Reasons answered the Point argued Retorted p 177 CHAP. XVIII The Vniversal Pastorship its Right Divine or Humane this Civil or Ecclesiastical all examined Constantine King John Justinian Phocas c. p. 182. as to Civil Right CHAP. XIX His Ecclesiastical Right by General Councils the eight first to which he is sworn Justinians Sanction of them Canons Apostol allowed by the Council of Nice and Ephesus p. 190 Sect. 1. Canons of the Apostles p. 194 Sect. 2. 1. General Council of Nice Bellarmine's Evasion p. 195 Sect. 3. Concil 2 gen Constantinop An. 381. p. 196 Sect. 4. Concil Ephesin 3 gen An. 431. p. 197 Sect. 5. Concil Calced 4 gen An. 451. p. 199 Sect. 6. Concil Constantin 2. the fifth gen Council An. 553. p. 202 Sect 7. Concil Constant 6 gen An. 681. v. 685. Concil Nic. 7 gen An. 781. p. 203 Sect. 8 Concil gen â— Constant An. 870. p. 204 Seuen Conclusions from Councils p. 205 Sect. 9. Of the Latine Church the Councils of Constance Basil c. An. 1415. 1431. p. 206 Sect. 10. The Greek Church African Canons Synod Carthag Concil Antiochen the faith of the Greek Church since in the Point p. 208 c. Sect. 11. The Sardican Canons No Grant from their matter manner or Authority No Appendix to the Council of Nice Zozimus his Forgery they were never Ratified nor received as Vniversal and were contradicted by after Councils p. 212 CHAP. XX. The Pope's Title by Divine Right The Question Why not sooner 'T is their last Refuge p. 217 Sect. 1. Whether the Government of the Church be Monarchical Jure Divino Bellarmine Reason Scripture p. 218 Promises Metaphors and Example of the High Priest in Scripture p 221 Sect. 2. Of St. Peter's Monarchy Tâ—â—eâ— Petrus p. 223 Fathers Expressions of it p 228 Fathers corrupted and Council of Calcedon by Thomas p. 230 c. CHAP. XXI Of the Pope's Succession p 237 Sect. 1. Whether the Primacy descended to the Bishop of Rome as such by Succession from Saint Peter Neg. Bellar 28 Prerogatives of Saint Peter personal or false p. 238 239 c. Application of this Section p. 241 By three great Inferences the Pope's Ancient Primacy not that of Saint Peter not Jure Divino not to descend to succeeding Popes Sect. 2. Whether the Pope have Supremacy as Successor to Saint Peter Neg. not Primate as such Peter himself not Supreme the Pope did not succeed him at all p. 244 Sect. 3. Arg. 1. Peter Assign'd it to the Pope answered p. 245 Sect. 4. Arg. 2. The Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter because Antioch did not answered p. 246 Sect. 5. Arg. 3. Saint Peter died at Rome answered question de facto not de fide p. 247 Sect. 6. Arg. 4. From Councils Popes Fathers p. 249 Sect. 7. Arg. 5. For prevention of Schism Saint Hierom. p. 250 Sect. 8. Arg. 6. The Church committed to his care Saint Chrysostom p. 251 Sect. 9. Arg. 7. One Chair Optatus Cyprian Ambrose Acatius ibid. Sect 10. The Conclusion touching the Fathers Reasons why we are not more particular about them A Challenge touching them there cannot be a Consent of the the Fathers for the Papacy as is evident from the General Councils Reasons for it Rome's contradiction of faith the Pope's Schism Perjury c. p. 255 c. The Sum of the whole matter a Touch of another Treatise the material Cause of Separation p. 261 THE POSCRIPT Objections touching the first General Councils and our Arguments from them answered more fully SECT 1. THE Argument from Councils drawn up 't is conclusive of the Fathers and the Catholick Church p. 263 SECT 2. Obj. Touching the Council of Nice answered p. 267 SECT 3. Obj. Touching the Council of Constant Second General p. 269 SECT 4. The third General Council viz. Ephesin p. 272 SECT 5. Of the Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eighth General Councils Binius his quotations of Ancient Popes considered p. 274 Conclusion p. 279 AN APPENDIX A Serious Alarm to all sorts of Englishmen against Popery from Sense and Conscience their Oaths and their Interests p. 281 The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy p. 289 ERRATA PAge 6. line 7. for and the read and though p. 136. l. 13. add ' t is observed that p. 137. l. 23. blot out and the abundant p. 138. l. 5. add of before the grievances p. 147. l. 17. before the word evacuate add not p. 164. l. 24. for is r. are p. 175. l. 10. for his messenger r. the Popes messenger p. 177. after Sentence add with the Fathers was ever taken p. 205. l. 22. after the word Faith add of the Church p. 213. l. 31. for they r. these Canons p. 227. l 34. for Kingdoms r. the Kingdom p. 235. l. 1. for are r. are not The Printer to the Reader THe absence of the Author and his inconvenient distance from London hath occasioned some lesser escapes in the Impression of this Book The Printer thinks it the best instance of pardon if his Escapes be not laid upon the Author and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary understanding may amend and a little charity may forgive THE INTRODUCTION The Design The Controversie Contracted into one Point viz. SCHISM THE Church of England hath been long possest both of her self and the true Religion and counts it no necessary part of that Religion to molest or censure any other Church Yet she cannot be quiet but is still vext and clamour'd with unwearied outcries of Heresie and Schism from the Church of Rome provoking her defence The Ball hath been tossed as well by cunning as learned Hands ever since the Reformation and 't is complained that by weak and impertinent Allegations tedious Altercations unnecessary Excursions and much Sophistry needlesly lengthening and obscuring the controversie it is in danger to be lost After so great and so long exercises of the best Champions on both sides 't is not to be expected that any great Advance should be made on either Yet how desirable is it that at length the true difference were clearly stated and the Arguments stript of their said Cumber and presented to us in their proper Evidence and the controversie so reduced that the World might perceive where we are and doubtful inquirers after Truth and the safest Religion might satisfie their Consciences and fix their Practice This is in some measure the Ambition of the present Essay In order to it we have observed that the Shop out of which all the Arms both Offensive and Defensive on both sides are fetched is Schism and the whole Controversie is truly contracted into that one Point which will appear by two things 1. By the State of the allowed Nature of Schism 2. By the Application of it so explain'd CHAP. I. The Definition of SCHISM SECT 1. Of the Act of Schism THat we may lie open to their full Charge we lay the Notion in as great a Latitude as I think our Adversaries themselves would have it
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 himself observes Tom. 4. p. 489. So true is it that Maldonate and Prateolus Mald. in Math. 10. 2. Prate in Haer. Tit. Grae. Vid. St. Aug. To. 2. Epist 162. acknowledge and Record the Greek Church always disliked the Supreme Dignity of the Pope and would never obey his Decrees To conclude the Law of the Greeks hath always been against the Pope's Supremacy the Fundamental Law was a prohibition of Appeals to Rome therefore that Church acknowledged no absolute Subjection to Rome 2. They excommunicate all African Priests Appealing to Rome therefore they held no necessity of Vnion with Rome 3. They excommunicate all such qui putaverint as should but think it lawful to Appeal to Rome therefore they had no Faith of the necessity of either Vnion or Subjection to the Church of Rome Enough to the Pope's prejudice from the Councils of all sorts we must in the foot of the account mind our Adversaries that we have found no colour for the pretence of a Grant from any one General Council of the Pope's Authority much less over the Church of England which their Plea from the Canons expresly requires at their hand For my Lord Bramhall with invincible Reason affirms We were once a free Patriarchate Independent on any other and according to the Council of Ephesus every Province should enjoy its Ancient Rights pure and inviolate and that no Bishop should occupy any Province which did not belong to him from the beginning and if no true General Council hath ever since Subjected Brittain under the Roman Court then saith he the case is clear that Rome can pretend no Right over Brittain without their own consent nor any further nor for any longer time then they are pleased to oblige themselves We must expect therefore some better Evidence of such Grant to the Pope and such Obligation upon England by the Canons of some truly General Council and we may still expect it notwithstanding the Canons of Sardice which yet shall be considered for it is their faint colour of Antiquity SECT XI The Sardican Canons NO Grant from the Matter manner or Authority No Appendix to Council of Nice Zozimus his Forgery never Ratified nor thought Universal after contradicted by Councils THe Pope at length usurped the Title and pretended the Power of Supreme and the Canons in time obtained the Name of the Pope's Decrees but the question is what General Council gave him either Doctor Stillingfleet observes that nothing is more apparent than that when Popes began to pirk up they pleaded nothing but some Canons of the Church for what they did then their best and only Plea when nothing of Divine Right was heard of as Julius to the oriental Bishops Zozimus to the African and so others but still what Canons The Romanist against Arch-Bishop Laud argues Arg. p. 193. thus it was ever held lawful to Appeal to Rome from all Parts therefore the Pope must be Supreme Judge this saith he is evidenced by the Sardican Canons accounted anciently an Appendix to the Council of Nice this he calls an unanswerable Argument But it is more than answered if we consider Answ either the Matter or the Manner or the Authority of these Canons 1. The Matter said to be granted appears 1. For the matter of these Canons in the words themselves Can. 3. it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it seem good to you let us honour the Memory of Saint Peter and by those Bishops that are Judges Scribatur Julio Romanorum Episcopo and by the next Bishops of the Province if need be let the Judgment be revoked cognitores ipse praebeat But 1. here is no Grant so much as of Appeal only of a Review 2 'T is not pretended to be according to any former Canons 3. The Judgment is to be revoked by a Council of Bishops chosen for the purpose 4. The request seems to terminate in the Person of Julius and not to extend to his Successors for else why should it be said to Julius Bishop of Rome and not to the Bishop of Rome absolutely 2. The Manner of the Motion spoils all if Manner it please you did the Vniversal Pastorship then lie at the feet or depend upon the pleasure of this Council did no Canons evidence the Pope's Power and Right till then eleven years after the death of Constantine besides how unworthily was is said let us honour the Memory of Saint Peter did the Pope's Succession of Saint Peter depend upon their pleasure too 3. But lastly the main exception is against the Authority of this Council or at least of Authority this Canon as Cusanus questions Concord Cathol lib. 2. c. 15. 1. 'T is certain they are no Appendix to the No Appendix to Nice Can. Council of Nice wherein their strength is pretended to consist though Zozimus fraudulently sent them under that Name to the African Bishops which can never be excused for they are now know to have been made twenty two years after that Council Upon that pretence of Zozimus indeed a Zozimus's Forgery Temporary Order was made in the Council of Africk that Appeals might be made to the Pope till the true Canons of Nice were produced which afterwards being done the Argument was spoiled and that Pope if possible was put to shame hereupon that excellent Epistle was written to Pope Caelestine of which you had account before 2. This Council was never ratified by the Reception Not received of the Catholick Church for the Canons of it were not known by the African Bishops when Zozimus sent them and Saint Augustine discredits them saying they were made by a Synod of Arrians 3. It is evident that this Council was never Or thought Universal accounted truly Vniversal though Constance and Constantius intended it should be so for but seventy of Eastern Bishops appeared to three hundred of the Western and those Eastern Bishops soon withdrew from the other and decreed things directly contrary to them So that Balsomon and Zonarus as well as the Elder Greeks say it can only bind the Western Churches and indeed it was a long time before the Canons of it were received in the Western Church which is the supposed reason why Zozimus sent them as the Nicen and not as the Sardican Canons 4. After the Eastern Bishops were departed there were not Patriarchs enough to make a General Council according to Bellermine's De Conc. L. ◠c. 17. own Rule Consequently Venerable Bede leaves it out of the Number the Eastern Churches do not reckon it among their Seven nor the Western among their Eight first General Councils The English Church in their Synod at He difield An. 680. left it out of their Number and embrace only the Council of Nice the first of Constantinople the first of
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 from that to the Popes yet 't is a Demonstration that if Saint Peter had it not the Pope cannot have it as his Successor Jure divino We must leave Saint Peter's Supremacy to stand or fall to the Reason of the Discourse before and must now examine the Plea of Successor and the Pope's Authority over the Church as he is Successor to Saint Peter Now that it may appear we love not quarrelling we shall not dispute whether Peter was a Bishop of a particular See whether he was ever at Rome whether Rome was at first converted by him whether he was Bishop of Rome whether he resided there for any considerable time whether he died there whether the Pope had any honour as his Successor or lastly whether the Pope had the Primacy of all Bishops in the former Ages of the Church 't is well known that few Adversaries would let you run away quietly with all or any one of these Yet there are two things that I shrewdly question 1. Whether the Pope had at first the Primacy it self as Successor of Saint Peter 2. Much more whether by that Succession he received Supreme Power over the whole Church Jure Divino the main Point to be proved is the last yet it may be worth the while to examine the first SECT I. Whether the Primacy of Peter descended to the Bishops of Rome Neg. IT doth not appear that Saint Peter had his Peter Primate Primacy over the rest of the Apostles as Bishop much less as Bishop of Rome but the contrary doth appear 1. Because he was Primate long before he Reas 1 was Bishop if he was so at all and therefore Before if he was Primate ratione Muneris or with respect to any Office it was that of his Apostleship and not of his Episcopacy the Consequence then is evident that the Pope could not succeed Saint Peter in the Primacy as Bishop of Rome or indeed in any Sence for the Apostolical Office was extraordinary and did not descend by Succession as the Romanists yield That Saint Peter was Primate not as Bishop Not as Bishop but was antecedently so it is most apparent upon the Grounds of it allowed and pleaded by our Adversaries because he was first called to the Apostleship he was named the first of the Apostles he had the first promise of the Keys he was the first Converter of the Gentiles c. Privilegium personale cum persona extinguitur Jesuit Salas. 2. Indeed the Primacy of Saint Peter arose Reas 2 On personal respects from such personal respects and grounds that rendred it incapable of Succession and therefore none could derive that Prerogative though they had succeeded him both as Bishop and Apostle These Prerogatives of Saint Peter which Bellarmine himself laies down as the Grounds and Arguments of his Primacy are generally such at least all of them that appear in the Scriptures all of them but such as either beg the question or depend on notorious Fables as appears at first view 1. Saint Peter was Primate because his Name 21 Prerogatives Bell. was changed by Christ 2. Because he was always first named 3. He alone walked on the Waters 4. He had peculiar Revelation 5. He paid Tribute with Christ 6. He was the chief in the miraculous fishing 7. He is commanded to strengthen his Brethren 8. He was the first of the Apostles that saw Christ risen from the dead 9. His feet Christ first washed 10. Christ foretold his death to him alone 11. He was President at the Election of Matthias 12. He first preach'd after the Holy Ghost was given 13. He did the first Miracle 14. He condemned the hypocrisie of Ananias c. 15. He passed through all quarters Acts 9. 32. 16. He first preach'd to the Gentiles 17. He was miraculously delivered out of prison 18. Paul envied him 19. Christ baptized him alone 20. He detected and condemned Simon Magus 21. He spake first in the Council Acts 15. These are 21 of the Prerogatives of Saint Peter which Bellarmine makes Grounds and Arguments of his Primacy which if one say them over and endeavour to apply them to any but Saint Peter's individual person it will appear impossible the reasons of this Primacy cannot be supposed out of Peter's person therefore Argum. the Primacy cannot pass to his Successor mark them and you will find they are all either Acts done by Saint Peter or Graces received by him and so personally in him that whatsoever depends on them must needs die with Saint Peter's person and cannot be inherited by his Successor Indeed this Primacy rose of such Grounds and was in Saint Peter by Consequence of them had the Primacy been an Office or a Grace given of or in or for it self without respect to any of these Grounds there had been some shadow and but a shadow for its Succession but it having an essential dependence on those Reasons which were peculiar and proper to Saint Peter's person they cease together But lest it should be thought that there is Other seven Prerog Bell. more of Argument in the other seven Prerogatives which Bellarmine mentioned I beg my Readers pardon to set down them also The first is perpetual stability is promised to Peter and his See 2. He alone was Ordained Bishop by Christ and the Rest by him Card Cusan believes Aneclet Epis Bellarmine proves it counterfeit c. 34. p. 771. Azorius Suarez and Cosm Ph. deny it these plainly beg the thing in question 3. He placed his Seat at Rome 4. Christ appeared to him a little before he died therefore Primate and his Successor too 5. The Churches which he founded were always counted Patriarchal 6. The feast of his chair was celebrated 7. And his Name added to the Name of the Trinity in literis formatis What then was he not yet Primate before all this was not his Primacy founded upon the Reasons above will you say he was not Primate or by virtue of his Primacy was not President in the two Councils mentioned and if that be more than confessed even pleaded by you must not the former personal respects be the Grounds of that Primacy and is it possible for such a Primacy by Succession to descend to any other person none that consider will say it The Fathers acknowledge a Primacy in Saint Fathers Peter but upon such personal grounds as are mentioned Saint Peter was called a Rock saith Serm. 47. Saint Ambrose if the Book he his eò quòd primus in Nationibus c. because he was the first that laid the Foundation of Faith in the World Cerameus gives him likewise primus Aditus Aedificationis spiritualis Christianorum Pontifex primus Petrus Reliquorum Apostolorum Princeps propter virtutis Euseb Amplitudinem He was Prince for
the greatness of hs Virtue Virtue is a personal gift and cannot pass by Succession Saint Chrisostom indeed is urged against us Object Curam tum Petro tum Petri Successoribus Committebat lib. 2. de Sacerdotio 'T is granted Peter had his Successors in time Answ 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 3 Lastly it follows that this Primacy was Inference Not in succeeding Popes 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 lawdness 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 INstead of proving that Christ did they say Arg. 1 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 And what then I Ordain then he had it Ans 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 Vid. Raynolds and Hart. p. 269 c. just nothing yet what strange Arts and stretches 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 BEllarmine argues more subtilly yet supposeth Arg. 2 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 He supposeth that St. Peter's Successor succeeded Ans 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
fully satisfie himself he may see all the exceptions against this by M. S. at large answered by Dr. Hammond and the Arch-Bishop Bramhall But Bede concludes that the Brittains ought Obj. 2 to have yielded in the points specified from the miracle wrought by Augustine upon the blind man and from that divine vengeance prophetically foretold by Augustine 1. We now know what tricks are used to An. counterfeit miracles in the sight of simple people 2 We know not but that miracle might be said but never done as many in the Legends are And Bede might report from very slight tradition a thing tending to the confirming his own Cause 3. By Bede's own Confession the miracle did prevail with the Brittains to acknowledge that the way of Righteousness Augustine preached was the true yet they added that they could not renounce their ancient Customs without the consent and license of their own Superiors i. e. they thought the miracle confirm'd his Doctrine but not the Popes Authority over them And therefore lastly at their second meeting they deemed his Pride a stronger Argument against him than his Miracle for him 2. And for that latter Argument from the Slaughter first threatned and then fulfilled Bed Sigisbert Sure 't was no strange thing that a proud man An. as Augustine appeared to be should threaten Revenge And a bloody minded man to endeavour to execute it as is evident he did Neither is it like a great miracle that a vast Army should first overcome unarmed Monks and then proceed victoriously against other opposers Yet the latter part of the Story quite spoils the miracle or the Argument from it For when Edilfred in the heat of his Rage and Victory proceeded to destroy the Remainder of those Monks the avenger of Blood met him the Brittish Forces routed his Army and killed Ten Thousand and Sixty of them But the Conclusion for my present turn stands firm however that notwithstanding these pretensions of Miracles the Brittish rejected the Papacy and adhered to their proper Governors i. e. the Pope then had not the Possession of them I shall conclude here with that smart reply of Arch-Bishop Bramhall to S. W. To demonstrate evidently how vain all his trifling is against the Testimony of Dionothus why doth he not answer to the corroboratory proof which I brought out of Bede and others of two Brittish Synods held at the same time wherein all the Brittish Clergy did renounce all obedience to the Bishop of Rome of which all our Historiographers do bear Witness Why doth he not answer this but pass it by in so great silence He might as well accuse this of forgery as the other since it is so well attested that Dionothus was a great Actor and disputer in that business SECT I. That no one Part of Papal Jurisdiction was exercised here for the first six hundred years not Ordination St. Telaus c. till 1100 years after Christ c. nor any other IF we consider the Pope's Jurisdiction in its Not plenarily particular Acts we find not so much as any one exercised or acknowledged here during the space of the first six hundred years but as far as History gives us any account thereof all Acts of Jurisdiction were performed by our own Governours First had the Pope had any Jurisdiction here at all it would doubtless have appeared in the Ordination or Consecration of our Bishops Ordinationis Jus caetera Jura sequuntur is a known Rule in Law but 't is evident that our own Primates were independent themselves and ordained Not Ordination new Bishops and created new Bishopricks without licence first obtained from or giving any account thereof to the Pope Saint Telaus Consecrated and ordained Bishops as he thought fit he made one Hismael Bishop of Saint Davids and in like manner advanced many others of the same Order to the same degree sending them throughout the Country and dividing the Parishes for the best accommodation of the Clergy and the People Vid. Regl apud Vsh prim Eccles Brit. p. 56. But were not our Primates themselves nominated Quest or elected by the Pope and Consecrated by him or had license from him The contrary is manifest enough all our Answ Brittish arch-Arch-Bishops and Primates were nominated and elected by our Princes with Synods and ordained by their own Suffragans at home as Dubricius Saint David Sampson c. not only in the Reigns of Aurelius Ambrosius and King Arthur but even until the time of Henry the First after the eleven hundredth year of Christ as Giraldus Cambrensis saith and always until the first Conquest of Wales they were Consecrated by the Arch-Bishop of Saint Davids and he was likewise Consecrated by other Bishops as his Suffragans without professing any manner of Subjection to any other Church Itinera Cambr. l. 2. c. 2. Now is it not fair to expect from our Adversaries one Instance either of a Bishop or Arch-Bishop ordained or Consecrated during the first six hundred years by Papal Authority in Brittain from their own or our Brittish Records But this Challenge made by Arch-Bishop Bramhall receives no answer Here the Bishop of Calcedon only offers Object â— c. that few or no Records of Brittish Matters for the first six hundred years remain This is no Answer saith the Primate while Answ all the Roman Registers are extant yea so extant that Platina the Pope's Library Keeper is able out of them to set down every Ordination made by the Primitive Bishops of Rome and the Persons Ordained He adds Let them shew what Bishops they have Ordained for the first six hundred years I have shewed plainly though he please to omit it out of the List of the Bishops ordained three by Saint Peter eleven by Linus fifteen by Clement six by Anacletus five by Evarastus five by Alexander and four by Sixtus c. that there were few enough for the Roman Province none to spare for Brittain Vid. Bramh. Tom. 1. Disc 3. p. 207. It is said that Saint Peter ordained here but St. Peter that was before he had been at Rome therefore not as Pope of Rome Nor any other Eluth 2. Elutherius sent Fugatius c. but what to do to Baptize King Lucius upon the same Errand he sent Victor into Scotland 3. Palladius and Ninian are instances of men Pallad c. sent to preach to the Picts and Scotland as Saint Patrick into Ireland this was kindly done but we have not one Syllable of any Jurisdiction all this while besides it is remarkable though there be a dispute about Palladius his being sent yet 't is certain he was rejected and after Bed in vit S Pat. l. 1. died in whose place Saint Patrick succeeded without any Mandate from Rome that we read of Jeffry of Monmouth saith that Dubricius Primate Object Legates S. W. of Brittain was Legate of the See Apost and we say that Jeffry tells many Fables and that it is
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 Saint Gregory saith the care of the whole Object Church was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles Saint Peter and yet he is not called the Vniversal Bishop 'T is confessed that Saint Gregory doth say Sol. 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 Yet it must be acknowledged Saint Gregory Object adds si dictum fuerit c. where there is no Metropolitane nor Patriarch the Cause may be heard by the Apostolick See which Gregory calls the Head of all Churches Now if this be allowed what hath the Pope Sol. 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 Patriarch 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 But we see Saint Gregory calls Rome the Head Object of all Churches 'T is true whether he intends a Primacy of Sol. 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 fore-going concluded all ordinary Jurisdiction within every proper Primacy or Patriarchate But saith S. W. Saint Gregory practised the Object thing though he denied the Word of Vniversal What Hypocrisie damn the Title as he Sol. 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 Case 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 admonish 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 secundùm Canones and yet he knows that no other Tenure but that will stand him in stead Indeed the unhappiness is as the Doctor Vid. dispat disp p. 408. to p 423. observes that such Acts at first but necessary 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
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 fame 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 Our Answer is that Christ here promised no Answ 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 1 18. 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 itself 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 Relect. 2. de Potest Eccl. Doctor Stapleton new vamped it by two learned 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 Luciâ— 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 Epiphanius 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
a long Epistle the truth is I thought my self accountable to your Lordship for a Brief of the Book that took its being from your Lordship's Encouragement and the rather because it seems unmannerly to expect that your good Old Age should perplex it self with Controversie which the Good God continue long and happy to the honour of his Church on Earth and then crown with the Glory of Heaven It is the 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 now insisted 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 though 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
as universal Pastor But we leave these advantages to give the argument its full liberty and we shall soon see either its Arms or its Heels The Argument must run thus If the Bishop of Rome was the means of the English Churches Conversion then the English Church oweth obedience to him and his Successors We deny both propositions The Minor that the Pope was the means of our first Conversion and the consequence of the Major that if he had been so it would not follow that we now owe obedience to that See For the Minor Bishop Jewel knock'd it down so perfectly at first it was never able to stand since he saith it is certain the Church of Britain We were converted 9 years before Rome Baron An. 35. n. 5. Marg. An. 39. n. 23. Suarez c. 1. 1 Contr. Angl. Eccl. Error now called England received not first the Faith from Rome The Romanists proof is his bare assertion that Eleutherius the Pope was the first Apostle of the Britains and preached the Faith here by Damianus and Fugatius within little more than an hundred years after Christs death Bishop Jewel answers that King Lucius was baptized near 150 years before the Emperor Constantine and the same Constantine the first Christian Emperor was born in this Island and the Faith had been planted here long before either by Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes or the Greeks or some others which is plain because the King being Christian before requested Pope Eleutherius to send hither those Persons Damianus and Fugatius to Reform the Bishops and Clergy which were here before and to put things into better Order They also urged that as Pope Elutherius in Britain So Saint Gregory in England first planted the Faith by Austin But Bishop Jewel at first dashed this Argument out of Countenance plainly proving out An. 210. An. 212. An. 334. An. 360. An. 400. An. 367. of Tertullian Origen Athanasius Const Emp. Chrisost Theod. that the Faith was planted in England long before Austin's coming hither See his Defence of his Apol. p. 11. Some would reply that the Faith was utterly rooted out again upon the Invasion of Heathen English 't was not so saith he for Lib. 1. c. 26. lib. 2. c. 2. Beda saith that the Queen of England was christened and that there were then in this Realm Seven Bishops and one Arch-Bishop with other more great Learned Christian men and Galfridus saith there were then in England Seven Lib. 82. 24. Bishopricks and one Arch Bishoprick possessed with very many godly Prelates and many Abbies in which the Lord's People held the Right Religion Yet we gratefully acknowledge that Saint Gregory was a special Instrument of God for the further spreading and establishing the Gospel in England and that both Elutherius and this Gregory seem to have been very good men and great Examples both of Piety and Charity to all their Successors in that See and indeed of a truly Apostolical spirit and care though not of Authority but if all History deceive us not that Austin the Monk was far enough from being Saint Augustine But what if it had been otherwise and we The Consequence were indeed first converted by the means of these Popes will it therefore follow that we ought for ever to be subject to the Papacy This is certainly a Non-sequitur only fit to be imposed upon easie and prepared Understandings it can never bear the stress and brunt of a severe Disputation and indeed the Roman Adversaries do more than seem to acknowledge as much However the great Arch-Bishop and Primate of Armach hath slurred that silly Consequence Bramhall with such Arguments as find no answer I refer the Reader if need be to his Just Vindication p. 131 132. Where he hath proved beyond dispute that Conversion gives no Title of Jurisdiction and more especially to the prejudice of a former Owner dispossessed by violence or to the subjecting of a free Nation to a Forreign Prelate without or beyond their own consent Besides in more probability the Britains were first converted by the Eastern Church as appeared by our Ancient Customs yet never were subject to any Eastern Patriarch And sundry of our English and Brittish Bishops have converted Forreign Nations yet never pretended thence to any Jurisdiction over them Lastly what ever Title Saint Gregory might acquire by his deserts from us was meerly Personal and could not descend to his Successors But no more of this for fear of the scoffing rebukes of such as S. W. who together with the Catholick Gentleman do plainly renounce this Plea asking Doctor Hammond with some shew of Scorn what Catholick Author ever affirmed it There is no doubt though some other Romanists have insisted upon this Argument of Conversion some reason why these should think fit to lay it aside and we have no reason to keep it up having otherwise work enough upon our hands An end therefore of this first Plea CHAP. IV. Of the Pope's supposed Claim as Patriarch THis Point admits likewise of a quick dispatch by four Propositions and the rather for a reason you will find in the close of our Discourse upon the last of them PROP. I. The Pope was anciently reputed the Western Patriarch Pope a Patriarch To this Dignity he proceeded by degrees the Apostles left no Rule for a Forreigu jurisdiction from one Nation to another But according to the 33 Cannon of the Apostles if they were indeed theirs it behoved the Bishops of every Nation to know him who is their first or Primate and to esteem him as their Head The Adventitious Grandeur which the Ancient Patriarchs afterwards obtained is judged to arise three ways by the Canons of the Fathers the Edicts of Princes or Ancient Custom Upon the last ground viz. of Custom the C. Nice c. 6. Council of Nice setled the Privileges of those three Famous Patriarchal Sees Rome Alexandria and Antioch Saying let Ancient Custom prevail which Custom proceeded from the honour such Churches had as being founded by the Apostles if not rather from the Eminency of the Cities Therefore the Council of Calcedon gives this as a reason of the greatness of the Sees of Rome and Constantinople because they were the Seats of the Emperours PROP. II. The Pope as Patriarch had but a limited Jurisdiction Limited Jurisd 1. A Patriarchate as such is limited especially if the Title restrain it to the West for East North and South are not the West in the same respect 2. It is further evident from the first Number of Patriarchs for if there were more than one of the same Dignity and Jurisdiction they must be threfore limited for a Patriarch as such could have no Jurisdiction over a Patriarch as such for so they were equal par in parem non c. 3. But indeed the first time we hear of three and then of five Patriarchs at once viz. Five Patriarchs of Rome
the second then King of the Scots forbad him so to do Alledging That none of his Predecessors had ever admitted any such neither would he suffer it And therefore willed him at his own Peril to forbear Hence 't is evident there was neither Tradition nor Belief either of the Popes ancient and necessary Government and therefore not of his Infallibility much less that anciently and from the beginning the Pope had exercised his Jurisdiction more in Scotland than in England We have that Kings word for it None of his Predecessors had ever admitted any such SECT III. In Canons Apost Nice Milev c. This Belief could have no Ground Sardia VVHat could possibly sway the first Ages to such a belief of the Popes universal Vid. c. 20. Jurisdiction Certainly nothing from the Councils nor the practice of the Church in other places nor indeed the declared Judgment of the Pope himself nor the words of the Laws 1. Nothing to be found in the Canons of the Not Councils Apostles Ancient Councils could invite to such belief In the Apostles Canons we find the quite contrary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first or primate among the Bishops of every Nation shall be accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as their Head and that every one of those Primates shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do those things only which belong to his Province and the Regions under it and in pursuance of those Canons the first Nicene Council decreed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—icâ— c. that they that are cast out by some shall not be received by other Bishops and that this must be observed by the Bishops through every Province and in further Harmony the Milevetan Council prohibits all appeal from their Mileve own Bishops but to the African Councils and Primates of their own Provinces and that they which shall appeal to any Foreign whether Bishop or Council shall not be received into Communion with any in Africk And lastly the Practice of all this is visible in the very Synodical Epistle of the African Council to Pope Celestine where Vid. v. Dr. Ham. at larg dispar disp 397 398 399 c. they beseech him for the future that he will receive none such because he may easily find it defined in the Council of Nice These Canons are all in the Roman Codex and cannot be pretended to be invalid neither can they possibly oblige any man to believe that the Pope had universal Jurisdiction as is now pretended Moreover as Dr. Hammond Notes to some of these Canons the Pope himself makes Oath Disp disp p. 178. Pope swears to the Canons that he will inviolably observe them see Corp. Juris can decret part 1. dist 16. c. 8. and from that Oath of the Pope our Bishops made this very conclusion that the Popes that Exercised a primacy over any other Bishops but those of their own province in Italy transgress'd their own profession made in their Creation as further appears by the institution of a Christian man in the year 1538. But more largly of this in the last Chapters Therefore the Brittains could not believe that they then owed Subjection to the papacy but they must charge the writers of the Apostolick Cannons whether by Apostles or Apostolical men and the Councills for enacting Sacriligious decrees and the Pope also for swearing the Inviolable observation of them These things are plain and S. W. by pretending in general that Words admit of Various interpretations without applying his Rule to the Case gives but too just occasion to Dr. Hammond to expose him as he doth See disp disp p. 181 182 183 184. Eadmer speaks plain and home too it was p. 58. 43. inauditum in Britannia quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere nisi solum Archiepiscopum Cantuariae it was a thing unheard of no practice of it no Tradition for it therefore no such thing Could be believ'd that any other not the Pope himself did Apostolically Govern the affairs of Brittaine but only the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury SECT 4. Conc. Sard. Calced Constantinop IT may be said the Brittains might hear Vid. Cap. 20. Sict 9. of the Canon of the Council of Sardica where it was decreed that Bishops grieved might Sardica appeal to the Bishop of Rome The words of the Council are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sol. c. In Case any Bishop thought himself unjustly Condemned if it seem good to you let us honour the Memory of Peter the Apostle that it be written by those who have Judged the Cause to Julius the Bishop of Rome and if it seem good let the judgment be renew'd and let them appoint such as may take Cognizance of of it hereupon t is plain 1 These Fathers did not acknowledge the Popes Supremacy who thus laid it at the feet and pleasure of others if it seem good to you 2. Here is no peremptory Order neither and it might not Seem good to Civil Princes to suffer such Appeals 3. No absolute appeal it seems was intended but only the Bishop of Rome might review the Case and how much a review differs from Apeal More of Conc Sar. hereafter and that nothing but power to revew is here given to the Bishop of Rome are both fully manifested by the Arch-Bishop of Paris Petr. de Maro de Concord l. 7. c. 3. sect 6 7. c. 4. The Decree such as it is is not grounded upon any prior right from Scripture tradition or possession or any former Council hath no other Argument but the honour of Saint Peter and that not in his Authority but his Memory who first sat in that See where Julius was now Bishop but we may have leave to ask where was the Supremacy of the Church of Rome before or how should the Brittains dream of it before or why did not these Canons take notice of the undoubted Canon of Nice to the contrary made two and twenty years before either to null or explain it But that these Sardic Canons neither established the Pope's Supremacy nor were acknowledged to bind the Church afterwards nor could be accounted an Appendix to the Council of Nice and what weakness and falsness has been practised upon this Argument is so largly ingenuously and satisfactorily manifested by Doctor Sillingfleet that I shall for his fuller satisfaction refer the Reader to him in his Ration acc p. 419 420 421. c. It is strongly argued in the last reasonings of my Lord Bramhall that after the Eastern Bishops were departed this Council of Sardica was no general Council because the presence of five great Patriarchs were ever held necessary to the being of a general Council as Bellarmine confesseth de Conc. Li. c. 17. If this Council had been general Why do Saint Gregory Isiodore and Bede leave it out of the Number of general Councils Why did Saint Austine Alipius and the African Fathers slight it and which is more
why doth the Eastern Church not reckon it among their Seven 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 Apud Spel. An. 680. l. 169. in the year 680. and embrace only unto 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 the 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 See 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 Sear 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 Fatbers 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 But as to this Canon of Constantinople S. W. Object quits his hands roundly telling us that it was no free Act but voted Tumultuously after most of the Fathers were departed S. W. had been safer if he had been wiser Sol. 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. 354. 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 YEt 't is a Marvellous thing that the Romanist Object should dare to impose upon so great and learned a Primate as the late Arch-Bishop Land 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 When 't is most evident to the meanest capacity Answ 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 supposititious 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. 363. p. 58. where it is expresly said there was 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 Land to whom I must refer my Reader Yet Bellarmine and Binius would prove there Obj. were more than twenty But their proofs depend either upon things Sol. 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
so great a Matter in the Church required a Council both of the Eastern and 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 ufurp 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 it self Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus the Pope of Decret p. 1. dis 99. n. 10. 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 Vniversal 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 Dr. Ham. disp disp p. 418 419. called Vniversalis then sure nothing was added 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 Epis ex Reg. l. 8. indic 1. c. 30. c. 4. ind 13. c. 72 76. it that reason required the contrary that 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 fidenter 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 Lib. 4. Ep. 38. Empress l. 4. Ep. 34. Yea an Imitation of none 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 Ibid. Ep 32 40. consent to it do fidem perdere destroy the 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 Ibid. Ep. 32. cause but the cause of God of the whole Church 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
considered pretend no higher 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 This distinction Doctor Stillingfleet destroys Sol. 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. Obj. in dissessionem Ecclesiae 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 confequence 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 1. We answer that those Bishops among Sol. whom Irenaeus 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
it could not possibly be intended to carry in it the Authority of the whole Church or any more than that qualified sence of Vigorius before mentioned because other Patriarchs had the same Title and we see no reason to believe that that Council intended to subject themselves and all Patriarchs to the Authority of the Western Pope contrary to their great design of advancing the See of Constantinople to equal priviledges with that of Rome as appears by their 16 Sess Can. 28. and their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo. Thus the bare Title is no Argument and by what hath been said touching the grandure of the Roman Empire and the answerable greatness and renown of the Roman Church frequent recourse had unto it from other Churches for counsel and assistance is of no more force to conclude her Supremacy nor any matter of wonder at all Experience teacheth us that it is and will be so in all cases not only a renowned Lawyer Physician but Divine shall have great resort and almost universal addresses An honest and prudent Countryman shall be upon all Commissions the Church of Rome was then famous both for Learning Wisdom Truth Piety and I may add Tradition it self as well as greatness both in the eye of the world and all other Churches and her Zeal and care for general good keeping peace and spreading the grace of the Gospel was sometimes admirable And now no wonder that Applications in difficult cases were frequently and generally made hither which at first were received and answered with Love and Charity though soon after the Ambition of Popes knew how to advance and hence to assume Authority From this we see it was no great venture Iren. l. 3. c. 3. how ever A. C. Term it for Arch-Bishop Laud to grapple with the Authority of Irenaeus who saith to this Church meaning Rome propter potentiorem Principalitatem for the more powerful Principality of it 't is necessary that every Church that is the faithful undique should have recourse in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata estâ—ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio His Lordship seems to grant the whole Rome being then the Imperial City and so a Church of more powerful Authority than any other yet not the Head of the Church Vniversal this may suffice without the pleasant criticizing about undique with which if you have a mind to be merry you may entertain your self in Dr. Still p. 441. c. But indeed A. C. is guilty of many Mistakes in reasoning as well as criticizing he takes it for granted that this Principality is attributed by Irenaeus here to Rome as the Church not as the City 2. That the necessity arising hence was concerning the Faith and not secular Affairs neither of which is certain or in likelihood true vid. Dr. Still p. 444. Besides if both were granted the necessity is not such as supposeth Duty or Authority in the faithful or in Rome but as the sense makes evident a necessity of expedience Rome being most likely to give satisfaction touching that Tradition about which that dispute was Lastly the Principality here implies not proper Authority or Power to decide the Controversie one kind of Authority it doth imply but not such as A. C. enquired for not the Authority of a Governor but of a Conservator of a Conservator of that Truth that being made known by her might reasonably end the quarrel not of an absolute Governour that might command the Faith or the Agreement of the Dissenters This is evident 1. Because the Dispute was about a matter of Fact whether there was any such Tradition or not as the Valentinians pretended 2. Because Irenaeus refers them to Rome under this reason conservata est the Apostolical Traditions are kept there being brought by the faithful undique thither and therefore brought thither because of the more Principality of the City all persons resorted thither Lastly It is acknowledged that Pope Gregory Obj. Eph. 65. ind 2. doth say that if there be any fault in Bishops it is subject to the Apostolical See but when their fault doth not exact it that then upon the account of Humility all were his Equals Indeed this smells of his ambition and design Sol. before spoken of but if there be any truth in it it must agree with the Canon Saint Gregory himself records and suppose the faulty Bishop hath no proper Primate or Patriarch to judge him also with the proceeding then before him and suppose Complaint to the Emperor and the Emperor's subjecting the Cause to the Apostolical See as that Cause was by Saint Gregory's own Confession However what he seems here to assume to his own See he blows away with the same breath denying any ordinary Jurisdiction and Authority to be in that See over all Bishops while he supposes a fault necessary to their subjection and that while there is no fault all are equall which is not true where by a lawful standing ordinary Government there is an eternal necessity of Superiority and Inferiority But of this I had spoken before had I thought as I yet do not that there is any weight or consequence in the words Further Evidence that the Ancient Popes themselves though they might thirst after it did not believe that they were Vniversal Bishops and Monarks over the whole Church and that they did not pretend to it in any such manner as to make the World believe it I say further evidence of this ariseth from their acknowledged subjection to the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical Affairs Pope Leo begged the Emperor Theodosius with tears that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that he would Command not permit a Council to be held in Italy that sure was not to signifie his Authoritative desires That Instance of Pope Agatho in his Epistle to the Emperor is as pertinent as the former 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. with praise we admire your Conc. Tom. 5. p. 60. E. F. purpose well pleasing to God not to the Pope and for these Commands of yours we are rejoyced and with groans give thanks to God and many such Doctor Hammond saith might be afforded Pope Gregory received the power of hearing and determining Causes several times as he himself confesseth from the Emperor as we shewed before Hence Pope Eleutherius to King Lucius you are the Vicar of Christ the same in effect which is contained in the Laws of Edward the Confessor And Pope Vrban the Second entertained our Arch-bishop Anselm in the Council of Bar with the Title of the Pope of another World or as some relate it the Apostle of another World and a Patriarch worthy to be reverenced Malm. pro. ad lib. de gest pont Angl. Now when the Bishops of Rome did acknowledge that the Civil Magistrate had power to command the assembling of general Councils and to command Popes themselves to hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes when they acknowledged the King of England
kind ought to begin ne◠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. 1. 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. 〈◊〉 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 just 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 〈◊〉 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 praedicandi licentiam he enlarged his licence so to do 'T is true Saint Gregory presumed largly 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-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 that 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 Calcedo◠hath done his Cause by these little Instances before mentioned will best appear by a true state Vid. Bramh. p. 189. c. of the question touching the Supremacy betwixt 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 Appeals 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 found 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 some time 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
away with him After Paulinus there are five in the Catalogue of York expresly said to have wanted it and Wilfred was one of them yet are reputed both Vid. Twisd ibid. arch-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. committimus 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 thence-forth 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. 75. 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 aend 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
not many of your selves ashamed and weary of it do not some of you deny it and set up Tradition in stead of it was not the Apostle too blame to say there must be Heresies 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 valuerit 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 P. 537 538. 539. vain Story you have in Bishop Jewel's Defence 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
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 8â— 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
the Apostles were Pastors as well as Peter But St. Peter was the Pastor over the rest for Obj. 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. Christ saith not to Peter feed all my Sheep Ans 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 interpretation 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 Luk. 22. 31 place of Argument is Luk. 22. 31. Thou being 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 When Hart urged this Argument with all Ans 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 Act. 1. 25. Peter's Execution he proposed the Election of a new Apostle in the Room of Judas Therefore he was Speaker at least pro tempore Ans in the Assembly but not a Prince or Supreme Monarch But St. Chrysostom saith that though Peter's Obj. modesty was commendable for doing all things In Matth. 40. 51. by common advice and consent and nothing by his own Authority yet addeth that no doubt it was lawful for Peter to have chosen Matthias himself Yet the same Father calls this Seat given him Ans In Matth. Hom. 15. by the rest a Primacy not a Supremacy Again 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 5 Scrip. Act. 15. held their peace and James and all the Elders did agree unto Peter's Sentence What is this to prove his Supremacy because Ans the Council having heard Gamaliel agreed to him was therefore Gamaliel a Pharisee a Doctor of the Law whom all the People honoured Supreme Act. 3. 34. Head and Superior to the High-Priest and 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 Pro Cor. Balbo Tully called viz. Prince of Decrees when he was 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