or received Epist Synod Conc. Basil by the Kingdom of England as the Council of Basil was which confirmed the Acts of the Council of Constance which Council of Constance without the presence or concurrence of the Pope did decree themselves to be a lawful complete general Council Superior to the Pope and that he was subject to their censures and deposed three Popes at a time The words of the Council are remarkable The Pope is subject to a general Council as well in matters of Faith as of manners so as he may not only be corrected but if he be incorrigible be deposed To say this Decree was not conciliarly made and consequently not confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth signifies nothing if that Martin were Pope because his Title to the Papacy depended merely upon the Authority of that Decree But indeed the word Conciliariter was spoken by the Pope upon a particular occasion after the Council was ended and the Fathers were dismissed as appears in the History CHAP. XX. Of the Popes Title by Divine Right The Question Why not sooner 'T is last Refuge THe modern Champions of the Church of Rome sleight all that hath been said and judge it beneath their Master and his Cause to plead any thing but a Jus divinum for his pretended Supremacy and indeed will hardly endure and tolerate the question Whether the Pope be universal Monarch or Bishop of the whole Church as St Peter's Successor Jure divino But if this point be so very plain may I have leave to ask why was it not urged sooner why were lesser inconsistent Pleas so long insisted on why do not many of their own great men discern it to this day The truth is if the managery of the Combat all along be seriously reflected on this Plea of divine Right seems to be the last Refuge when they have been driven by Dint of Argument out of all other Holds as no longer to be defended And yet give me leave to observe that this last ground of theirs seems to me to be the weakest and the least able to secure them which looks like an Argument of a sinking cause However they mightily labour to support it by these two Pillars 1. That the government of the whole Church is Monarchical 2. That the Pope is the Monarch and both these are Jure divino But these Pillars also must be supported and how that is performed we shall examine SECT I. Whether the Government of the whole Church be Monarchical by Divine Right Bellar. Reason Scripture BEllarmine hath flourished with this argument through no less than eight whole Chapters and indeed hath industriously and learnedly beaten it as far as it would go and no wonder if he have left it thin What solidity is in it we are to weigh both from Reason and Scripture Not from Reason in 3 Arg. Arg. 1 From Reason they argue thus God hath appointed the best and most profitable Government for he is most wise and good but Monarchical Government is the best and most profitable Ans 'T is plainly answered that to know which is the best Government the state of that which is to be governed must be considered the end of Government being the profit and good of the State governed so that unless it appear that this kind of Government be the most convenient for the State of the Church nothing is concluded 2. We believe that God hath the care of the World and not only of the Church therefore in his wise and good Providence he ought to have settled the World under the best and most profitable Government viz. under one universal Monarch 3. Bellarmine himself grants that if particular Churches should not be gathered inter se so as to make one visible Political Body their own proper Rector would suffice for every one and there should be no need of one Monarch But all particular Churches are not one visible political Body but as particular Bodies are complete in themselves enjoying all parts of ordinary Worship and Government singly neither is there any part of Worship or Government proper to the Oecumenical Church qua talis 4. The Argument seems stronger the contrary way God is good and wise and hath appointed the best Government for his own Church but he hath not appointed that it should be Monarchical Therefore that kind of Government seems not to be the best for his Church Christ might foresee the great inconveniences of his Churches being governed by one Ecclesiastical Monarch when divided under the several secular Powers of the World though the Ambition of men overlook it and consider it not Yet that the Government of the Church appointed by God as best for it is Monarchical is not believed by all Catholicks The Sorbon Doctors doubt not to affirm that Aristocratical Government is the best of all and most agreeable to the nature of the Church De Eccl. Polit. potest an 1611. 6. But what if we yeild the whole Argument as the government of the Church is Imperial 't is in Christ the Vniversal Monarch over it but he being in a far Country he governs the several parts of his Church in distinct Countries by visible ministerial Monarchs or Primates proper to each The distinction of imperial and ministerial Power is given us in this very case by our Adversaries There is nothing unreasonable unpracticable or contrary to the practice of the world in the Assertion We grant that Monarchy is the best kind of Government in a due Sphere the World is wide enough for many Monarchs and the Church too The Argument concludes for Primates over Provinces not for an universal Monarch either over the world or the whole Church Arg. 2 2. The Church cannot be propogated as Bell. argues
without a universal Monarch to send Preachers into other Provinces c. Ans Who can doubt but that the Governors of any Church have as much Power to send any of her members and have as much power in Pagan and Infidel Countries as the supposed Vniversal Bishop And if Hereticks can propagate their errors why should not the Orthodox the Truth without the Pope Arg. 3 3. 'T is necessary saith Bellar. that all the faithful should have one Faith which cannot be without one chief Judge Ans In necessaries they may in other things they need not as appears sufficiently among the Romanists about this as well as other points neither could Peter himself with the help of the rest of the Apostles in their time prevent Heresies and Schisms These things are too weak to bear up the great power and Vniversal Monarchy pretended and indeed an impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of Christ if he have not provided such a Government for his Church as they plead a necessity of for the said ends The thing next to be enquired 2. Not from Scripture Prophesies Promises Metaphors or Example of High-Priest They affirm that the Scriptures evince an universal Monarchy over the Church but how is it proved Arg. The Prophecies and Promises and sundry Metaphors of a House Kingdom Body Flock c. prove the Church to be one in it self and consequently it must have one Supreme Governor Ans We are agreed that the Church is but one and that it hath one Supreme Governor And we are agreed that Christ hath the Supreme Government of it and that those Scriptures too signifie that he is such if we consider the Government to be Imperial as Hart confesseth to Dr. Raynolds And thus the Argument passeth without any harm but it still rests to be proved that the ministerial Governor is but one or that the Scriptures intend so or St. Peter or the Pope as his Successor is that one Governor over the whole Church 'T is true as our Saviour saith there is one Flock and one Shepherd but 't is as true which he saith in the same place I am that good Shepherd but as that one principal Pastor had many Vicars not Peter only but 12 Apostles to gather and feed the Sheep who were therefore sent to Preach to all Nations And did as it said divide the World into 12 Provinces respectively So that one great Monarch might have many Viceroy's if we may so call the future Bishops to govern the Church though in Faith but one yet in site and place divided 'T is no unreasonable thing that the King of Brittain and Ireland should Govern Scotland and Ireland which lye at some distance from him by his Deputations as before was hinted Arg. 2 There was one High-Priest over the Church of the Jews and by Analogy it ought to be so in the Christian Church Ans Many things were in that Church which ought not to be in this They were one Nation as well as one Church and if every Christian Nation have one High-Priest the Analogy holds well enough The making the Nations of the World Christian hath as experience shews rendred the Government of the Church by one person that cannot reside in all places very inconvenient if not impracticable Now if our Saviour foresaw this and hath ordered the government of the Christian Church otherwise than Moses had that of the Jews who shall say What hast thou done 2. It can never be proved that the High-Priest over the Jews was either called the Judge Vid. Ray. and Hart. p. 240. or had such Power over that Church as the Pope pretends over the Christian Lastly 't is not doubted but Moses was Faithful and Christ as faithful in appointing a fit Government for these great and distinct States of the Church But what kind of Government Moses appointed is nothing to the question unless it appear that Christ hath appointed the same The proper question is whether Christ hath appointed that the Christian Church should be governed by one universal Monarch let us apply to that The great issue is the instance of St. Peter 'T is affirmed that our Lord committed the Government of the Christian Church to St. Peter and his Successors the Popes of Rome for ever A Grant of so great consequence ought to be Ar. 3. Peter very plain the whole World is concern'd and may expect Evidence very clear 1. That Christ gave this universal Supremacy to St. Peter And 2. To the Pope as his Successor if either fail Roma Ruit SECT II. Of St. Peter's Monarchy Tu es Petrus Fathers abused VVE are now come to the quick The first great question is Whether Christ gave his Apostle St. Peter the Government of his whole Church This would be proved from Matth. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will 1 Scrip. Matth. 16. 18. build my Church The Argument is what Christ promised he gave but in these words Christ promised to make Peter the Supreme Head and Governor of his Church therefore this Power was given him Ans If this Argument conclude by this Rock must be meant St. Peter and the words I will build my Church upon it must signifie the committing the Supreme Power of the Church to him For the First It is at least a controversie among the ancient Fathers and many of them do deny that by this Rock we are to understand any thing but that Confession which was evidently the occasion of this Promise and was made by Peter just before as St. Cyril Hilary Jerom Ambrose Basil and St. Augustine whose Lapsus humanus in it is reproved by Stapleton Princ. doct li. 6. c. 3. But I am willing to agree as far as we may and therefore shall not deny but something peculiar to St. Peter's Person was here promised though I believe it was a point of Honour not a Supremacy of Power what that was will appear by the thing promised I will build my Church that is upon my Doctrine preached by thee I will build my Church thou shalt have the honour of being a prime and principal Author of the Worlds Conversion or as Dr. Reynolds against Hart Peter was in order with the first who believed P. 60. and amongst those First he had a mark of Honour in that he was named Stone above his Brethren Yet as he so the Rest are called Foundations and indeed so were in both these Sences For the Twelve were all Prime Converts and converters of others and were Foundations in their respective Provinces on which others were built But they were not built one upon another and they had no other Foundation on which they themselves were built but Christ himself We are willing to any thing that the Sence of the words will conveniently bear but that they should signifie Power and Government over the whole Church and the rest of the Apostles we cannot understand for the Rock is supposed before the building upon
it and the building before the Government of the house and the Government of the Church cannot tollerably be thought to be of the Foundation or first building of the Church but for the Preservation or Augmentation of it after its existence is supposed Perhaps there is ground to allow that Peter's Foundation was the first as his Name was first among the Apostles and that this was the reason of that Primacy of Order and Dignity which some of the Ancients in their writings Paul had the same Primacy over Barnabas that Peter over Apost as St. Amb. in 2 ad Gal. acknowledged in Saint Peter but certainly there is need of a plainer Text to argue this Text to signifie that Supremacy of Power over the rest of the Apostles and the whole Church which is so hotly contended for by our Romish Adversaries to be given Saint Peter however after the Resurrection of Christ all were made equal both in Honour and Power as Saint Cyprian saith de Vnita Eccles But it is urged that the other Part of the 2. Script Matth. 16. 19. Promise is most clear to thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven viz. the fulness of Celestial Power as Hart expressed it Answ Our Answer is that Christ here promised no more Power to Peter than he performed to all the Apostles Peter's Confession was made in the Name of all and Christ's Promise was made to Peter in the Name of all and nothing can be clearer either in the Text or in Fact The Text is plain both in it self and in the Judgment of the Fathers that Peter stood in the room of the rest both when he made the Confession and received the Promise Vid. St. Aug. in Joh. Tract 118. St. Ambr. in Psal 38. Jerom. adv Jovi li 1. Orig. in Math. Tract 1. Vid. Concor Cottrol l. 2. c. 13. Hilary de Trinit l. 6. c. Cardinal Cusan is plain in this Point also And that it did equally concern the rest of the Apostles is evident by the performance of it A Promise is of something de futuro our Saviour saith to Peter I will give thee the Keys but when did he do it and how did he do it Certainly at the time when he delivered those words recorded John 20. 21 23. And after the manner there expressed and by that Form of Words now are not those Words spoken by Christ equally to all the Apostles As my Father sent me so do I send you whose soever sins ye remit c. nothing plainer To say that Christ gave not the Keys to all but only the Power of remitting and retaining sins seems pitiful unless some other proof be offered that Christ did actually perform this Promise to Saint Peter apart and give him the Keys at some other time in distinction to the Power given in the 20. John to all together Remitting and retaining sins is certainly the Power of the Keys and so called by the Council of Trent it self Chatech in Sacram. Paenit and 't is not the keeping but the Power of the Keys is the question and indeed Bellarmine proves that the whole Power of the Keys and not a part only as Stapleton supposed was granted to all the Apostles in the Words John 20. to be the general interpretation of the Fathers in Prael Rom. Controv. 4. q. 3. de Sum. Pontif. Stapleton from Turrecrem distinguisheth betwixt From Turrecrem the Apostolick and the Episcopal Power and they grant that the Apostolick Power was equal in all the Apostles and received immediatly from Christ but the Episcopal Power was given to Saint Peter with the Keys and immediatly and by him to the rest This is a new shift else why is the Title Apostolical given to the Pope to his See to all Acts c. seeing the Pope according to the sineness of this distinction doth not succeed Peter as an Apostle but as a Bishop 'T is as strang as new seeing the Power of the Keys must as well denote the Episcopal Power of the rest of the Apostles as of Peter and the Power of using them by remitting c. was given generally and immediatly by Christ to them all alike This distinction of Turrecremata was as Reynolds against Hart sheweth spoiled before Doctor Stapleton new vamped it by two learned Relict 2. de Potest Eccl. Friars Sixtus Senensis and Franciscus Victoria evidencing both out of the Scriptures that the Bibli Sanc. l. 6. annot 269 271. Apostles received all their Power immediatly of Christ and the Fathers that in the Power of Apostleship and order so the two Powers were called Paul was equal to Peter and the rest to them both Therefore this distinction failing another is invented and a third kind of Power is set up viz. the Power of Kingdoms and now from the threefold Power of Saint Peter Apostolatus Ordinis Regni it is strongly affirmed 1. Touching the Apostleship Paul as Jerom saith 1. In Com. ad Gal. was not inferior to Peter for he was chosen to preach the Gospel not by Peter but by God as Peter was 2. Touching the Power given 2. Advers Jovini ad Evag. in the Sacrament of Order Jerom saith well too that all the Apostles received the Keys equally and that they all as Bishops were equal in the degree of Priesthood and the Spiritual Power of that degree thus the first distinction is gone But thirdly touching the Power 3. Advers Jovin Lucif of Kingdom Saint Jerom saith best of all that Peter was chosen among the Twelve and made the Head of all that all occasion of Schism might be removed These are Phansies of the Schoolmen but where are they grounded we are seeking for Saint Peter's Supremacy in the Scripture where do we there find this Power of the Kingdom given him by Christ or what Ancient Father ever so expounded this Text of the Keys We grant many expressions are found in the Fathers in honour of Saint Peter Saint Augustine affirms his Primacy is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent Grace Saint Chrysostom calleth him the Mouth the Chief the Top of the Company Theodoret stiles him the Prince Epiphamus the Highest Saint Augustine the Head President and first of the Apostles which he proveth out of Saint Cyprian who saith the Lord chose Peter first and Saint Jerom saith he was the Head that occasion of Schism might be taken away and gives him the honour of great Authority all these were used by Hart against Raynolds To them all Doctor Raynolds gives cleer and satisfactory answers shewing largely that they signifie nothing but a Primacy of Election or Order or Dignity or Esteem and Authority in that Sence or a Primacy in Grace and Gifts viz. a Principallity or Chiefness in Worth or a Primacy of Presidentship in Assemblies as the Mouth and Moderator or the Head of Vnity and Order as Jerom means but 't is not to be proved from any or
all of these Encomiums that the Fathers believed that the other Apostles were under Saint Peter as their Governour or that he had any real Power given him by Christ more than they The Words of Saint Cyprian are plain and full albeit Christ saith he gave equal Power to 1. St. Cyp. de unit Eccl. all the Apostles after his Resurrection and said as my Father c. yet to declare Vnity he disposed by his Authority the Original of that Vnity beginning in one no doubt saith he the rest were the same that Peter was endued with the like fellowship pari Consortio of Honour and Power but the beginning doth come from Vnity that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be but one Thus this Topick of the Fathers expounding the Text being found to fail another device and such a one as the very detection both answers and shames the Authors is fled unto viz. to corrupt instead of purging the Fathers and to make them speak home indeed The place of Saint Cyprian just now set is a In Opusc Contr. Graec. very clear instance of this black Art allowed by the Popes themselves the place in the former Prints was as it is set down in the Roman-purged-Cyprian is thus altered by addition of these words And the Primacy is given to Peter Again he appointed one Church and the Chair to be one and to make all sure the Antwerp Cyprian addeth conveniently Peter's Chair And then saith he who forsaketh Peter's Chair on which the Church was founded c. And by this time Against Haâ—â— Peter's Primacy is the Popes Supremacy Vid. Dr. Rayn p. 210 211. But Tho. Aquinas hath dealt worse with St. Cyril Fathering a Treasure upon him which he never owned beyond all tolerable defence To the Grecians St. Cyril is brought in speaking thus Christ did commit a full and ample power both to Peter and his Successors The Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in every Doctrine Peter and his Church to be instead of God and to him even to Peter all do bow by the Law of God and the Princes of the World are obedient to him even as to the Lord Jesus and we as being Members must cleave unto our Head the Pope and Apostolick See c. Now either St. Cyril said thus or not If he did who will believe him that shall make such Stories and Father them upon every Doctrine in the New Testament contrary to common sence and the knowledge of all or trust his cause to the interpretation of such Fathers But if this Book called St. Cyril's Treasure be none of St. Cyril's as certainly it is not then though I am provoked I shall say no more but that we should weigh the Reasons but not the Authority of such a Schoolman especially in his Masters Cause 'T is certain the words are not to be found in those parts of Cyril's Treasure which are Extant as Hart acknowledgeth to Dr. Raynolds Yet the abuse of single Fathers is not so hainous a thing as Thomas committed against 600 Bishops Ibid. even the General Council of Calcedon when he saith they decreed thus If any Bishop be accused let him appeal freely to the Pope of Rome because we have Peter for a Rock of Refuge and he alone hath Right with freedom of Power in the stead of God to Judge and Try the crime of a Bishop according to the Keys which the Lord did give him calling the Pope the Holy Apostolick and universal Patriarch of the whole World Now in that Council there is not a word of all this and they answer Hereticks have rased it out if you will believe it but neither Surius nor Caranza find any thing wanting I shall only make this Note that seeing the Fathers have been so long in the hands of those men that stick at nothing that may advance the Power of their Master 'T is no wonder that their learned Adversaries are unwilling to trust their cause with such Judges but rather appeal to the true Canon and call for Scripture One would think this were enough but this Opinion of the equality of Power among the Apostles was not only the concurrent Judgment of the Ancients but even of learned later men in the Church of Rome even from these words Tues Petrus c. upon unanswerable Reason Lyra on Matth. 16. Durand a St. Porciano in 4. Cent. dist 18. q. 2. both in the 14 Cent. and Abulensis in the In Matth. 18. q. 7. In Matth. 20. q. 83 84. 15 Cent. the latter argues earnestly that none of the Apostles did understand those words of Christ to give any Supremacy to Peter for afterwards they contended for Superiority Matth. 18. and after that the two Sons of Zebedee desire it Matth. 20. and at the last Supper the question is put again Luke 22. Therefore he concludes they thought themselves equal till Christs death when they knew not which of them should be greatest Cusanus his contemporary de concord Cath. l. 2. c. 13. and 34. and Fran. Victoria This was the interpretation of all the Doctors of Paris Bin. Conc. an 1549. and of Adulphus Arch-Bishop of Cologne and of the Bishops of his Province the Decrees of whose Synod with this interpretation were ratified in every point by Charles the Fifth and enjoyned to be observed Thus the chief ground of St. Peter's Supremacy is sunk and there is little hopes that any other Text will hold up that weighty super-structure Another Scripture much insisted on for the support of St. Peter's Supremacy is Joh. 21. 14 15 16. 3. Joh. 21. 14 c. Peter lovest thou me feed my Sheep feed my Lambs Wherein is committed to Peter the power of the whole Church Ans 'T is answered this Text gives not any Commission or power to St. Peter it gives him charge and Commandment to execute his Commission received before Now it hath appeared sufficiently that the Commission was given equally to all the Apostles in those words as my Father sent me so send I you c. so that the power of feeding and the Duty of Pastors was alike to them all though this Charge was given to Peter by name here with so many Items perhaps intimating his repeated Prevarications yet were they all sent and all charged with a larger Province than these words to Peter import Teach all Nations Preach the Gospel to every Creature are our Saviours charge to them all Obj. In the Apostolick Power all were equal saith Hart not in the Pastoral Charge Ans We answer with a distinction allowed by Stapleton of the Name Pastor 't is special and distinct from Apostle Some Apostles some Eph. 4. Pastors or general and common to all commission'd to preach the Gospel So Christ is called Pastor and all the Apostles were Pastors as well as Peter Obj. But St. Peter was the Pastor over the rest for he is charged to feed all the Sheep the whole Church Now
the Rest of the Apostles were Christs Sheep and members of his Church Hart and Ray. p 129. Ans Christ saith not to Peter feed all my Sheep but he doth say to them all Preach to every Creature And if Peter have power over the rest because they are Sheep and he is to feed the Sheep then every one of the rest have power over Peter because he is a Creature and they are to preach to every Creature But this is trifling so is all that is further argued from this Text though by Feeding we understand Ruling Ruling of Pastors or what you will while whatsoever was charged on Peter here is within the same Commission wherein Peter and all the rest of the Apostles are equally impowered as before and that of Bellarmine that Peter was to feed the Sheep as ordinary Pastor the Apostles as extraordinary Embassadors is altogether as groundless as if there were any colour of Reason that an ordinary Pastor should have more power than an extraordinary Embassador Dr. Hammond observes Bellarmine was not 13 Oct. 1562. the Author of that Artifice Cajetan and Victoria had used it before him and obtained it the honour of coming into the Council of Trent where the Bishop of Granada derided it and the Authors of it and soon after the Bishop of Paris expresly affirmed that Cajetan was about 50 years before the first deviser of it The Bishop of Granada confutes it by Scripture as understood by all the Fathers and Schoolmen as he affirmed Concord Cathol l. 1. c. 11. To conclude this matter Feed my Sheep are not a ground for the Popes Presidency which are found not to be so of Peter's above the body of the Universal Church as was publickly pronounced in the Covent of the Fryers Minors and appears by the Opusc of John Patriarch of Antioch And Cardinal Cusanus who lived at the same De Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 23. time makes them words of Precept not of Institution and both are agreeable to the interpretatiou of the Ancients St. Ambrose de dign Sacerd. c. 2. Aug. de Ago Christiano c. 30. Theoph. in Joh. c. 21 c. It is time to look further The third great place of Argument is Luk. 22. 31. Thou being Luk. 22. 31 converted strengthen thy Brethren Whence Hart reasons thus Christ commands Peter to strengthen Rayn and Hart. p. 142. his Brethren and his Brethren were the Apostles Therefore he was to strengthen the Apostles and by consequence he must be their Supreme Head Ans When Hart urged this Argument with all his wit and might and Dr. Raynolds had made it evident there is no Authority given by the words nor carried in the word Strengthen that Equals and Inferiors are capable of it as well as Superiors much less can it necessarily imply a Supremacy over the whole Church he confesseth with Stapleton that Christ gave the Power to Peter after his Resurrection when he said to him Feed my Lambs which we have weighed before but those words of strengthning c. he spake before his death and did but futuram insinuaverat insinuate therein and as Harts word is that he would make him Supreme Head then if he did not make him so afterward he did it not at all That Peter had power over the rest of the 4 Scrip. Apostles would be proved as before from the Promise and Commission of Christ so at last by Peter's Execution he proposed the Election of a Act. 1. 25. new Apostle in the Room of Judas Ans Therefore he was Speaker at least pro tempore in the Assembly but not a Prince or Supreme Monarch Obj. But St. Chrysostom saith that though Peter's modesty was commendable for doing all things by common advice and consent and nothing by In Matth. 40. 51. his own Authority yet addeth that no doubt it was lawful for Peter to have chosen Matthias himself Ans Yet the same Father calls this Seat given him by the rest a Primacy not a Supremacy Again In Matth. Hom. 15. he derives this Primacy from the modesty of the Apostles not the donation of Christ as Hart Rayn Hart. p. 156. confesseth But indeed the Father exceeded in his Charity and 't is he that said that Peter might have chosen one himself The Scripture saith not that he might yea it saith he did not And the Argument from Peter's Execution of this power is come to this that he did not execute it Besides many Fathers and in Council too together with St. Cyprian pronounce that Peter proposing the matter to the end it might be carried by common advice and voice did according to the lessons and Precepts of God therefore jure divino they thought Peter had no such power as Dr. Raynolds shews p. 159. But when Peter had been heard all the Multitude held their peace and James and all the 5 Scrip. Act. 15. Elders did agree unto Peter's Sentence Ans What is this to prove his Supremacy because the Council having heard Gamaliel agreed to him was therefore Gamaliel a Pharisee a Doctor of the Law whom all the People honoured Supreme Head and Superior to the High-Priest and Act. 3. 34. Council And if Jerom say Peter was Princeps Decreti he acknowledged perhaps the Reason the Motion and the Delivery or declaration of it principally to Peter the first Author of the Sentence as the same Jerom calls him and explains himself Epist 11. inter Epistol August So was Tully called viz. Prince of Decrees when he was Pro Cor. Balbo neither President nor Prince of the Senate We conclude that Peter had no Superiority of Power or Government over the rest of the Apostles or the whole Church because it neither was promised him nor given him nor Peter added Nihil doctrinae aut potestatis Aquinas Not inferior to the chief Apost 2 Cor. 11. 5. Executed by him notwithstanding Bellarmine's 28 Prerogatives of St. Peter from which I presume none can be so hardy as to venture to argue many of them being uncertain some vain and trifling and some common with the rest of the Apostles but neither divisim or conjunctim sufficient to make or to evince any real Supremacy of power in St. Peter 5. 'T is indeed said by some of the Fathers So Paul judged Chris Hom. 12. 2. 87. that the Government of the World and the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter but it is plain they speak of his Apostleship for they say the same of Paul ille Solusgerebat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orbis praefectam suscepit and the like of Timothy who was never reputed Vniversal Monarck Paul and Peter had two different Primacies Saint Hom. 1. ad Pop. Orat. 6. Con. Jud. Ambr. had the same Dignity Chrisost were equal Oecumenius CHAP. XXI Of the Pope's Succession I Have laboured the more to scatter the pretences of Saint Peter's Supremacy because though the Consequence be not good
Successoribus Committebat lib. 2. de Sacerdotio Answ 'T is granted Peter had his Successors in time and place and that 's all the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be rendred those which followed him will conclude However admit the Bishop of Rome did succeed Saint Peter in his care as the word is doth it follow that he succeeded him in his Primacy which hath appeared not capable of Succession Application of Sect. 1. Therefore I conclude that whatsoever Inference Primacy the Bishop of Rome obtained in the Ancient Church it was not the Primacy of Saint Peter or as he was Successor of Saint Peter in his Primacy but he obtained it upon other Grounds not those Antecedent in Saint Peter but such as arose afterwards and were peculiar to the Church of Rome A Note as easie to be observed by such as look into the practice of the Ancient Church as of great caution and use in this Controversie The Grounds are known to be such as these because Rome was the Imperial City because the Church of Rome was then most Famous for the Christian Faith because she was the most noted Seat of true Tradition because her Bishops were most Eminent for Piety Learning and a charitable Care for other Churches and lastly perhaps because Saint Peter had been Bishop there his Memory might deflect some honour at least by way of motive on the Bishop of Rome as the Council of Sardica moveth if it please you let us honour the Memory of Saint Peter but though the Memory of Saint Peter might be used as an Argument of the Pope's Priority 't is far from concluding his inheriting Saint Peter's Primacy though he had honour by being his Successor 2. It further follows that the Primacy of Inference Primacy not Jure Divino that See heretofore was not Jure Divino but from the Civility of the World and the Curtesie of Princes and the Gratitude of the Church Indeed this Primacy was not an Office but an honour and that honour was not given by any Solemn Grant of God or Man but seems to have gained upon the World insensibly and by degrees till it became a Custom as the Council of Nice intimates Inference Not in succeeding Popes 3 Lastly it follows that this Primacy was not derived to the Succeeding Bishops of Rome it standing upon such temporary Grounds as too soon failed for when that which was the cause of it ceased no wonder if the honour was denied When the Faith of the See was turned to Infidelity and Blasphemy and Atheism and Sorcery as their own men say when their piety was turned into such villanies of pride Symony uncleaness and monstrous lewdness as themselves report when their care and vigilance was turned into Methods of wasting and destroying the Churches when the Exordium Vnitatis was turned into a Head of Schism and division no wonder that the Primacy and honour of the See of Rome which was raised and stood upon the contrary grounds was at length discovered to be groundless and the former primacy which stood on Courtesie and was exalted by an usurped Supremacy and Tyranny was thrown off by us and our ancient liberty is Repossessed and the Glory of Rome is so far departed SECT II. Whether the Pope be Supreme as Successor of Peter by Divine Right Neg. Not Primate as such Peter himself not Supreme Pope not Succed him at all THis is the last Refuge and the meaning of it is that our Saviour made St. Peter Vniversal Monarch of the whole Church and intended the Pope of Rome should succeed him in that power All possible defence herein hath been prevented For if the Bishop of Rome did not succeed him in his Primacy how should he succeed him in his Supremacy Again if St. Peter had no such Supremacy as hath appeared how should the Pope receive it as his Successor Besides what ever power St. Peter had it doth no way appear that the Pope should succeed him in it much less in our Saviours Intention or by Divine Right However let us try their colours Will they maintain it that Christ appointed the Bishops of Rome to succeed St. Peter in so great a power The Claim is considerable the whole World in all Ages is concerned none could give this priviledge of Succession but the giver of the power But where did he do it Where or how when or by whom was it expressed Should not the Grant of so great an Empire wherein all are so highly concern'd especially when it is disputed and pretended be produced Instead of plain proof we are put off with obscure and vanishing Shadows such as follow SECT III. Arg. 1. Peter Assigned it Arg. 1 INstead of proving that Christ did they say that St. Peter when he died bestowed the Supremacy upon the Bishops of Rome in words to this effect as Hart expresseth them I Ordain this Clement to be your Bishop unto whom alone I commit the Chair of my Preaching and Doctrine And I give to him that power of binding and loosing which Christ gave to me Ans And what then I Ordain then he had it not as Peters Successor by Divine Right but as a Gift and Legacy of St. Peter 2. This Clement a foul blot to the Story For it 's plain in Records that Linus continued Bishop eleven years after Peter's death and Cletus twelve after Linus before Clemens had the Chair Your Bishop Euseb in Chron. that is the Bishop of Rome what 's this to the Vniversal Bishop And I give to him what the Chair of Preaching and Doctrine and the power of the Keys viz. no more than is given to every Bishop at his Ordination Now 't is observable though this pitiful Story signifie just nothing yet what strange Arts and stretches Vid. Raynolds and Hart. p. 269 c. of invention are forced to support it and to render it possible though all in vain SECT IV. Arg. 2. Bishop of Antioch did not Succeed Ergo of Rome Arg. 2 BEllarmine argues more subtilly yet supposeth more strongly than he argues Pontifex Romanus the High-Priest of Rome succeeded St. Peter dying at Rome in his whole dignity and power for there was never any that affirmed himself to be St. Peter's Successor any way or was accounted for such besides the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Antioch But the Bishop of Antioch did not succeed St. Peter in pontificatu Ecclesiae totius therefore the Bishop of Rome did Ans He supposeth that St. Peter's Successor succeeded him in all his dignity and power but 't is acknowledged by his friends there was no Succession of the Apostolick but only of the Episcopal power 2. If so then Linus Cletus and Clemens should have had dignity and power over John and the other Apostles who lived after St. Peter as their Pastor and Head according to their own way of Arguing 3. Besides St. St. PETER He was crucified at Rome with his head downwards and Buried
in the Vatican there after he had planted a Christian Church first at Antioch and afterwards at Rome S. Hierom. Page 246. 247. S. Peter 's Martyrdom Ioh. 21. 18. 19. Verily verily I say unto thee when thou wast young thou girdedst thy self walkedst whither thou wouldst but when thou shalt be old thou shalt stretch forth thy hands another shall gird thee carry thee whither thou wouldst not This spake he signifying by what death he should glorify God Peter had power of casting out of Devils c. and doing such miracles as the Pope pretends not to do Lastly what if the Pope affirms that he is and others account him to be St. Peter's Successor the point requires the truth there-of to be shewn Jure divino SECT V. Arg. 3. St. Peter dyed at Rome Then de Facto not de Fide Arg. 3 BEllarmine saith the Succession it self is Jure divino but the Ratio Successionis arose out of the Fact of St. Peter planting his See and dying at Rome and not from Christs first Institution Then doubts quamvis non sit c. whether this Succession be so according to his own position fortè non est de jure divino but neither shews the Succession it self to be Christs Institution at all nor proves the Tradition of Peter on which he seems to lay his stress and we may guess why he doth not Ans In short if the Succession of the Bishop of Rome be of Faith 't is so either in Jure or in Facto But neither is proved Yea the contrary is acknowledged by Bellarmine himself Not in Right because that is not certo divinum as Bellarmine confesseth Nor in Fact because before Peter's death which introduced no change in the Faith as Bellarmine also confesseth this Succession was not of Faith Indeed it is well observed that the whole weight of Bellarmine's reasoning is founded in Fact then where is the Jus divinum 2. In such fact of Peter as is not found in Scripture or can be proved any way 3. In such Fact as cannot constitute a Right either divine or humane 4. In such Fact as cannot conclude a Right in the sence of the most learned Romanists Scot. in 4. dist 24. Cordubensis lib. 4. qu. 1. Cajetan de prim pap c. 23. Bannes in 2. 2. q. 1. a. 10. who contend that the union of the Bishoprick of the City and the World is only per accidens and not Jure divino vel imperio Christi But when the uncertainty of that Fact on which the Right of so great and vast an Empire is raised is considered what further answer can be expected For is it not uncertain whether Peter were ever at Rome or whether he was ever Bishop of Rome or whether he dyed at Rome or whether Christ called him back that he might dye at Rome or whether he ordained Clement to succeed him at Rome Indeed there is little else certain about the matter but this that Peter did not derive to him that succeeded him and his Successors for ever his whole dignity and Power and a greater Authority than he had himself Jure divino But if we allow all the uncertainties mention'd to be most certain we need not fear to look the Argument with all its attendants and strength in the face Peter was Bishop of Rome was warned by Christ immediately to place his Seat at Rome to stay and dye at Rome and before he died he appointed one to succeed him in his Bishoprick at Rome Therefore the Bishops of Rome successively are universal Pastors and have supreme power over the whole Church jure divino Is not the cause rendred suspicious by such Arguments and indeed desperate that needs them and has no better SECT VI. Arg. 4. Councils Popes Fathers Arg. BEllarmine tells us boldly that the Primacy of the Roman High-Priest is proved out of the Councils the Testimonies of Popes by the consent of the Fathers both Greek and Latin Ans These great words are no Arguments the matter hath been examined under all these Topicks and not one of them proves a Supremacy of Power over the whole Church to have been anciently in the Pope much less from the beginning and jure divino especially when St. Augustine and the Greek Fathers directly opposed it as an Vsurpation A Primacy of Order is not in the question though that also was obtained by the ancient Popes only more humano an on Temporary Reasons as hath before appeared But as a learned man saith the Primacy of a Monarchical Power in the Bishop of Rome was never affirmed by any ancient Council or by any one of the ancient Fathers or so much as dreamt of and at what time afterwards the Pope took upon him to be a Monarch it should be inquired qno jure by what Right he did so whether by Divine Humane or altogether by his own i. e. no Right at all SECT VII Arg. 5. The Prevention of Schism St. Jerom. Ar. 5 A Primacy was given to Peter for preventing Schism as St. Hierom saith Now hence they urge that a mere precedency of Order is not sufficient for that Ans The Inference is not divine it is not St. Hieroms it is only for St. Peter and reacheth not the Pope Besides it plainly argues a mistake of St. Jerom's assertion and would force him to a Lib. 1. Jov. c. 14. contradiction For immediately before he teacheth that the Church is built equally on all the Apostles and that they all receive the Keys and that the firmness of the Church is equally grounded on them all so that what Primacy he meant it consisted with Equality as Monarchy cannot Therefore St. Hierom more plainly in another Epis ad Evagr place affirms that wherever there is a Bishop whether at Rome Constantinople c. Ejusdem meriti est ejusdem est Sacerdotii Again 't is neither Riches nor Poverty which makes Bishops higher or lower but they are all the Apostles Successors SECT VIII Arg. 6. Church committed to him Ar. 6 ST Chrysostom saith the Care of the Church was committed as to Peter so to his Successors Tum Petro tum c. therefore the Bishops of Rome being Successors of St. Peter in that Chair have the care and consequently the power committed to them which was committed to Peter Ans True the Care and power of a Bishop not of an Apostle or universal Monarch the commission of all other Bishops carried Care and power also But indeed this place proves not so much as that the Pope is Peter's Successor in either much less Jure divino which was the thing to be proved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 those which followed in time and place not otherwise as before SECT IX Arg. 7. One Chair Optatus Cyprian Ambrose Acacius Arg. 7 THere is one Chair saith Optatus quae prima est de Dotibus in which Peter sate first Linus succeeded him and Clemens Linus Optatus speaks nothing against the Title or power
of other Chairs or for the preheminence of power in this one Chair above the rest He intended not to exclude the other Apostolical Seats from the honour or power of Chairs For he saith as well that James sate at Jerusalem and John at Ephesus as that Peter sate at Rome which Tertullian calls Apostolicas Cathedras all presiding in their own places De praescrip c. 36. 'T is most evident that Optatus calls the Chair of Peter one not because of any Superiority over other Apostolical Chairs but because of the Vnity of the Catholick Church in opposition to the Donatists who set up another Chair in opposiion Altare contra Altare to the Catholick Church Bellarmine well observes that Optatus followed the doctrine of St. Cyprian who said there is but one Church one Chair c. And out of St. Cyprian himself his meaning therein is manifest Cyprian to be no other than a specifical not numerical Unity He tells us plainly in the same place that the other Apostles were the same with Peter equal in honour and power He teacheth that the one Bishoprick is dispersed consisting of the unanimous multitude of many Bishops that the Bishoprick is but one a portion whereof is wholly and fully Head of every Bishop So there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church i. e. all Bishops ought to be one in Faith and Fellowship Vid. Cypr. de Vnit Eccles lib. 3. Epis 11. But is it not prodigious that men should build the Pope's Dominion upon the Doctrine of Saint Cyprian and Optatus The latter tells us roundly that whosoever is without the Communion of seven Churches of Asia is an Alien in effect calling the Pope Infidel and Saint Cyprian is well known to have always stiled Pope Cornelius Brother to have severely censured his Successor Pope Stephen contradicting his Decrees opposing the Roman Councils disclaiming the Pope's Power of Appeals and contemning his Excommunications A Council at Africk under Saint Cyprian as another wherein Saint Augustine sate rejected and condemned the Jurisdiction of the Pope over them as is frequently observed and why do men endeavour to blind the World with a few words of these great Fathers contrary to the known Language of their Actions and course of Life The sence of the words may be disputed but when it came to a Tryal their deeds are known to have shewed their mind beyond all dispute For Instance Ambrose calls Pope Damascus Ambr. Rector of the whole Church yet 't is known that he would never yield his Sences to the Law of Rome about Easter lib. 3. de sacr c. 1. for which the Church of Milain was called the Church of Ambrose 670 years after his death when the Clergy of Milain withstood the Legate of Leo 9. saying the Church of Ambrose had been always free and never yet subject to the Laws of the Pope of Rome as Baron notes An. 1059. Nu. 46. Many other Aiery Titles and Courtly Addresses given to the Pope in the Writings of the Fathers we have observed before to carry some Colour for a Primacy of Order but no wise man can imagine that they are an Evidence or Ground much less a formal Grant of Vniversal Dominion seeing scarce one of them but is in some of the Fathers and usually by the same Fathers given as well to the other Apostles and to other Bishops as to Peter and the Pope and so unfortunate is Bellarmine in his Instances that usually the very same place carries its Confutation It is strange that so great a Wit should so egregiously bewray it self to bring in Acacius Bishop of Constantinople submitting as it were the Eastern Church to the See of Rome because in his Epistle to Pope Simplicius he tells him he hath the care of all the Churches for what one Bishop of those times could have been worse pitch'd upon for his purpose who ever opposed himself more fiercely against the Jurisdiction of the Pope than Acacius who more boldly rejected his Commands than this Patriarch or stands in greater opposition to Rome in all History yet Acacius must be the Instance of an Eastern Patriarch's Recognition of the An. 478. n. 3. An. 483. n. 78. An. 484. n. 17. As they say See of Rome Acacius phrenesi abreptus as Baronius hath it adversus Rom. Pontificem Violenter insurgit Acacius that Received those whom the Pope Damn'd Acacius Excommunicated by the Pope and the very Head of the Eastern Schism this is the man that must witness the Pope's Supremacy against himself and his own and his Churches famous Cause and this by saying in a Letter to the Pope himself that he had the care of all Churches a Title given to Saint Paul in the days of Peter to Athanasius in the time of Pope Julius to the Bishops of France in time of Pope Elutherius and to Zecharias an Arch-Bishop by Pope John the first but conferred no Monarchy upon any of them I do not remember that I have yet mentioned the Titles of Summus Pontifex and Pontifex Sum. max. Pontifex Maximus which are also said to carry the Pope's Supremacy in them but it is impossible any wise man can think so Azor. Jesuit acknowledgeth these terms may have a Negative Sence only and Baronius saith they do admit Equality In this Sence Pope Clemens called Saint James Bishop of Bishops and Pope Epis 88 Leo stiled all Bishops Summos Pontifices and the Bishops of the East write to the Patriarch of Constantinople under the Title of Universal Patriarch and call themselves Chief Priests Epist ad Tharasiam c. SECT X. The Conclusion touching the Fathers Reasons why no more of them A Challenge touching them No Consent of Fathers in the Point Evident in General Councils Reasons of it Rome 's contradiction of Faith Pope Schism Perjury c. I Was almost tempted to have gone through with a particular Examination of all the Titles and Phrases which Bellarmine hath with too much Vanity gathered out of the Fathers both Greek and Latine on behalf of the Pope's Supremacy But considering they are most of them very frivilous and impertinent and that I conceive I have not omitted any one that can be soberly thought material and that all of them have been frequently answered by Learned Protestants and very few of them so answered thought fit to be replied to by our Adversaries I thought it prudent to excuse that very needless exercise and I hope none will account me blame-worthy for it but if any do so I offer Compensation by this humble Challenge upon mature deliberation If any one or more places in any of the A Challenge Ancient Fathers Greek or Latin shall be chosen by any sober Adversary and argued from as Evidence of the Pope's Supremacy as Successor to Saint Peter God giving me life and health I shall appear and undertake the Combate with weapons extant in our English Writers though they may not think that one
or two or more passages out of single Fathers are sufficient to bear away the Cause in so great a Point seeing they themselves will not suffer the Testimony of many of the same Fathers to carry it for us in a Point of the least Concernment In the mean time I most confidently conclude that the Pope's Supremacy hath not the Consent of the Primitive Fathers as Bellarmine boasts and that what ever he would have them say they did not believe and therefore not intend to say that the Pope was absolute Monarch of the Catholick Church and consequently that there was no such Tradition in the Primitive Ages either before or during the time of the eight first General Councils is to me a Demonstration evident for these Reasons Reas 1 The eight first General Councils being all Called and Convened by the Authority of Emperors stand upon Record as a notable Monument of the former Ages of the Catholick Church in prejudice to the Papal Monarchy as Saint Peter's Successor in those times the first eight General Councils saith Cusanus were gathered Concord Cathol l. 2. c. 25. by Authority of Emperors and not of Popes insomuch that Pope Leo was glad to entreat the Emperor Theodosius the younger for the gathering of a Council in Italy and non obtinuit could not obtain it Reas 2 Every one of these Councils opposed this pretended Monarchy of the Pope the first by stating the limits of the Roman Diocess as well as other Patriarchates the second by concluding the Roman Primacy not to be grounded upon Divine Authority and setting up a Partriarch of Constantinople against the Pope's Will the third by inhibiting any Bishop whatsoeve to ordain Bishops within the Isle of Cyprus the fourth by advancing the Bishop of Constantinople to equal priviledges with the Bishop of Rome notwithstanding the Pope's earnest opposition against it the fifth in condemning the Sentence of Pope Vigilius although very vehement in the cause the sixth and seventh in condemning Pope Honorius of Heresie and the eight and last by imposing a Canon upon the Church of Rome and challenging obedience thereunto Reas 3 This must pass for the unquestionable Sence of the Catholick Church in those Ages viz. for the space of above 540 years together from the first General Council of Nice for our Adversaries themselves stile every one of the General Councils the Catholick Church and what was their Belief was the Faith of the whole Church and what their belief was hath appeared viz. that the Pope had not absolute power over the Church Jure Divino an Opinion abhorred by their contrary Sentences and practises Reas 4 'T is observed by a Learned man that the Fathers which flourished in all those eight Councils were in Number 2280. how few Friends 2280 Fathers had the Pope left to equal and Countermand them or what Authority had they to do it yea name one eminent Father either Greek or Latine that you count a Friend to the Pope and in those Ages whose name we cannot shew you in one of those Councils if so hear the Church the Judgment of single Fathers is not to be received against their Joint Sentences and Acts in Councils 't is your own Law now where is the Argument for the Pope's Authority from the Fathers they are not to be believ'd against Councils they spake their Sence in this very Point as you have heard in the Councils and in all the Councils rejected and condemned it Reas 5 The belief of these eight General Councils is the professed Faith of the Roman Church Therefore the Roman Church hath been involved Rome's contradiction of Faith and entangled at least ever since the Council of Trent in the Confusion and Contradiction of Faith and that in Points necessary to Salvation For the Roman Church hold it necessary to Salvation to believe all the eight General Councils as the very Faith of the Catholick Church and we have found all these Councils have one way or other declared plainly against the Pope's Bull. Pii 4. Supremacy and yet the same Church holds it necessary to Salvation to believe the contrary by the Council of Trent viz. that the Pope is Supreme Bishop and absolute Monarch of the Catholick Church Some Adversaries would deal more severely Rome's Heresie with the Church of Rome upon this Point and charge her with Heresie in this as well as in many other Articles for there is a Repugnancy in the Roman Faith that seems to infer no less than Heresie one way or other he that believes the Article of the Pope's Supremacy denies in effect the eight first General Councils at least in that Point and that 's Heresie And he that believes the Council of Trent believes the Article of the Pope's Supremacy therefore he that believes the Council of Trent does not believe the eight first General Councils and is guilty of Heresie Again he that believes that the Pope is not Supreme denies the Council of Trent and the Faith of the present Church and that 's Heresie and he that believes the eight first general Councils believes that the Pope is not Supreme therefore he denies the Council of Trent and the Faith of the present Church and is an Heretick with a witness 'T is well if the Argument conclude here c. Infidelity and extend not its Consequence to the charge of Infidelity as well as Heresie upon the present Roman Church seeing this Repugnancy in the Roman Faith seems to destroy it altogether for He that believes the Pope's Supremacy in the Sence of the Modern Church of Rome denies the Faith of the Ancient Church in that point and he that believes it not denies the Faith of the present Church and the present Church of Rome that professeth both believes neither These contrary Faiths put together like two contrary Salts mutually destroy one another He that believes that doth not believe this he that believes this doth not believe that Therefore he that professeth to believe both doth plainly profess he believes neither Load not others with the crimes of Heresie and Infidelity but Pull the beams out of your own eye Reas 6 But the charge falls heavier upon the Head of Popes Schism and Perjury the present Roman Church For not only Heresie and Infidelity but Schism and the foulest that ever the Church groaned under and such as the greatest Wit can hardly distinguish from Apostacy and all aggravated with the horrid crime of direct and self-condemning Perjury fasten themselves to his Holiness's Chair from the very constitution of the Papacy it self For the Pope as such professeth to believe and sweareth to govern the Church according to the Canons of the 8 first general Councils yet openly Greg. â— Bin. To. 3. p. 1196. Innoc. 3. Boâ—if 8. Catechis Ro. Nu. 10 11 and 13. claims and professedly practiseth a Power condemned by them all Thus Quatenus Pope he stands guilty of separation from the Ancient Church
400 Bishops denied him Obj. This Decree was not lawfully proceeded in because the Legates of the Pope were absent Bel. l. 2. de Pont. c. 22. Ans The Legates were there the next day and excepted and moved to have the Acts of the day before read Aetius for the Council sheweth that the Legates knew what was done all was done Canonically Then the Acts being read the Popes Legates tell the Council that Circumvention was used in making that Canon of Priviledges and that the Bishops were compelled thereunto The Synod with a loud voice cryed Joyntly we were not compelled to subscribe After every one severally protest I did subscribe willingly and freely and the Acts are ratified and declared to be just and valid and wherein say they we will persist the Legates are instant to have the Act revoked because the Apostolical See is humbled or abased thereto the Fathers unanimously answered the whole Synod doth approve it This clear account we have in Bin. in Concil Calced Act. 16. p. 134 and 137. Bellarmine saith that the Pope approved all the Decrees of this Council which were de fide and doth not Bellarmine argue that the Popes Superiority is Jure divino and the present Church of Rome hold that his Supremacy is a point necessary to Salvation How comes it to pass that he would not approve this Decree or how can they esteem this Council general and lawful and swear to observe the decrees of it when 't is found guilty of Heresie in so great a point as the Popes Primacy But to end with this the very Title it self of Bishop of the Vniversal Church in the stile of those Ages signified certainly neither Supremacy nor Primacy Vniversal Bishop of the Church seem'd a dangerous Title importing universal Power over it and was therefore so much abhorred by Pope Gregory But the Title of Bishop of the Vniversal Church signified the care of the whole Church to which as Origen saith every Bishop is called Therefore Aurelius Fortunatianus Augustine are called Bishops of the Vniversal Church and many in the Greek Church had the same honourable Titles given them which signified either that they professed the Catholick Faith or as Bishops had a general regard to the good of the Catholick Church But your own Jesuite confesseth that Pelagius Azorius and Gregory both Popes have born witness that no Bishop of Rome before them did ever use the Stile of Vniversal Bishops However Vniversal Patriarch makes as great a sound as Universal Bishop yet that Title was given to John Bishop of Constantinople by the Bishops of Syria Cod. Authent Constitu 3. Obj. The custody of the Vine i. e. the whole Church the Council saith is committed to the Bell. de Pont. l. 2. c. 13. Pope by God Ans True so that Primitive Pope Elutherius said to the Bishops in France the whole Catholick Church Bin. Epist Eleuth is committed to you St. Paul also had the care of all the Churches but that is high which Greg. Nazian saith of Athanasius that he having the presidence of the Church of Alexandria may be said thereby to have the Government of the whole Christian World Sal. Tom. 16. in 1 Pet. 5. Now saith a Learned man we are compelled to ask with what Conscience you could make such Objections Bishop Morton in good carnest to busie your Adversaries and seduce your Disciples withal whereunto you your selves could so easily make answer Obj. We find no further objection against the other Councils worthy Notice Bellarmine argues the Popes Supremacy because the Synod of Const being the Fifth General Council complemented the Pope as his Obedient Servants nos inquit Praeses Apostolicam Sedem sequimur obedimus c. Bell. lib. 2. de pont c. 13. Though this very Council both opposed accused and condemned the Pope for Heresie which could not possibly consist with their acknowledgment of his Supremacy or Infallibility The same is more evident in the sixth seventh and eighth General Councils condemning the Persons and Judgments of and giving Laws to the Bishops of Rome to which nothing material can be objected but what hath been more than answered Binius indeed in his Tract de Prim. Eccl. Rom. gives us the sayings of many ancient Popes for the Supremacy pretended especially in two points The Power of Appeals challenged by Pope Anacetus Zepherinus Fabianus Sixtus and Symachus and Exemption of the first See from censure or judgment by any other power claimed by Pope Sylvester and Gelasius But these are Testimonies of Popes themselves in their own cause and besides both these points have been found so directly and industriously determined otherwise by their own General Councils that further answer is needless CONCLUSION THus Objections being removed the Argument from the Councils settles firm in its full strength and seeing both the ancient Fathers and the Catholick Church have left us their sence in the said Councils and the sence of the Councils is also the received and professed faith of the present Church of Rome it self who can deny that the Catholick Church to this day hath not only not granted or acknowledged but even most plainly condemned the pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome Yea who can doubt but our Argument against it is founded upon their own Rock the very constitution of the Papacy it self as before hath appeared Therefore the Popes claim upon this Plea as well as upon any or all the former is found groundless and England's Deliverance from his foreign Jurisdiction just and honest as well as happy Which our good God in his wise and merciful Providence ever Continue Preserve and Prosper Amen Amen A Serious ALARM to all sorts of ENGLISH-MEN against POPERY from Sence and Conscience their OATHS and their INTEREST 1. THe Kings of England seem bound not only by their Title but in Conscience of their Ministry under God to defend the Faith and the Church of Christ within their Dominions against Corruption and Invasion and therefore against Popery They are also bound in Honour Interest and Fidelity to preserve the Inheritance and Rights of the Crown and to derive them entire to their Heirs and Successors and therefore to keep out the Papal Authority And lastly 't is said they are bound by their Oaths at their Coronation and by the Laws of Nature and Government to maintain the Liberties and Customs of their people and to govern them according to the Laws of the Realm and consequently not to admit the foreign Jurisdiction of the Pope in prejudice of our ancient Constitution our common and Ecclesiastical Laws our natural and legal Liberties and Properties 2. The Nobility of England have anciently held themselves bound not only in honour but by their Oaths Terras honores Regis c. to preserve together with the King the Territories and honours of the King omni fidelitate ubique most faithfully and to defend them against Enemies and Foreigners meaning especially the Pope
of Rome 'T is expressed more fully in their Letter to the Pope himself in Edw. 1. Reign to defend the Inheritance and Prerogative of the Crown the State of the Realm the Liberties Customs and Laws of their Progenitors against all foreign Usurpation toto posse totis viribus to the utmost of their power and with all their might adding We do not permit or in the least will permit sicut nec possumus nec debemus though our Soveraign Lord the King do or in the least wise attempt to do any of the Premises viz. owning the Authority of the Pope by his answer touching his Right to Scotland so strange so unlawful prejudicial and otherwise unheard of though the King would himself See that famous Letter sent to the Pope the 29 of Edw. 1. taken out of Cor. Christi College-Library and printed this year at Oxford the reading of which gave the occasion of these Meditations 3. It appears further in the Sheet where you have that Letter that the Commons in Parliament have heretofore held themselves bound to resist the invasion and attempts of the Pope upon England though the King and the Peers should connive at them their words are resolute Si Dominus Rex Regni majores hoc vellent meaning Bishop Adomers Revocation from Banishment upon the Popes order Communitas tamen ipsius ingressum in Angliam nullatenus sustineret This is said to be recorded about the 44 of Hen. 3. 4. It is there observed also that upon the Conquest William the Conquerour made all the Freeholders of England to become sworn Brethren sworn to defend the Monarchy with their Persons and Estates to the utmost of their Ability and manfully to preserve it So that the whole Body of the people as well as the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament stood anciently bound by their Oath to defend their King and their Country against Invasion and Usurpation 5. The present Constitution of this Kingdom is yet a stronger Bulwark against Popery Heretofore indeed the Papal pretensions were checkt sometimes in temporal sometimes in spiritual concerns and Instances But upon the Reformation the Popes Supremacy was altogether and at once rejected and thrown out of England and the consequence is an universal standing obligation upon the whole Kingdom by Statutes Customs and most solemn Oaths to defend our Monarchy our Church our Country and our Posterity against those Incroachments and that Thraldom from which we were then so wonderfully delivered and for this hundred years have been so miraculously preserved blessed be God Accordingly in our present Laws both the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Supremacy is declared to be inherent in the Crown and our Kings are sworn to maintain and govern by those Laws And I doubt not but all Ministers of the Church and all Ministers of State and of Law and War all Mayors and Officers in Cities and Towns corporate c. together with all the Sheriffs and other Officers in their several Countries and even all that have received either Trust or power from his Majesty within the Kingdom All these I say I suppose are sworn to defend the King's Supremacy as it is inconsistent with and in flat opposition to Popery In the Oath of Allegiance we swear to bear true Allegiance to the King and to defend him against all Conspiracies and Attempts which shall be made against his Person and Crown to the utmost of our power meaning especially the Conspiracies and Attempts of Papists as is plain by that which follows in that Oath and yet more plain by the Oath of Supremacy In which Oath we swear that the King is the only Supreme Governor in this Realm as well in all spiritual things and causes as temporal and that no foreign Prince or Prelate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within this Realm and that we do abhor and renounce all such We swear also that we will bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King and to our power assist and defend all Jurisdictions viz. Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal granted or belonging to the Kings Highness 6. Now next to Oaths nothing can be thought to oblige us more than Interest But if neither Oaths nor Interest neither Conscience nor Nature neither Religion nor self-Preservation can provoke us to our own defence what remains but a certain fearful expectation of judgment to devour a perjur'd and senseless Generation If either our joynt or several Interests be considerable how are we all concern'd 1. Is there any among us that care for nothing but Liberty and Mony they should resist Popery which would many ways deprive them of both 2. But if the knowledge of the Truth if the Canon of life in the holy Scriptures if our Prayers in our own tongue if the Simplicity of the Gospel the purity of Worship and the Integrity of Sacraments be things valuable and dear to Christians let them abhor Popery 3. If the ancient Priviledges of the Brittish Church the Independency of her Government upon Foreign Jurisdiction if their legal Incumbencies their Ecclesiastical Dignities if their opportunities and capacities of saving Souls in the continuance of their Ministries if their judgment of discretion touching their Doctrine and Administrations their judgment of Faith Reason and Sence touching the Eucharist if exemption from unreasonable impositions of strange Doctrines Romish Customs groundless Traditions and Treasonable Oaths And lastly if freedom from spiritual Tyranny and bloody Inquisitions if all these be of consequence to Clergy-men let them oppose Popery 4. If our Judges and their several Courts of Judicature would preserve their Legal proceedings and judgments and decrees if they would not be controlled and superseded by Bulls Sentences and Decrees from the Pope and Appeals to Rome let them never yield to Popery 5. If the Famous Nobility and Gentry of England would appear like themselves and their heroick Ancestors in the defence of the Rights of their Country the Laws and customs of the Land the Wealth of the people the Liberties of the Church the Empire of Brittain and the grandeur of their King or indeed their own honour and Estates in a great measure let them never endure the re-admission of Popery 6. Yea let our great Ministers of State and of Law and of War consider that they stand not firm enough in their high and envied places if the Roman Force breaks in upon us and remember that had the late bloody and barbarous design taken effect one consequence of it was to put their places into other hands And therefore in this capacity as well as many other they have no reason to be Friends to Popery 7. As for His Most Excellent Majesty no suspicion either of inclination to or want of due vigilance against Popery can fasten upon him and may he long live in the Enjoyment and under a worthy Sence of the Royalties of Monarchy and the honour and exercise of his Natural and Legal Supremacy in all Causes and over all
Persons within his Dominions both Civil and Ecclesiastical his Paternal Inheritance of Empire and at last leave it intirely to his Heirs and Successors upon Earth for a more glorious Crown in Heaven And in the mean time may he defend the Faith of Christ his own Prerogative the Rights Priviledges and Liberties and Estates of his People and the defensive Laws and Customs of his Royal Progenitors And therefore may he ever manage his Government both with Power Care and Caution in opposition to the force and detection and destruction of the hellish Arts and traiterous designs and attempts of Popery 8. I Conclude that if the precious things already mentioned and many more be in evident danger with the Return of Popery let us again consider our Oaths as well as our Interest and that we have the Bond of God upon our Souls and as the Conquerors words are we are Jurati Fratres we are sworn to God our King and Country to preserve and defend the things so endangered against all foreign Invasion and Usurpation i. e. against Popery Accordingly may our Excellent King and his Councils and Ministers may the Peers of the Realm and the Commons in Parliament may the Nobility and Gentry may the Judges and Lawyers may the Cities and the Country the Church and State and all Ranks and Degrees of Men amongst us may we all under a just Sense both of our Interest and our Oaths may we all as one man with one heart stand up resolved by all means possible to keep out Popery and to subvert all grounds of Fear of its Return upon England for ever Amen Amen Origen Cont. Cels l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is fit that the Governor of the Church of each City should Correspond to the Governor of those which are in the City Praesumi malam fidem ex Antiquiore Adversarii possessione Leg. Civil Ad transmarina Concilia qui putaverint appellandum a nullo intra Africam in communionem recipiantur Concil Milevitan THE OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE AND SUPREMACY The Oath of ALLEGIANCE I A. B. Do truly and sincerely acknowledge profess testifie and declare in my Conscience before God and the World that our Soveraign Lord King Charles is Lawful and Rightful King of this Realm and of all other his Majesties Dominions and Countries And that the Pope neither of himself nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome or by any other means with any other hath any Power or Authority to depose the King or to dispose any of his Majesties Kingdoms or Dominions or to Authorize any Foreign Prince to Invade or Annoy Him or his Countries or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to his Majesty or to give License or leave to any of them to bear Arms raise Tumults or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesties Royal Person State or Government or to any of his Majesties Subjects within his Majesties Dominions Also I do swear from my Heart that notwithstanding any Declaration or Sentence of Excommunication or Deprivation made or granted or to be made or granted by the Pope or his Successors or by any Authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or his See against the said King his Heirs or Successors or any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty his Heirs and Successors and Him and Them will defend to the uttermost of my power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever which shall be made against his or their Persons their Crown and Dignity by reason or colour of any such Sentence or Declaration or otherwise and will do my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty his Heirs and Successors all Treasons and Traiterous Conspiracies which I shall know or hear of to be against Him or any of them And I do further swear That I do from my heart abhor detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable Doctrine and Position That Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope may be Deposed or Murthered by their Subjects or any other whatsoever And I do believe and in Conscience am resolved That neither the Pope nor any person whatsoever hath power to absolve me of this Oath or any part thereof which I acknowledge by good and full Authority to be lawfully Administred unto me and do Renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrary And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and Swear according to these express words by me spoken and according to the plain and common sence and understanding of the same words without any Equivocation or mental Evasion or secret Reservation whatsoever And I do make this Recognition and Acknowledgment heartily willingly and truly upon the true Faith of a Christian So help me God c. The Oath of SUPREMACY I A. B. Do utterly testifie and declare in my Conscience That the Kings Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes as Temporal And that no Foreign Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Pre-eminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all Foreign Jurisdictions Powers Superiorities and Authorities and do promise from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the Kings Highness his Heirs and lawful Successors and to my Power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preeminences and Authorities granted or belonging to the Kings Highness his Heirs and Successors or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm So help me God and by the Contents of this Book THE END A Catalogue of some Books Reprinted and of other New Books Printed since the Fire and sold by R. Royston viz. Books Written by H. Hammond D. D. A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament in Folio Fourth Edition The Works of the said Reverend and Learned Author containing a Collection of Discourses chiefly Practical with many Additions and Corrections from the Author 's own hand together with the Life of the Author enlarged by the Reverend Dr. Fell now Bishop of Oxford In large Fol. Books written by Jer. Taylor D. D. and late Lord Bishop of Down and Connor Ductor Dubitantium or The Rule of Conscience in Five Books in Fol. The Great Exemplar or The Life and Death of the Holy Jesus in Fol. with Figures suitable to every Story ingrav'd in Coper whereunto is added the Lives and Martyrdoms of the Apostles by Will. Cave D. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or A Collection of Polemical Discourses addressed against the enemies of the Church of England both Papists and Fanaticks in large Fol. The Third Edition The Rules and Exercises of holy Living and holy Dying The Eleventh Edition newly
Apostle too blame to say there must be Heresics or Divisions among you and not to tell them there must be an Infallible Judge among you and no Heresies but now men are wiser and of another mind To conclude whether we regard the Truth or Vnity of the Church both Reason and Sence assures us that this Infallibility signifies nothing for as to Truth 't is impossible men should give up their Faith and Conscience and inward apprehension of things to the Sentence of any one man or all the men in the World against their own Reason and for Vnity there is no colour or shadow of pretence against it but that the Authority of Ecclesiastical Government can preserve it as well without as with Infallibility But if there be any Sence in the Argument methinks 't is better thus the Head and Governour of the Christian Church must of necessity be Infallible but the Pope is not Infallible ' either by Scripture Tradition or Reason therefore the Pope is not the Head and Governour of the Christian Church CHAP. XVIII Of the Pope's Universal Pastorship its Right divine or humane this Civil or Ecclesiastical all examined Constantine King John Justinian Phocas WE have found some flaws in the pretended Title of the Pope as our Converter Patriarch Possessor and as the Subject of Infallibility his last and greatest Argument is his Vniversal Pastorship and indeed if it be proved that he is the Pastor of the whole Church of Christ on Earth he is ours also and we cannot withdraw our obedience from him without the guilt of that which is charged upon us viz. Schism if his Commands be justifiable but if the proof of this fail also we are acquitted This Right of the Pope's Universal Pastorship is divine or humane if at all both are pretended and are to be examined The Bishop of Calcedon is very indifferent and reasonable as to the Original if the Right be granted 't is not de fide to believe whether it come from God or no. If the Pope be Universal Pastor Jure humano only his Title is either from Civil or from Ecclesiastical Power and least we should err Fundamentally we shall consider the pretenses from both If it be said that the Civil Power hath conferred this honour upon the Pope may it not be questioned whether the Civil Powers of the World extend so far as either to dispose of the Government of the Church or to subject all the Churches under one Pastor However de facto when was this done when did the Kings of England in Conjunction with the Rulers of the whole World make such a Grant to the Pope I think the World hath been ashamed of the Const donat Donation of Constantine long agon yet that no shadow may remain unscattered we shall briefly take an account of it They say Constantine the third day after he was baptized left all the West part of the Empire to Pope Sylvester and went himself to dwell at Constantinople and gave the whole Imperial and Civil Dominion of Rome and all the Western Kingdoms to the Pope and his Successors for ever A large Boon indeed this looks as if it was intended that the Pope should be an Emperor but who makes him Vniversal Pastor and who ever since hath bequeathed the Eastern World to him either as Pastor or Emperor for it should seem that part Constantine then kept for himself But Mr. Harding throws off all these little Cavils and with sufficient Evidence out of Math. Hieromonachus a Greek Author shews the very Words of the Decree which carry it for the Pope as well in Ecclesiastical as Civil Advantages they are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We decree and give in charge to all Lords and to the Senate of our Empire that the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter chief of the Apostles have Authority and Power in all the World greater than that of the Empire that he have more honour than the Emperor and that he be Head of the four Patriarchal Seats and that matters of Faith be by him determined this is the Charter whereby some think the Pope hath Power saith De potest Pap. c. 19. Harveus as Lord of the whole World to set up and pull down Kings 'T is confessed this Grant is not pleaded lately with any Confidence Indeed Bishop Jewel did check it early when he shewed Harding the wisest and best among the Papists have openly disproved it such as Platina Cusanus Petavius Laurent Valla Antoninus Florentinus and a great many more Cardinal Cusanus hath these words Donationem Constantini dilligenter expendens c. Carefully weighing this Grant of Constantine even Conc. Cath. lib. 3. c. 2. in the very penning thereof I find manifest Arguments of Forgery and Falshood 'T is not found in the Register of Gratian that is in the allowed Original Text though it be indeed in the Palea of some Books yet that Palea is not read in the Schools and of it Pope Pius himself said dicta Palea Constantinus Pius 2. dial falsa est and inveighs against the Canonists that dispute an valuâ—rit id quod nunquam fuit and those that speak most favourably of it confess that it is as true that Vox Angelorum Audita est that at the same time the voice of Angels was heard in the Air saying hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam Much more to the discountenance of this vain Story you have in Bishop Jewel's Defence P. 537 538. 539. which to my observation was never since answered to him therefore I refer my Reader But alas if Constantine had made such a Grant Pope Pipus tells us it was a question among the very Canonists an valuerit and the whole World besides must judge the Grant void in it self especially after Constantine's time Had Satan's Grant been good to our Saviour if he had faln down and worshipped him no more had Constantine's pardon the comparison for in other things he shewed great and worthy zeal for the flourishing Grandeur of the Church of Christ though by this he had as was said given nothing but poyson to it for the Empire of the World and the Vniversal Pastorship of the Church was not Constantine's to give to the Pope and his Successors for ever Arg. 2 King John But it is urged nearer home that King John delivered up his Crown to the Pope and received it again as his Gift 'T is true but this Act of present fear could not be construed a Grant of Right to the Pope if King John gave away any thing it was neither the Power of making Laws for England nor the exercise of any Jurisdiction in England that he had not before for he only acknowledged unworthily the Pope's Power but pretended not to give him such Power to confer the Crown for ever much less to make him Supreme Disposer of our English Church But if our Constitution be considered how