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
advance very far towards the ending of it For so the Title hath been given to others as well as the Bishop of Rome and therefore it could not argue any Authority peculiar to him Also the same universalcare of the Church the occasion of the Title hath been acknowledged in others as well as in him and indeed the power which is the Root of that Care as the occasion of that Title is founded in all Bishops Here are three things noted which may be 3 Notes distinctly considered 1. Power is given to all Bishops with an immediate respect to the good of the whole Church So that if it were possible that every particular Bishop could take care of the whole Church they have Authority enough in their Function to do it though it be impossible and indeed inconsistent with peace and order that all should undertake it And therefore they have their bounds and limits set them hence their particular Diocesses therefore as St. Cyprian there is but one Bishoprick in the whole World a part of which is held by every Bishop 2. Thus we find in the primitive Church that every Bishop had his particular Charge yet they still regarded the common good extending their care the second thing observed sometimes beyond their own division by their council and direction yea and exercised their functions sometimes in other places Of which Dr. Stillingfleet Rat. ac p. 424 425. gives many instancesin Polycarp Ignatius Irenaeus St. Cyprian Faustus Yea upon this very ground Nazianzen saith Or. 18. p. 281. of St. Cyprian that he not only governed the Churches of Carthage but all the Western parts and even almost all the Eastern Southern and Northern too as far as he went Arsenius speaks more home to Athanasius Atha ap ad Imp. Const p. 786 c. We embrace saith he Peace and Vnity with the Catholick Church over which Thou through the Grace of God dost preside Whence Gregory Or. 21. p. 392. Naz. saith of Athanasius that he made Laws for the whole Earth And St. Basil writes to him Ep. 52. that he had care of all the Churches as of his own and calls him the Head and Chief of all And St. Chrisostom in the praise of Eustathius Tom. 5. p. 631. Savil. the Patriarch of Antioch saith that he was instructed by the divine Spirit that he was not only to have care of that Church over which he was set but of the whole Church throughout the world Now what is this but to say in effect these great men were universal Bishops though indeed they none of them had power of Jurisdiction over any Church but their own as notwithstanding the general care of the ancient good Bishops of Rome had of the good of the whole and their Influence and Reverence in order thereunto the Bishops of Rome had not 3. Upon the former ground and occasion some Bishops in the most famous Churches had the honour of the Title of Oecumenical or Universal Bishops But here we must confess the Bishops of Rome had the advantage being the most famous of all both by reason of their own primitive merit and the glory of the Empire especially the latter The Roman Empire was it self accounted universal and the greatness of the Empire advanced the Church to the same Title and consequently the Bishops of that Church above others 1. That the Roman Empire was so appears R. ac p. 425 426. by a multitude of Testimonies making orbis Romanus orbis humanus Synonimous collected by Dr. Still Hence Am. Marcellinus calls L. 14. c. 16. Rome Caput Mundi the head of the World And the Roman Senate Asylum Mundi totius And it was usual then to call whatever was o◠of the Roman Empire Barbaria as the same Dr. Ibid. proves at large Therefore that Empire was called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 11. 28. 2. Some Bishops in the great Churches in the Roman Empire were called Oecumenical as that relates to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 viz. the Roman Empire This appears because the very ground of the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople was the greatness of the City as appears in the Councils of Constantinople and Calcedon about it and the priviledges of old Rome gave the measure of the priviledges of new Rome And in probability the ground of that Patriarch's usurping the Title of Oecumenical Patriarch was but to correspond with the greatness P. 426. of his City which was then the Seat of the Empire as Dr. Still very reasonably Conjectures Moreover all the three Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople had expressions given them tantamount to that Title The government of the whole World the care of all R. ac p. 426. the Churches the government as it were of the whole body of the Church as Dr. Stillingfleet particularly shews But most clear and full to that purpose Theod. Haer. fab l. 4. c. 14. p. 245. To. 4. oper as he observes is the Testimony of Theodoret concerning Nestorius being made Patriarch of Constantinople He was intrusted with the Government of the Catholick Church of the Orthodox at Constantinople and thereby of the whole World Where shall we find so illustrious a Testimony for the Bishop of Rome or if we could we see it would prove nothing peculiar to him Therefore if the Council of Calcedon did offer the Title of universal Patriarch or if they did not but as the truth rather is some Papers received in that Council did give him that Title it signifieth nothing to prove the Popes universal Authority Therefore Sim. Vigorius ingeniously confesseth Comento ad Res Syn. Conc. Bas p. 36. that when the Western Fathers call the Roman Bishops Bishops of the universal Church they do it from the custom of their Churches not that they look on them as universal Bishops of the whole Church but in the same sence that the Patriarchs of Constantinople Antioch Alexandria Jerusalem are called so or as they are universal over the Churches under their own Patriarchate or that in Oecumenical Councils they preside over the whole Church and after acknowledgeth that the Title of universal or oecumenical Bishop makes nothing for the Popes Monarchy It is too evident that that humble Pope Gregory seems to glorifie himself while he so often mentions that offer of the Title of Vniversal and his refusing of it and inveighing against it and that these were Engines used by him to deprive others of the same Title if not to advance his own See to the power signified by it though if he did indeed design any such thing it is an argument that he was ashamed openly to claim or own it while he rails against the Title in the effects of it which depended upon the power it self as such an abominable thing However if the Council of Calcedon did indeed offer or only record that Title to Gregory it is more than manifest
confer the Crown for ever much less to make him Supreme Disposer of our English Church But if our Constitution be considered how inconsiderable an Argument is this our Kings cannot give away the Power of the Crown during their own times without an Act of Parliament the King and Parliament together cannot dispose of any thing inherent to the Crown of England without a Power of Resumption or to the prejudice of Succeeding Kings besides no King of England ever did not King John himself either with or without his Parliament by any Solemn Publick Act transfer the Government of this Church to the Bishop of Rome or so much as Recognize it to be in Him before Henry the Eighth and what John did Harpf. ad 5. Re. 14. c. 5. was protested against by the Three States then in Parliament And although Queen Mary since made a higher acknowledgment of his Holiness than ever we read was done here before yet 't is evident she gave him rather the Complement of the Title of that uncertain Word Supreme Head than any real Power as we observed before and yet her New Act to that purpose was endured to remain in force but a very short time about four or five years But although neither Constantine for the Justinian whole World nor King John for England did or could devise the Supremacy to the Pope 't is confessed the Emperor Justinian endeavoured somewhat that look'd like it Justinian was a great friend of the Roman Bishop Cod. inter Claras he saith Properamus honorem authoritatem crescere sedis vestrae we labour to subject and unite all the Eastern Priests to the See of your Holiness But this is a plain demonstration that the See of Rome did not extend to the East near six hundred years after Christ otherwise that would have been no addition of honour or Authority to it neither would Justinian have endeavoured what was done before as it doth not appear that he afterwards effected it Therefore the Title that he then gave the Pope of the Chief and Head of all the Churches must carry a qualified sence and was only a Title of honour befitting the Bishop of the Chief and most eminent Church as the Roman Church then was and indeed Justinian was a Courtier and stiles the Bishop of Contantinople universal Patriarch too or at most can only signifie that his intentions were to raise the Pope to the chief Power over the whole Church which as was said before he had not yet obtained This is all that can be inferred if these Epistles betwixt the Emperor and the Pope be not forged as Learned Papists suspect because in Greg. Holiand Azo the eldest and allowed Books they are not to be found However if Justinian did design any thing in favour of the Pope it was only the subjecting of the Clergy to him as an Ecclesiastical Ruler and yet that no farther than might well enough consist with the Supremacy of the Empire in causes Ecclesiastical as well as Civil which memento spoils all the argument For we find the same Justinian under this imperial stile We command the most holy Arch-Bishops and Patriarchs of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem Authent Colla 1. We find him making Laws upon Monks Priests Bishops and all kind of Churchmen to inforce them to their duty We find him putting forth his Power and Authority for the sanction of the Canons of Councils and making them to have the force of Laws We find him punishing the Clergy and the Popes themselves yea 't is well known and confessed by Romanists that he deprived two Popes Sylverius and Vigilius Indeed Mr. Harding saith that was done by Theodora the Empress but it is otherwise recorded in their own Pontifical the Emperor demanded of Belsarius what he had done with the Romans and how he had deposed Sylverius and placed Vigilius in his stead Upon Conc. To. 2. in v. Vigil his answer both the Emperor and Empress gave him thanks Now it is a Rule in Law Rati habito retrotrabitur mandato comparatur Zaberel declares it to be Law that the Pope De Schis Conci in any notorious crime may be accused before the Emperor and the Emperor may require of the Pope an account of his Faith And the Emperor ought to proceed saith Harvy against De Potes Pap. c. 13. the Pope upon the request of the Cardinals And it was the judgment of the same Justinian himself that there is no kind of thing but Con. Const 5. Act. 1. it may be thorowly examined by the Emperor For he hath a principality from God over all men the Clergy as well as Laity But his erecting of Justiniana prima and giving the Bishop Locum Apostolicae sedis to which all the Provinces should make their last Appeal Gothop Nov. 13. c. 3. Nov. 11. whereby as Nicephorus affirms the Emperor made it a free City a Head to it self with full power independant from all others And as it is in the imperial constitutions the Primate thereof should have all power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the Supreme Priesthood Supreme Honour and Dignity This is such an instance both of Justinian's Judgment and Power contrary to the Popes pretensions of Supremacy as granted or acknowledged by the Emperor Justinian that all other Arguments of it are ex abundanti and there is no great need of subjoyning that other great and like instance of his restoring Carthage to its primacy after the Vandals were driven out and annexing two new Provinces that were not so before to its jurisdiction without the proviso of submitting it self to Rome though before Carthage had ever refused to do it Phocas the Emperor and Pope Boniface no doubt understood one another and were well enough agreed upon the point But we shall never yield that these two did legally represent the Church and the World or that the grant of the one and the greedy acceptance on the other part could bind all Christians and all mankind in subjection to his Holiness's Chair for ever Valentinian said all Antiquity hath given the principality of Priesthood to the Bishop of Rome But no Antiquity ever gave him a principality of Power no doubt he as well as the other Emperors kept the Political Supremacy in his own hands Charles the Great might complement Adrian and call him universal Pope and say he gave St. Wilehade a Bishoprick at his command But he kept the power of convocating Synods every year and sate in them as a Judge himself Auditor arbiter adfui he made Ecclesiastical Decrees in his own Name to whom this very Pope acquitted all claim in the Election of succeeding Popes for ever A great deal more in answer to both these you have in Arch-Bishop Bramhall p. 235 236. and King James's defence p. 50. c. CHAP. XIX The Popes pretended Ecclesiastical Right Not by General Councils 8 First To which Sworn Justi Sanction
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
Schism is a voluntary division of a Christian Church in its external Communion without sufficient cause 1. 'T is a Division 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divisions or Act. Division in the Church particular Rents among you This division of the Church is made either in the Church or from it in it as it is a particular Church which the Apostle blames in the Church of Corinth c. 11. Though they came together and did not separate from the external Communion but divided in it and about it 2. Division is made also in the Church as Catholick Catholick or Universal and some charge the Church or Court of Rome as we shall observe hereafter herewith as the cause of many deplorable Rents and Convulsions in the bowels of it and indeed in a true sence all that are guilty of dividing either in or from a particular Church without just cause are guilty of Schism in the Catholick as the Aggregatum of all particular Churches There is division as well from as in the Church and this is either such as is improperly called Separation or properly or more perfectly so 1. Separation improperly so called we may term Negative which is rather a recusancy or a denyal of Communion where it is either due or only claimed and not due but was never actually given 2. 'T is properly so where an actual separation is made and Communion broken or denyed where it has wont to be paid 3. Or yet more perfectly when those that thus separate and withdraw their Communion from a Church joyn themselves in an opposite body and erect Altar against Altar SECT II. Subject of Schism THus of the Act of Schism Division Let us briefly consider the Subject of this division Subject which is not a civil or an Infidel Society but a Christian Church I do not express it a true Church for that is supposed For if it be a Christian Church it must be true otherwise it is not at all Some learned of our own side distinguish here of the truth of the Church Physically or metaphysically considered or morally and acknowledge the Roman Church to be a true Church or truly a Church as some would rather have it but deny it to be such morally and plead for separation from it only in a moral sence or as it is not a true Church i. e. as it is a false and corrupt Church not as it is a Church But finding this distinction to give offence and perhaps some advantage to our Adversaries at least for the amusing and disturbing the method of disputation and being willing to reduce the difference as much as I am able I shall not insist upon these distinctions I confess pace tantorum I see no danger in but rather a necessity of granting the Church of Rome to be a true Church even in a moral sence largely speaking as moral is distinguished from Physical or metaphysical and the necessity of this concession ariseth from the granting or allowing her to be a true Church in any sence or a Church of Christ For to say that a Christian Church is not a true Church morally yet is so really i. e. Physically or Metaphysically seems to imply that it is a Christian Church and it is not a Christian Church seeing all the being of a Christian Church depends upon its truth in a moral sence as I conceive is not questioned by either side And when we grant that the Church of Rome or any other is a true Christian Church in any sence we do mean that she retains so much of Christian truth in a moral sence as is requisite to the truth and being of a Christian Church Indeed the very Essence of a Christian Church seems to be of a Moral nature as is evident in all its causes its Efficient The preaching of the Gospel under divine Influence is a Moral cause the form living in true faith and Religion is moral its End and all its formal Actions in Profession and Communion are of a Moral nature and the Christians as they are Men are indeed natural Beings yet as they are Christians and the matter of the Christian Church and more as they are in a Society they fall properly under a Moral Consideration But how can a Church be true and not true and both in a Moral sence How can we own the Church of Rome as a true Church and yet leave her as a false Church and true and false be both taken Morally Very well And our Learned Men intend no other though they speak it not in these terms For to be true and false in the same Moral Sence doth not imply the being so in the same respects Thus the Church of Rome may be granted to be a true Christian Church with respect to those Fundamentals retained in her Faith and Profession wherein the being and truth of such a Church consisteth and yet be very false and justly to be deserted for her gross Errors in many other points believed also and professed by her as a Bill in Chancery may be a true Bill for the substance of it and so admitted and yet in many things falsely suggested it may be very false and as to them be rejected 2. The Church as the Subject of Schism may 1. Catholick be further considered as Catholick i. e. Absolute Formal Essential and as it lies spread over all the world but united in one common Faith From this Church the Donatists and other ancient Hereticks are said to have separated 2. As Particular in a greater or lesser number 2. Particular or part of the Catholick Thus the modern Separatists forsaking the Church of England are said to be Schismaticks 3. In a Complex and mixt Sence as the particular 3. Mix'd Roman Church pretending also to be the Catholick Church calls her self Roman Catholick and her Particular Bishop the universal Pastor In which sence the Church of England is charged with separation from the Catholick Church for denying Communion with the particular Church of Rome SECT III. Object of Schism 1. Faith THe third Point is the Object about and External Communion in which Separation is made Namely External Communion in those three great Means or Bonds of it Faith Worship and Government under that Notion as they are bonds of Communion The first is Faith or Doctrine and it must Faith be acknowledged that to renounce the Churches Faith is a very great Schism yet here we must admit two exceptions it must be the Churches Faith that is such Doctrine as the Church hath defined as necessary to be believed if we speak of a particular Church for in other Points both Authorities allow Liberty Again though the Faith be broken there is not Schism presently or necessarily except the external Communion be also or thereby disturbed Heretical Principles not declared are Schism in Principle but not in Act Hast thou Faith have it to thy Self 'T is farther agreed that we may and some times
Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem And that these had all their Jurisdictions limited to them and no one of them had any thing like a Vniversal Monarchy is evident both from Canons and History and also by this undeniable Observation that several Parts of the World had their own Primates independent and exempt from all these in the height of their power as Africk at Carthage the rest of Italy at Millain France at Arles or Lions Germany at Vienna and Britain also had the same priviledge 4. The sixth Canon of the Council of Nice C. Nice saith thus expresly Let Ancient Custom prevail according to which let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them of Egypt Libia and Pentapolis because this was likewise the Custom for the Bishop of Rome and accordingly in Antioch and other Provinces let the priviledges be preserved to the Churches The occasion of this Canon is said to be this Miletius a Bishop of Egypt ordained Bishops and others in Egypt without the Consent of the Bishop of Alexandria the Case heard in the Council they pronounce such Ordinations Null depose Miletius and by this Canon the more venerable because the first in such Cases confirm the Ancient Customs of that and all other Churches The Romanists object the Council did not Object assign any limits to those Jurisdictions But 't is fully answered that the Council supposed Answ such limits and proceed upon that supposition to allow of them and to enjoyn the observation of them and that is so much the more than a present limitation as it is a proof of the greater Antiquity of such limitation Sure Bellarmine was hard put to it when the Object words because the Roman Bishop hath so accustomed must be forced to speak against all Sence of Words and Scope of the Matter thus i. e. saith he the Roman Bishop hath so accustomed to let the Alexandrian Bishop govern them The occasion of the Canon we had before Answ the Words themselves are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who but Bellarmine seeth not that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports a like Custom in the Church of Rome as the excellent and learned Doctor Stinlingfleet observes The Bishop of Rome had such Jurisdiction over the Churches under him and therefore ought the Bishop of Alexandria over the Churches under him upon this Consideration the Council concludes that so it should be If it be replied the Pope had limits as a Metropolitan but not as Head of the Church this grants the thing in present question that as a Patriarch the Pope's Jurisdiction was limited What Power he had as Head of the Church shall be examined in its due place What Power the Pope had anciently in confirming deposing and restoring Patriarchs will hardly be found so Ancient as the Council of Ephesus and indeed was challenged by him not as a private Patriarch but as Head of the Church and therefore is to be considered under that Head also PROP. III. The Ancient Patriarchate of Rome did not include Brittain excluded Brittain But according to Ruffinus a Roman who Ruffinus lived not long after the Council of Nice it was limited to the Suburbicary Cities i. e. a part of Italy and their Islands Sicily Sardinia and Corsica much less did it ever pretend to Brittain either by Custom Canon or Edict of any of our Princes Consequently we say the Papal Power over us was an after encroachment and usurpation and a plain violation of the general Council of Ephesus Our Argument is this the General Council Par 2. Act. 7. of Ephesus declare that no Bishop should occupy any Province which before that Council and from the Beginning had not been under the Jurisdiction of him or his Predecessors and that if any Patriarch usurped any Jurisdiction over a free Province he should quit it for so it pleased the holy Synod that every Province should enjoy its Ancient Rites pure and inviolate But it is evident the Bishop of Rome had no Power in Brittain from the Beginning nor yet before that general Council nor for the first six hundred years after Christ as will appear when we speak of the next claim viz. Possession Now if the Pope had no Patriarchal Power in Brittain before the six hundredth year of Pope Boniface Christ he could not well have any since for Pope Boniface three years after Saint Gregorie's death disclaimed this Power by assuring an Higher Title so that had we been willing to admit him our Patriarch contrary to what Augustine found time had been wanting to settle his Power as such in England From the whole we conclude either the Pope is none of our Patriarch or if such he stands guilty of Contempt of a general Council and hath done so many hundred years i. e. he is no Patriarch at all or a Schismatical one PROP. IV. To be a Patriarch and Vniversal Bishop in the Inconsistent with Head of the Church Sence of the Romanist is inconsistent Therefore the Pope must let fall his Claim as a Patriarch if he pretend to be Vniversal Bishop Thus the great Arch-Bishop Bramhall reasons wisely and strongly but S. W. gives no answer to it only that he argues weakly and sillily The Lord Primate proves the inconsistency by Arguments not yet answered the Patriarch saith he professeth Humane the Vniversal Pastor challengeth Divine Institution the one hath a limited Jurisdiction over a certain Province the other pretendeth an Vniversal Jurisdiction over the World the one is subject to the Canons of the Fathers and a mere Executor of them and can do nothing either against or besides them the other challengeth an absolute Sovereignty above the Canons to make abrogate suspend them at his pleasure with a Non-obstante when where and to whom he pleaseth Therefore the Claim of this absolute Power disclaimeth the limited and the donation and acceptance of a limited Power convinceth that there was no such absolute Power before had the Pope been unlimited before by divine donation who can imagine that he would ever have taken gradum Simeonis in this Sence by Just Vind. p. 282. stooping so low to receive from the hand of man the narrower dignity of a Patriarch Besides it is fully proved by Doctor Hammond Patriarchs subject to Civil Power in his Book of Schism beyond all the little exceptions of the Romanists as more at large hereafter that the See of a Patriarch is disposable by the Civil Power and therefore what ever Power the Pope may be thought to have had heretofore in Brittain is now lawfully otherwise disposed of by the Kings of England as well as evidently rejected by the Vsurpation of an higher and an higher kind of Title inconsistent with it and justly forfeited many other ways as will appear hereafter But though our Adversaries would seem to say something in favour of this Title they dare not stand to it as indeed it is not convenient they
must differ with a particular Church in Doctrine wherein She departs from the Catholick Faith but here we must take care not only of Schism but Damnation it self as Athanasius warns us Every one should therefore endeavour to satisfie himself in this great Question What is Truth or the true Catholick Faith To say presently that it is the Doctrine of the Roman Church is to beg a very great Question that cannot easily be given I should think Athanasius is more in the right when he saith this is the Catholick Faith c. in my opinion they must stretch mightily that can believe that the Catholick Faith without which no man can be saved and therefore which every man ought to understand takes in all the Doctrines of the Council of Trent Till the contrary be made evident I shall affirm after many great and learned men that he that believes the Scriptures in general and as they are interpreted by rhe Eathers of the Primitive Church the three known Creeds and the four first general Councils and knows and declares himself prepared to receive any further Truth that he yet knows not when made appear to be so from Reason Scripture or Just Tradition cannot justly be charged with Schism from the Catholick Faith Methinks those that glory in the Old Religion should be of this mind and indeed in all reason they ought to be so unless they can shew an Older and better means of knowing the Catholick Faith than this what is controverted about it we shall find hereafter in its due place In the mean time give me leave to Note that our more Learned and Moderate Adversaries do acquit such a man or Church both from Heresie and Schism and indeed come a great deal nearer to us in putting the issue of the Controversie very fairly upon this unquestionable Point They who first Separated themselves Mr. Knot in fid unm c. 7. s 112. p. 534. from the Primitive pure Church and brought in Corruptions in Faith Practise Lyturgy and use of Sacraments may truly be said to have been Hereticks by departing from the pure Faith and Schismaticks by dividing themselves from the external Communion of the true uncorrupted Church 2. Object Worship A second band of external Communion is 2 Worship Publick Worship in which Separation from the Church is notorious But here Publick Worship must be understood only so far as it is a bond of Communion and no farther otherwise there is no breach of Communion though there be difference in Worship and consequently no Schism This will appear more plainly if we distinguish of Worship in its Essentials or Substantials and its Modes Circumstances Rites and Ceremonies 'T is well argued by the Bishop of Calcedon that none may Separate from the Catholick Church or indeed from any particular in the Essentials or Substantial Parts of Worship for these are God's ordinary means of conveying his Grace for our Salvation and by these the whole Church is knit together as Christ's visible body for Divine Worship But what are these Essentials of Worship Surely nothing else but the Divine Ordinances whether moral or positive as abstracted from all particular Modes not determined in the Word of God Such as Prayer the reading the Holy Canon interpreting the same and the Sacraments therefore that Church that worships God in these Essentials of Worship cannot be charged in this particular with Schism or dividing from the Catholick Church Aud as for the Modes and particular Rites of Worship until one Publick Liturgy and Rubrick be produced and proved to be the Rule of the Catholick Church if not imposed by it there is no such bond of Union in the Circumstantial Worship in the Catholick Church and consequently no Schism in this respect Much less may one particular Church claim from another par in parem non habet imperium exact Communion in all Rites and Ceremonies or for want thereof to cry out presently Schism Schism Indeed our Roman Adversaries do directly and plainly assert that about Rites and Ceremonies the guilt of Schism is not concerned and that particular Churches may differ from one another therein without breach of Communion Though for a Member of a particular Church to forsake the Communion of his own Church in the Essentials of Worship meerly out of dislike of some particular innocent Rites seems to deserve a greater Censure But the Roman Recusants in England have a greater difficulty upon them to excuse their total Separation from us in the Substantials of our Worship at which they can pretend to take no offence and wherein they held actual Communion with us many years together at the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign against the Law of Cohabitation observed in the Scripture where a City and a Church were commensurate contrary to the Order as one well observes which the Ancient Church took for preserving Vnity and excluding Schism by no means suffering such disobedience or division of the Members of any National Church where that Church did not divide it self from the Catholick And lastly contrary to the Common right of Government both of our Civil and Ecclesiastical Rulers and the Conscience of Laws both of Church and State But their pretence is Obedience to the Pope which leads us to consider the third great bond of Communion Government 3. Object Government Thirdly The last bond of Ecclesiastical external Government Communion is that of Government that is so far as it is lawful in it self and exerted in its Publick Laws This Government can have no influence from one National Church to another as such because so far they are equal par in parem but must be yielded by all Members of particular Churches whether National Provincial or truly Patriarchal to their proper Governours in all lawful things juridically required otherwise the guilt of Schism is contracted But for the Government of the Catholick we cannot find it wholly in any one particular Church without gross Vsurpation as is the plain sence of the Ancient Church indeed it is partly found in every Church it was at first diffused by our Vniversal Pastor and Common Lord into the hands of all the Apostles and for ought hath yet appeared still lies abroad among all the Pastors and Bishops of particular Churches under the power protection and assistance of Civil Authority Except when they are collected by just power and legal Rules into Synods or Councils whether Provincial National or General here indeed rests the weight of the Controversie but I doubt not it will at last be found to make its way against all contradiction from our Adversaries In the mean time we do conclude while we profess and yield all due obedience to our proper Pastors Bishops and Governours when there are no Councils sitting and to all free Councils wherein we are concerned lawfully convened we cannot be justly charged wiih Schism from the Government of the Catholick Church though we stiffly deny obedience to a Forreign Jurisdiction
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
to be the Vicar of Christ and the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Pope of another World we may I think safely conclude that whatever they thought of the Primacy of dignity they did not believe themselves or give occasion to others to believe that they had then the Jurisdiction of England much less of the whole World Indeed the Powers of Emperors over Popes Vid. King James's defence p. 50. was exercised severely and continued long in practice an 654. Constantius bound and banished Pope Martin an 963. Otho rejected Pope John 13. and made Leo 8. Pope and John 14. Gregory 5. and Sylvester 2. were made Popes by the Otho 's an 1007. Hen. 2. deposed three Popes this practice is confessed till Gregory 7. and before An. 679. Popes submitted to Emperors by purchasing their Investitures of them by submissive terms and bowing the knee before them Platin. Baron Segeb. SECT VIII Nor the Words of the Imperial Law IF the Ancient Councils or practice or Popes themselves offered nothing to perswade our Ancestors to a belief of the Pope's Vniversal Power or Possession of England Certainly we may despair of finding any such thing in the Ancient Laws of the Church which are justly presumed to contain the Sense and Rule of all were all other Records of Antiquity silent saith our late Primate the Civil Law is proof enough for that 's a Monument of the Primitive Church and not only so it being the Imperial as well as Canon Law it gives us the reason and Law both of the Church and the whole World Now what saith the Law it first forbids the Title and then the Practice Primae sedis Apostolus the Patriarch or Bishop Cor. Jur. Can. de pa. 1. dist 99. c. 3. Can. 4. of the first See is not to be called Prince of the Priests or Supreme Priest nor as the African Canon adds aliquid hujusmodi any other thing of that kind The practice of any such Power was expresly forbidden and not the proud Title only the very Text of the Law saith à Patriarcha non datur Appellatio from a Patriarch there lies no Appeal Cod. lib. 1. Tit. 4. l. 29. Auth. Collat. 9. Tit. 15. c. 22. And this we have found agreeable to the Melivetane Council where Saint Augustine was Can. 23. present forbidding under pain of Excommunication any Appeal to any Foreign Councils or Judicatures and this is again Consonant to the fifth Canon of Nice as that was to the thirty fourth Apostolick where the Primate in every Nation is to be accounted their Head Now what do our Adversaries say to this Indeed they seem to be put to it and though their Wits are very pregnant to deliver many Answers such as they be in most Cases they all seem to joyn in one poor slight Evasion here namely that the Laws concerning Appeals did only concern inferiour Clergy-men but Bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome even by the African Canon and acknowledged in that Councils Epistle to Pope Boniface Three bold Sayings first that the Law concerned not the Appeals of Bishops 2. The Council of Africa decreed Bishops Appeals to Rome 3. And acknowledged it in their Letter to Pope Boniface but are these things as truly as boldly said for the first which is their Comment whereby they would restrain the sense of the Laws to the exclusion of the Bishops we shall consider their ground for it and then propose our reason and the Law expresly against it and then their Reasons will need little answer They say the Law reacheth not the difference Object between Patriarchs themselves But if there should happen a difference betwixt Sol. a Patriarch and the Pope who shall decide that both these inconveniences are plainly solved by referring all such extraordinary difficulties to a General Council But why should the Law allow Forreign Appeals to Bishops and not to Priests Are all Bishops Patriarchs is not a Patriarch over his Bishops as well as a Bishop over his Priests may not the Gravamen of a Priest be given by his Bishop or the difference among Priests be as Caelestus necessity of Grace Milev Con. considerable to the Church sometimes as among Bishops or hath not the universal Pastor if the Pope be so power over and care of Priests as well as Bishops or can the Summum imperium receive limits from Canon or Law to say that Priests are forbidden to appeal but the Pope is not forbidden to receive their Appeals is plainly to cripple the Law and to make it yield to all the inconveniences of foreign appeals against its true end But what if this very Canon they pretend to allow Appeals from Bishops to Rome do expresly forbid that very thing it is brought to allow Can. 28. and it doth so undeniably as appears in the Authentick Collection of the African Canons non provocent ad transmarina Judicia sed ad primates suarum Provinciarum aut ad universale Concilium sicut de Episcopis saepe constitutum est The same thing had often been determined in the case of Bishops Perron and others say this clause was not Obj. in the ancient Milevetan Canons Have they nothing else but this groundless Sol. conceit to support their universal Pastorship against express Law for four hundred years after Christ Sure it behoved highly to produce a true Authentick Copy of those Canons wherein that clause is omitted which because they do not we conclude they cannot However it is manifest that the same thing against appeals of Bishops to Rome had been often determined by far greater Testimony than the bare assertion of Perron and his Partners viz. that general Council of Carthage An. D. 419. about three years after that Milevetan at the end of the first Session they reviewed the Canons of the seventeen lesser Councils which Justellus mentions and wherein no doubt that point had been often determined and out of them all composed that Câ—dex canonum Ecclesia Africanae with that clause inserted as appears both in the Greek and many ancient latine Copies and was so received and pleaded by the Council of Rhemes as Hincumarmus proves as well as others Gratius confesseth it but adds this Antidote Nisi forte Romanam Sedem appellaverit i. e. None shall appeal to Rome the main design of the Council except they do appeal to Rome not expounding the Canon but exposing himself and that excellent Council But A. C. urgeth the Epistle of that Council to Obj. Boniface as was before noted and thence proves that the Council acknowledged that Bishops had power in their own cause to appeal to Rome 'T is true they do say that in a Letter written Sol. a year before to Zosimus they had granted liberty to Bishops to appeal to Rome This is true but scarce honest the next words in the Letter spoil the Argument and the sport too for they further say that because the Pope contended that the appeals of Bishops were contained in
of Stat. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3. Religion obtain of the Bishop of Rome to be Exempt from Obedience Regular or Ordinary he is in case of a praemunire which is an offence contra Regem Coronam dignitatem suam Again more plain to our purpose in Henry Hen. 5. the Fifth's time after great Complaint in Parliament the Grievances by reason of the Pope's licences to the contrary it was enacted that the King willing to avoid such Mischiefs hath ordained and established that all Incumbents by the Patronage of Spiritual Persons might quietly 3 Hen. 5. c. 4. enjoy their Benefices without being inquieted by any colour of Provisions Licences and Acceptations by the Pope and that all such Licenses and Pardons upon and by such Provisions made in any manner should be void and of no valour aod that the Malefactors by virtue thereof incur the punishments contained in the Statutes of Provisors before that time made The King only may grant or licence to found a 9 Hen. 6. fol. 16. Spiritual Corporation as it is concluded by our Law even in Henry the Sixth's time Further in Edward the Fourth's Reign the Pope granted to the Prior of Saint Johns to have 1 Hen. 7. fol. 20. a Sanctuary within his Priory and this was pleaded and claimed by the Prior but it was resolved by the Judges that the Pope had no power to grant any Sanctuary within this Realm and by Judgment of the Law it was disallowed We have thus fully I hope justified the words of the Statute of Henry the Eighth that the Laws made in the times of his Predecessors did in effect the same things Especially those of Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. which that Parliament 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. refer us to expresly and particularly and how small time is left for the Pope's Prescription if any at all for his quiet possession of the power of licences in England Yet it is confest he had usurped and by several instances been heedlesly or timerously permitted to exercise such a Power for many years together as the Parliament acknowledgeth though contrary to the Ancient Liberty the Common Law and so many plain Decrees of our Judges and Statutes of the Land from Age to Age as have appeared CHAP. XII Of the Patronage of the English Church in our Kings by History Law THis Flower of the Crown was derived from our ancient English and Brittish Kings to William the Conqueror William Rufus and Hen. 1. who enjoyed the Right of placing in vacant Sees by the Tradition of a Ring and a Crocier Staff without further Approbation Ordination or Confirmation from Rome for the first eleven hundred years Indeed then Hildebrand and after Calixtus did condemn and prohibit all Investitures taken from a Lay-hand That before Hildebrand this was the undoubted right of the Crown is evident both by History and Law For History we find Malms notes that King Edgar did grant to the Monks of Glastenbury the free Election of their Abbot for ever But he reserved to himself and his Heirs the power to invest the Brother elected by the Tradition of a Pastoral Staff Malms de gest R. l. 2. c. 8. Therefore Ingulf the Abbot of Crowland in the time of the Conqueror saith for many years Ibid. he might have said Ages past there hath been no free Election of Prelates but the Kings Court did confer all dignities by a Ring and a Crocier Staff Lanfrank desired of William the Conqueror the Patronage of the Abby of St. Austin but the King answered se velle c. that he would keep all the Crociers Staffs i. e. Investitures in his own hand The same is testified of Anselm himself by Eadm He after the manner and example of his Predecessor was instructed according to the custom of the Land and did homage to the King as Lanfrank his Predecessor in the See of Canterbury in his time had done and William the Agent of Hen. 1. protested openly to Pope Paschal I would have all men here to know that my Lord the King of England will not suffer the loss of his Investitures for the loss of his Kingdom Indeed Pope Paschal was as resolute though it be said not so just in his answer I speak it before God Eadm l. 3. p. 73. Paschal the Pope will not suffer him to keep them without punishment no not for the Redemption of his Head Here was indeed a demand made with confidence and courage but had that Pope no better Title than that of Possession to claim by he had certainly none at all For as Eadm concludes the case seemed a new thing or Innovation to this our Age and unheard of to the English from the time that the Normans began to Reign that I say not sooner for from the time that William the Norman conquered the Land no Bishop or Abbot was made before Anselm who Eadm â—er in Praef. p. 2. did not first do homage to the King and from his hand by the gift of a Crocier Staff receive the investiture to his Bishoprick or Abbacy except two Bishops of Rochester who were Surrogates to the Arch-Bishop and inducted by him by the Kings leave Indeed now the Pope began to take upon him in earnest and to require an Oath of Fidelity of the Arch-Bishop when he gave him the Pall and to deny that Pall if he would not take it A new Oath never before heard of or practised An Oath of Obedience to himself as it it is expresly called in the Edition of Gregory 13. An Oath not established by any Council but only by Papal Authority by Paschalis himself as Gregory the Ninth recordeth This Oath at first though new was modest bounding the Obedience of the arch-Arch-Bishops only by the Rules of the holy Fathers as we find in the old Roman Pontifical But it was quickly changed from Regulas Sanctorum Patrum to Regalia Sancti Petâ—i The change as my Lord Bramhall observes not great in words but in Sence abominable P. 320. Twisd p. 47 Bellarmine would persuade us that the like Oath was given in Gregory the firsts time but that was nothing like an Oath of Obedience and was only an Oath of Abjuration of Heresie not imposed but taken freely no common Oath of Bishops nor any thing touching the Royalties of St. Peter as may be seen Greg. Epist 1. 10. Ep. 30. Indic 5. About an hundred years after in the time of Gregory the Ninth they extended the subjects of the Oath as well as the matter enlarging it from Arch-Bishops to all Prelates Bishops Abbots Priors and now they cry up the Canons above all Imperial Laws But to decide this point of swearing Allegiance to the Pope which could not be done without going in person to Rome it is sufficient that by all our Laws no Clergyman could go to Rome without the Kings Licence and that by an ancient Brittannick Law if any subject enter into League with another
we ought to submit our selves to the guidance of the Pope as a good and wise man or as a Friend as our Ancestors did and not as our Lord. The true Question is whether God hath given the power of Government to the Pope and directly appointed him to be the Vniversal Pastor of his Church on Earth so that the Controversie will bear us down to the last Chapter what ever can be said here and Infallibility is such a Medium as infallibly runs upon that Solicism of Argument obscurum per obscurius and indeed if there be any inseperable Connexion betwixt Infallibility and the Vniversal Pastorship as is pretended the contrary is a lawfuller way of concluding viz. if there be no one man appointed to govern the Church as Supreme Pastor under Christ then there is no necessity that any one man should be qualified for it with this wonderful grace of Infallibility But it doth not appear that God hath invested any one man with that Power therefore not with that Grace But least this Great Roman Argument should suffer too much let us at present allow the Consequence but then we must expect very fair Evidence of the Assumption viz. that the Pope is indeed Infallible I am aware that there are some vexing Questions about the Manner and Subject of this Infallibility but if we will put them out of the way then the Evidence of the Pope's or Church of Rome's Infallibility breaks out from three of the greatest Topicks we can desire Scripture Tradition and Reason let them be heard in their Order SECT I. Argument from Scripture for Infallibility viz. Example High Priest of the Jews Apostles VVHether it be an excess or defect of Charity in me I know not but I cannot bring my self to believe that the fiercest Bigot of Popery alive can seriously think the Pope Infallible in the Popish Sence of the Word especially that the holy Scriptures prove it I know that some flie the Absurdity by hiding the Pope in the Church but if the Church be Infallible 't is so as it is Representative in General Councils or diffusive in the whole Body of Christians and then what is Infallibility to the Church of Rome more than to any other and how shall that which is Common to all give power to one over all or what is it to the Pope above another Bishop or Patriarch But the Pope is the Head and Universal Bishop as he is Bishop of Rome that is begging a great question indeed for the proof of the Pope's Infallibility which his Infallibility ought to prove and to prove the Medium by the thing in question after a new Logick Besides if the proper Seat of Infallibility be the Church in either of the Sences it concerns our Adversaries to solve Divine Providence who use to argue for this wonderful gift in the Church if there be no Infallibility God hath not sufficiently provided for the safety of Souls and the Government of his Church for seeing the Church diffusive cannot be imagined to govern it self but as Collected and seeing as the Christian World is now circumstantiated it is next to impossible we should have a General and free Council how shall this so necessary Infallible Grace in the Church be exerted upon all occasions for the Ends aforesaid It is therefore most Consonant to the Papal Interest and Reason to lodge this Infallible gift in the Pope or Court of Rome however let us attend their Arguments for the evidence of it either in the Pope or Court or Church of Rome in any acception which is first drawn from Scripture both Examples and Promises 1. From Scripture Examples they reason Arg. thus the High Priest with his Clergy in the time of the Low were Infallible therefore the Pope and his Clergy are so now the High Priest with his Clergy in the time of the Law were so as appears Deut. 17. 8. where in doubts the people were bound to submit and stand to their Judgment which supposeth them Infallible in it as A. C. argues with Arch-Bishop Lawd p. 97. n. 1. Dr. Stillingfleet with others hath exposed this Ans Argument beyond all reply In short the Consequence of it supposeth what is to be proved for the proof of Infallibility viz. That the Pope is High-Priest of the Christian Church and we must still expect an Argument for the Popes Headship if this must be granted that we may prove him Infallible to the end we may prove his Headship Were it said to the Christian Church when any Controversie of Faith ariseth go to Rome and there enquire the judgment of the Bishop and believe his determinations to be Infallible there had been no need of this consequence but seeing we read no such thing the consequence is worth nothing Besides the minor affirming the Infallibility Minor of the High-Priest from that Law of Appeale in Deut. 17. 8. is justly questioned There was indeed an obligation on the Jews to submit and stand to the judgment of that high Court but no obligation nor ground to believe the judgment Infallible The same obligation lies upon Christians in all judiciary Causes especially upon the last Appeal to submit in our practices though not in our judgment or Conscience to believe that what is determined to be Infallibly true A violence that neither the whole world nor a mans self can sometimes do to the Reason of a man The Text is so plain not to concern matters of Doctrine to be decided whether true or false but matters of Justice to be determined whether right or wrong that one would think the very reading of it should put an end for ever to this debate about it The words are viz. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment between Blood and Blood between Plea and Plea and between Stroke and Stroke being matters of Controversie within thy Gates Then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the Place which the Lord thy God shall chuse c. Thus God established a Court of Appeals a Supreme Court of Judicature to which the last application was to be made both in case of Injury and in case of Difficulty called the great Sanhedrin But note here is no direction for address to this Court but when the case had been first heard in the lower Courts held in the Gates of the Cities Therefore the Law concerned not the momentous Controversies in Religion which never came under the Cognizance of those inferior Courts Therefore it is not said whosoever doth not Deut. 17. â—2 believe the Judgment given to be true but whosoever acts contumaciously in opposition to it And the man that will not hearken but do presumptuously even that man shall die Besides God still supposeth a possibility of Error in the whole Congregation of Israel Lev. 4. 15. and chargeth the Priests with Ignorance and forsaking his way frequently by the Prophets But alas where was the Infallibility of the High-Priest c. when our
blessed Saviour was condemned by him and by this very Court of the Sanhedrin And when Israel had been for a long season without the true God without a 2 Cr. 15. 3. Teaching Priest and without Law Vid. Dr. Still p. 239 c. 2. It is also argued from that Example of Ar. 2. Example N. T. rhe Apostles under the New Testament that they were assisted with an Infallible Spirit and there is the same reason for the Pope But this Ans is to dispose Gods Gifts and Wisdom by our own Reason The Apostles Infallibility attested with Miracles was necessary to the first Plantation and State of the Church and it no more followeth that therefore the succeeding Bishops must be infallible because they were so than that because Moses wrought miracles for the confirmation of the Law therefore the Sanhedrin should work Miracles for the ordinary Government of Israel according to the Law Besides what reason can be given why this priviledge of Infallibility should be entailed upon the Bishops of Rome more than other Bishops who succeeded the Infallible Apostles as well as the Pope What ground hath he to claim it more than they Or if they have all an interest in it what becomes of the Argument that the Pope is the universal Head and Governor of the Church because he is Infallible SECT II Arg. 2. From the Promises of Infallibility GOd hath promised that his Church shall be preserved which Promise engageth his Infallible Ar. 2. Assistance Therefore the Church by that assistance is always Infallible To this mighty purpose A. C. reasons with A. B. Laud. God will certainly and Infallibly have a Church therefore that Church shall not only Ans be but be Infallible in all her decrees de fide Is not this strong Reason God is Infallible therefore his Church is so a Church shall continue therefore it shall not Err Pray what Security doth the promise of the Churches Perpetuity or Infallibility as to Fundamentals give to any single Person or particular Church that they shall continue in the Christian Faith more than it did to seven Churches in Asia And where are they now The Argument will conclude as well God hath promised his Church shall ever exist upon Earth therefore Christians of which the Church consists shall never dye as well as never fall away For if the Promise be made to the Present Church in the Romanists sence it is made to the Individuals that make the Church 2. And that every particular Christian as well as every particular Church having an equal common interest in the promise of assistance is infallible If we should grant the Vniversal Church to be Infallible not only as to her Perpetuity but her Testimony which the Argument reacheth not yet it rests to be proved that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church and then that the Pope is the Church of Rome in the same sence that the Church of Rome is the Catholick Church and that in the same consideration as the Catholick Church is Infallible But if we consider the particular Promises the Argument thence is so wide and inconclusive that one would think no considerate man could be abused by it These promises are such as concern the Apostles and Church in general or such as are pretended General to Apostles to dignifie St. Peter in special and above the rest Such as concern the Apostles and the Church Luc. 10. 16. Math. 28. 20. in general are these three He that heareth you heareth me c True while you teach me that is my Doctrine I am with you always to the end of the world True while you are faithful and teach whatsoever I command The Comforter Joh. 14. 16. the Holy Ghost shall abide with you for ever True also while you love me and keep my Commandments As the Condition is just before the Promise Now what are these Texts to the Pope or the Church of Rome in special They certainly that plead the Promise should not neglect the duty it were well if that was thought on The Popes special Friends insist on other promises more peculiarly designed as they would have them for St. Peter's Prerogative They are St. Peter these 1. The First is Math. 16. 18. Thou art Peter Text. and upon this Rock will I build my Church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it But what is this to St. Peter's Infallibility An. The Church shall not be overthrown therefore St. Peter is Infallible What 's this to the Popes Infallibility The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church therefore the Pope is Infallible Can God find no other way to preserve the Church but St. Peter's Infallibility and the Popes Infallibility Is this promise made to secure the Church under St. Peter and his Successors absolutely from all error How came St. Peter himself to Act. 1. 6. fall then by denying his Master and to err about the Temporal Kingdom of Christ And Popes to be Blasphemers Heretical Atheistical How came so many particular Churches that were under the Apostolick Chair if all were so at first to miscarry as those first Churches in Asia did But whatever is here promised to St. Peter is nothing to the Pope unless the Pope be indeed St. Peter's Successor and sit in his Chair the great point reserved for the last Refuge and shall there at large be examined The next Promise is Joh. 21. Peter feed my Text. 2. Sheep therefore the Pope is Infallible But must not others feed Christs Sheep and are they Infallible too 'T is acutely said that Peter was to feed the Sheep as ordinary Pastor the rest of the Apostles as extraordinary Ambassadors But doth this Text say so or any other Text How came it to pass that the ordinary Pastor should be greater than the extraordinary Embassadors How is it proved that this power of Feeding is Infallible only as in St. Peter or as such is transmitted to St. Peters Successor in a more peculiar manner than to the Successors of other Apostles And that the Pope is this Successor this must be considered hereafter their proof is not yet ready Another is Luke 22. 31. Simon Simon Satan Text. 3. hath desired to winnow thee but I have prayed that thy Faith fail not Viz. that thou perish not in Apostacy not that thou be absolutely secured from error nor thy pretended Successors And had not others the Prayer of Christ also Joh. 17. even all that should believe on him In a word what is this to the Pope that Peter should not utterly miscarry in the High-Priests Hall Unless it fignifie that the Pope may err grievously as St. Peter did though he hath no more the security of not failing in the Faith than every ordinary Christian hath But this trifling with holy Scripture provokes Rebuke and deserves no answer If any desire further satisfaction either upon these or other like Scriptures
differences arise is no Liberty or Remedy provided by going to Rome no more than if differences arise in the Roman Church they may have Remedy from any other a Remedy is indeed provided by the Canon Sin duo aut tres c. â—f two or three do contradict 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not go to Rome but obtineat Sententia plurimorum let the major Vote carry it In the seventh Canon Custom and Tradition Can. 7. both are the Grounds upon which the Council confirmed the like priviledge of the Church of Hierusalem because Custom and Ancient Tradition ut Aeliae Episcopus honoretur let him have have the consequence of Honour with a Salvo for the proper Dignity of the Metropolis but not a word of Rome Note that in Can. 6. the Power of the Alexandrian Bishop is grounded upon Ancient Custom Antiqua consuetudo servetur and not upon the Concession of the Roman Bishop as Berlarmine would force it and that the like manner or Custom of Rome is but another Example of the same thing as Antioch was and the rest of the Provinces but this ungrammatical and illogical Evasion was put off before SECT III. Concil Constantinop Gen. 2. An. 381. THe next Council admired by Justinian as one of the Gospels is that Famous Council of Constantinople adorned with 150 Fathers Hath this made any better provision for the Pope's Supremacy certainly no for the very Can. 1. Bin. p. 660. Alter Editio Bin. p. 664. Can. 2. first Canon chargeth us not to despise the Faith of the 318 Fathers in the Synod of Nice which ought to be held firm and Inviolate The Second Canon forbids the confusion of Diocesses and therefore injoyns Secundum Regulas constitutas i. e. the Rules of the Apostles and Nicene Fathers to be kept the Bishop of Alexandria must govern them in Egypt only and so the rest as are there mentioned more particularly than in Nicene Canons In the Third is reinforced the Canon of the Can. 3. former Council against Ordinations by Bishops out of their own Jurisdictions and adds this Reason that casts no countenance upon any Forreign Jurisdiction 't is manifest that the proper Provincial Synod ought to administer and govern all things per quasque singulas Provincias within their peculiar Provinces secundum ea quae sunt in Nicaea definita This third Canon honours the Bishop of Constantinople next after the Bishop of Rome as Binius renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Binius is very angry that such a Canon is found there and urgeth many reasons against it and therefore Bin. To. 1. 672. we shall conclude that as none of the rest so neither doth this Canon confer the universal government of the Church upon the Bishop of Rome SECT IV. Concil Ephesin Gen. 3. An. Christi 431. THe third general Council whose Canons Justinian passed into Laws is that of Ephesus and this so far abhors from the grant that it is a plain and zealous contradicter of the Popes pretensions In Act the seventh 't is agreed against the invasion of the Bishop of Antioch that the Cyprian Prelates shall hold their Rights untouched and unviolated according to the Canons of the holy Fathers before mentioned and the ancient custom ordaining their own Bishops and let the same be observed in other Diocesses and in all Provinces that no Bishop occupy another Province or subject it by force which formerly and from the beginning was not under his power or his Predecessors Or if he have done so let him restore it that the Canons of the Fathers be not slighted nor Pride creep into the Church nor Christian Liberty be lost Therefore it hath pleased the holy Synod that every Province enjoy its Rights and Customs unviolated which it had from the beginning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 twice repeated whereby we are to learn a very great Rule that the bounds of primacies were settled very early before this Council or any other general Council before this even at the beginning and that those bounds ought to be observed to the end according to the Canons of the Fathers and ancient custom and consequently that such as are invaders of others Rights are bound to make restitution Now 't is evident we were a free Province in England in the beginning and when St. Augustine came from Rome to invade our Liberties 't is evident this Council gave the Pope no power or priviledge to invade us Yea that what power the Pope got over us in after times was a manifest violation of the Rights we had from the beginning as also of the Canons of the ancient Fathers in the three mentioned sacred and General Councils of Nice Constantinople and Ephesus all grounded upon the ancienter Canons called the Apostles Lastly such Usurpers were always under the obligation of the Canon to restore and quit their incroachments and consequently the Brittanick Churches were always free to vindicate and reassume their Rights and Liberties as they worthily did in Hen. 8. SECT V. Concil Calcedon Gen. 4. An 451. S. W's Gloss THere is little hope that this Council should afford the Pope any advantage seeing it begins Canones c. with the confirmation of all the Canons made by the Fathers in every Synod before that time and consequently of those that we have found in prejudice to his pretensions among the rest The Ninth Canon enjoyns upon differences Can. 9. betwixt Clerks that the Cause be heard before the proper Bishop betwixt a Bishop and a Clerk before the Provincial Synod betwixt a Bishop or Clerk and the Metropolitan before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the See of the Royal City of Constantinople To the same effect we read Can. 17. Can. 17. Si quis a suo c. If any one be injured by his Bishop or Metropolitan apud Exarchum seu Primatem Dioceseos vel Constantinopolitam sedem litiget But Where is any provision made for Remedy at Rome Indeed that could not consist with the sence of this Synod who would not endure the Supremacy or so much as the Superiority of Rome above Constantinople This is evident in Can. 28 the Fathers gave Can. 28. priviledge to the See of old Rome Quod Vrbs illa imperaret eadem consideratione saith the Canon and for the same reason an hundred and fifty Bishops gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal Priviledges to the Seat of new Rome recte judicantes rightly judging that that City that hath the Empire and the Senate should enjoy equal Priviledges with old Royal Rome etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus ac illa extolli ac magnifieri secundam post illam existentem Now to what purpose doth S. W. to Dr. S. W.'s Gloss Hammond trifle on the Canon and tell us that these Priviledges were only Honorary Pomps when the Canon adds in Ecclesiastical matters and names one the Ordination of Bishops and Metropolitans within themselves as before was declared by the divine
Canons We conclude that this Bar against the Popes universal Pastorship will never be removed These are the four first general Councils honoured by Justinian as the four Gospels to which he gave the Title and force of Laws By which all Popes are bound by solemn Oath to Rule the Church Yet we find not one word in any of them for the Popes pretended universal Pastorship Yea in every one of them we have found so much and so directly against it that as they give him no power to govern the whole Church so by swearing to observe them in such government as the Canons deny him he swears to a contradiction as well as to the ruine of his own pretensions We conclude from the premises that now Argument seeing all future Councils seem to build upon the Nicene Canons as that upon the Apostles if the Canons of Nice do indeed limit the power of the Bishop of Rome or suppose it to have limits if his cause be tried by the Councils it must needs he desperate Now if those Canons suppose bounds to belong Minor to every Patriarchate they suppose the like to Rome But 't is plain that the bounds are given by those Canons to the Bishop of Alexandria and the reason is because this is also customary to the Bishop of Rome Now 't is not reasonable to say Alexandria must have limits because Rome hath if Rome have no limits Pope Nicolas himself so understood it whatever I. E. Pis 8. S. W. did Nicena c. the Nicene Synod saith he conferred no increase on Rome but rather took from Rome an example particularly what to give to the Church of Alexandria Whence Dr. Hammond strongly concludes that if at the making of the Nicene Canons Rome had bounds it must needs follow by the Ephesine Canon that those bounds must be at all times observed in contradiction to the universal Pastorship of that See The matter is ended if we compare the other Latin Version of the Nicene Canon with the Canon as before noted Antiqui moris est ut Vrbis Romae Episcopus habeat principatum ut suburbicana loca omnem provinciam suâ sollicitudine gubernet qâ—e vero apud Aegyptum sunt Alexandrinae Episcopus omnem habeat sollicitudinem Similiter autem circa Antiochiam in caeteris Provinciis privilegia propria serventur Metropolitanis Ecclesiis Whence it is evident that the Bishop of Rome then had a distinct Patriarchate as the rest had and that whatever Primacy might be allowed him beyond his Province it could not have any real power over the other Provinces of Alexandria c. And 't is against the plain sence of the Rule that the Antiquus mos should signifie the custom of the Bishop of Rome's permission of Government to the other Patriarchs as Bellarmine feigneth This Edition we have in Christopher Justellus's Library rhe Canon is in Voel Biblioth Jur. Cano. Tom. 1. p. 284. SECT VI. Concil Constant 2. The Fifth General Conc. of 165 Bishops An. 553. BAronius and Binius both affirm that this was Bar. an 553. nu 224. Bin. To. 2. Not. in con Const 5. a general Council and so approved by all Popes Predecessors and Successors of St. Gregory and St. Gregory himself The cause was Pope Agapetus had condemned Anthinius the matter was afterwards ventilated in the Council Now where was the Popes Supremacy we shall see immediately After Agapetus succeeded Vigilius When the Council condemned the Tria Capitula Pope Vigilius would defend them but how did he carry it in Faith or Fact Did the Council submit to his Judgment or Authority No such thing But quite contrary the Council condemned the tria capitula and ended The Pope for not consenting but opposing the Council is banished by the Emperor Justinian Then Vigilius submits and confirms the Sentence of the Council and so is released from Banishment This is enough out of both * Ibid. N 223. Baronius and Binius The Sum is we condemn say they as is expressed in the very Text all that have defended the Tria Capitula but Vigilius say the Historians defended the Tria Capitula therefore was Vigilius the Pope condemned by this Council such Authority they gave him SECT VII Concil Constant of 289 Bishops 6 General An. 681 vel 685. Concil Nic. 7 General of 350 Bishops An. 781. BEllarmine acknowledgeth these to be sixth and seventh general Councils and both these he acknowledgeth did condemn Pope Honorius for an Heretick lib. 4. de Pont. C. 11. For Bellarmine to urge that these Councils were deceived in their Judgment touching his opinion is not to the point we are not disputing now whether a Pope may be a Heretick in a private or publick Capacity in which the Councils now condemned him though he seems to be a bold man to prefer his own bare conjecture a thousand years after about a matter of Fact before the judgment of two general Councils consisting of 659 Bishops when the cause was fresh Witnesses living and all circumstances visibly before their eyes But our question is whether these Councils did either give to the Pope as such or acknowledged in him an uncontroulable Authority over the whole Church The Answer is short they took that power to themselves and condemned the Pope for Heresie as they also did Sergins of Constantinople SECT VIII Concil Gen. 8. Constant 383 Bishops An. 870. Conclusions from them all HOw did this eighth general Council recognize Tom. 3. p. 149. the Popes Supremacy Binius himself tells us this Council condemned a custom of the Sabbath-Fast in Lent and the practice of it in the Church of Rome and the word is We will that the Canon be observed in the Church of Rome inconfuse vires habet 'T is boldly determined against the Mother Church Rome concerned reproved commanded Where is the Authority of the Bishop of Rome Rome would be even with this Council and therefore saith Surius she receives not this 55 Canon Tom. 2. in conc Const 6. p. 1048. ad Can. 65 in Not. Bin. But why must this Canon only be rejected Oh! 't is not to be endured that 's all the reason we can have But was not this a general Council Is it not one of the eight sworn to by every Pope Is not this Canon of the same Authority as of the Council with all the rest Or is it tolerable to say 't is not Authentick because the Pope doth not receive it and he doth not receive it because it is against himself Quia Matrem Ecclesiarum omnium Rom. Ecclesiam reprehendit non recipitur saith Surius ibid. These are the eight first general Councils allowed by the Roman Church at this day What little exceptions they would defend their Supremacy with against all that hath appeared are answered in the Post script at the latter end of the book whither I refer my Readers for fuller satisfaction In the mean time we cannot but conclude Conclus 7
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
those Courts to give Remedy in those Cases Thus stood Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England by Common Law before our Statutes took so much notice of it and our Statutes since whenever they mention it do generally mention it as a Government supposed upon grounds good and firm in Law to have existed before and also then to be in use and to flourish in its present exercise and proceedings in its proper course and Courts 'T is as idle a thing to look in the Statute-books for the beginning of Ecclesiastical Power and its Courts as for the Beginning of Courts-Baron which are such by Common Law as Coke saith or the Court of Marshalsea which as Coke's words are hath its foundation in Common Law or Courts of Copyholders which are such by Custom And for the same reason to question the lawfulness of these Courts because in their original they were not Established by Act of Parliament as well as the legality of the Courts Spiritual these being equally founded in the Ancient usage Custom and Law of England and all taken care for in Magna Charta that ancient Authentick account of our Common Law And why are Ecclesiastical Judges I mean not Bishops only whom Mr. Hickeringill finds in Scripture but Archdeacons Chancellors Officials c. as well Establish'd in their proper power as Coroners High-Constables c. that have the Origine of their Offices before Statutes Have not Ecclesiastical Officers when lawfully invested power as well as they to Act in their proper Jurisdictions by the same Common Law by long ancient and establisht Custom or as the usual word in our Statutes in this very Case is secundum Consuetudines Leges Angliae My Lord Coke saith The Kings Prerogative is a principal part of the Common Law which also flourisheth in this part of it the Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction as well as in the Civil State and Government Thus we acknowledge the Ecclesiastical State and External and Coercive Jurisdiction derives from and depends upon the Crown of England by Common Law And I am bold to add that the former cannot easily be Abolish'd and destroy'd I do not say altered without threatning the latter I mean the Crown at least some prejudice to it on which it depends Thus Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction stands by Common Law on which also most of our Civil Rights depend but we confess it is bounded as my Lord Coke by the same Common Law and in all reason it must be so it being subordinate to the King as Supream who is supposed to be personally or virtually present in his great Courts of Common Law and is so declared to be by Acts of Parliament Instit p. 1. pag. 344. of my Lord Coke SECT II. The Government Ecclesiastical is Established in the Statutes of this Realm THE Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction being thus found Establisht by Law before the Statute-books were made the Statutes do Establish it as much as any reasonable unprejudic'd man can expect or desire We shall begin with Magna Charta which is Statute as well as Common Law and seems to unite and tye them together This stands at the beginning of our Statute-book and the first thing in this is a grant and establishment for ever of the Rights and Liberties of the Church that must be understood of the Rights and Liberties then in being and among the rest sure the great Right and Liberty of the Churches Power and the free use of her Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Magna Charta it self expounds what it means by holy Church i. e. the Bishops and Ministers of it which King Hen. 8. in the Statute saith is commonly called the Spiritualty and Mr. HIckeringill for all his scoffing knows that the Church of England allows a larger sence of the word Church viz. the Congregation of all faithful men c. And when we call the Clergie or the Governing-part of the Church the Church we use it in a Law-sence and as a term of Law as Acts of Parliament as well as the Civil or Canon-Law do But this by the way 2. When the subsequent Acts of Parliament do so frequently mention the Spiritual Courts and their Jurisdiction this to me is a legal allowance of them and indeed a Tacit or implicit acknowledgment of their more ancient antecedent Power and Common right and liberty by the undoubted Custom i. e. the Common Laws of the Land Yea those very Statutes that look at least obliquely upon them that say they are bounded by the Common Law that do of themselves limit and prohibit the Ecclesiastical Courts in some cases seem plainly to acknowledge them in other cases not excepted from their Jurisdiction But 3. More plainly and directly those Acts of Parliament that appear in the behalf of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in times of its trial and danger and vindicate its Rights and preserve and maintain its Liberties when most in question there have hapned such occasions wherein the Statutes have rescued and replevied the Ecclesiastical Power in all which the Statutes have been thus favourable to it three of late not to mention many formerly 1. Thus when some might imagine that by the alteration made by King Hen. 8. the Bishops and their Power was shaken the Statutes made in his time assure us that it was but to restore the ancient Jurisdiction and not to destroy it that Bishops should be elected and act as formerly especially as Coke noteth by the 25 Hen. 8. c. 20. it is Enacted That every person chosen invested Consecrated Archbishop or Bishop according to this Act shall do and execute every thing and things as any Archbishop or Bishop of this Realm without offending of the Prerogative Royal of the Crown and the Laws and Customs of the Realm at any time heretofore have done Note that this Statute contrary to the 1 Edw. 6. 2. was revived by Queen Eliz. 1. cap. 1. which the Judges thought and judged a full answer to all the Objections against the Churches proceedings contrary to the 1 Edw. 6. 2. and by this very Statute 1 Edw. 6. 2. stands clearly repealed as my Lord Coke observes Rep. 12. 8 9. which caused me to make choice of it for my present purpose 2. The second is observed in the time of Phil. and Mar. when the manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction had been altered by the 1 Edw. 6. the Statute establisheth the same as it was before in these words And the Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions of the Archbishops Bishops and other Ordinaries to be in the same estate for Processe of Suits punishment of crimes and execution of Censures of the Church and knowledge of causes belonging to the same and as large in those points as the said Jurisdiction was the 20 Hen. 8. which Statute of Phil. and Mar. repealed the 1 Edw. 6. 2. and was never repealed since as the Judges resolved in the foresaid Case 4 Jac. but evidently revived by 1 Eliz. 1. Sect. 13. 3. When thirdly the long Parl. 17 Car. 1. had disabled the