fully satisfie himself he may see all the exceptions against this by M. S. at large answered by Dr. Hammond and the Arch-Bishop Bramhall But Bede concludes that the Brittains ought Obj. 2 to have yielded in the points specified from the miracle wrought by Augustine upon the blind man and from that divine vengeance prophetically foretold by Augustine 1. We now know what tricks are used to An. counterfeit miracles in the sight of simple people 2 We know not but that miracle might be said but never done as many in the Legends are And Bede might report from very slight tradition a thing tending to the confirming his own Cause 3. By Bede's own Confession the miracle did prevail with the Brittains to acknowledge that the way of Righteousness Augustine preached was the true yet they added that they could not renounce their ancient Customs without the consent and license of their own Superiors i. e. they thought the miracle confirm'd his Doctrine but not the Popes Authority over them And therefore lastly at their second meeting they deemed his Pride a stronger Argument against him than his Miracle for him 2. And for that latter Argument from the Slaughter first threatned and then fulfilled Bed Sigisbert Sure 't was no strange thing that a proud man An. as Augustine appeared to be should threaten Revenge And a bloody minded man to endeavour to execute it as is evident he did Neither is it like a great miracle that a vast Army should first overcome unarmed Monks and then proceed victoriously against other opposers Yet the latter part of the Story quite spoils the miracle or the Argument from it For when Edilfred in the heat of his Rage and Victory proceeded to destroy the Remainder of those Monks the avenger of Blood met him the Brittish Forces routed his Army and killed Ten Thousand and Sixty of them But the Conclusion for my present turn stands firm however that notwithstanding these pretensions of Miracles the Brittish rejected the Papacy and adhered to their proper Governors i. e. the Pope then had not the Possession of them I shall conclude here with that smart reply of Arch-Bishop Bramhall to S. W. To demonstrate evidently how vain all his trifling is against the Testimony of Dionothus why doth he not answer to the corroboratory proof which I brought out of Bede and others of two Brittish Synods held at the same time wherein all the Brittish Clergy did renounce all obedience to the Bishop of Rome of which all our Historiographers do bear Witness Why doth he not answer this but pass it by in so great silence He might as well accuse this of forgery as the other since it is so well attested that Dionothus was a great Actor and disputer in that business SECT I. That no one Part of Papal Jurisdiction was exercised here for the first six hundred years not Ordination St. Telaus c. till 1100 years after Christ c. nor any other IF we consider the Pope's Jurisdiction in its Not plenarily particular Acts we find not so much as any one exercised or acknowledged here during the space of the first six hundred years but as far as History gives us any account thereof all Acts of Jurisdiction were performed by our own Governours First had the Pope had any Jurisdiction here at all it would doubtless have appeared in the Ordination or Consecration of our Bishops Ordinationis Jus caetera Jura sequuntur is a known Rule in Law but 't is evident that our own Primates were independent themselves and ordained Not Ordination new Bishops and created new Bishopricks without licence first obtained from or giving any account thereof to the Pope Saint Telaus Consecrated and ordained Bishops as he thought fit he made one Hismael Bishop of Saint Davids and in like manner advanced many others of the same Order to the same degree sending them throughout the Country and dividing the Parishes for the best accommodation of the Clergy and the People Vid. Regl apud Vsh prim Eccles Brit. p. 56. But were not our Primates themselves nominated Quest or elected by the Pope and Consecrated by him or had license from him The contrary is manifest enough all our Answ Brittish Arch-Bishops and Primates were nominated and elected by our Princes with Synods and ordained by their own Suffragans at home as Dubricius Saint David Sampson c. not only in the Reigns of Aurelius Ambrosius and King Arthur but even until the time of Henry the First after the eleven hundredth year of Christ as Giraldus Cambrensis saith and always until the first Conquest of Wales they were Consecrated by the Arch-Bishop of Saint Davids and he was likewise Consecrated by other Bishops as his Suffragans without professing any manner of Subjection to any other Church Itinera Cambr. l. 2. c. 2. Now is it not fair to expect from our Adversaries one Instance either of a Bishop or Arch-Bishop ordained or Consecrated during the first six hundred years by Papal Authority in Brittain from their own or our Brittish Records But this Challenge made by Arch-Bishop Bramhall receives no answer Here the Bishop of Calcedon only offers Object â— c. that few or no Records of Brittish Matters for the first six hundred years remain This is no Answer saith the Primate while Answ all the Roman Registers are extant yea so extant that Platina the Pope's Library Keeper is able out of them to set down every Ordination made by the Primitive Bishops of Rome and the Persons Ordained He adds Let them shew what Bishops they have Ordained for the first six hundred years I have shewed plainly though he please to omit it out of the List of the Bishops ordained three by Saint Peter eleven by Linus fifteen by Clement six by Anacletus five by Evarastus five by Alexander and four by Sixtus c. that there were few enough for the Roman Province none to spare for Brittain Vid. Bramh. Tom. 1. Disc 3. p. 207. It is said that Saint Peter ordained here but St. Peter that was before he had been at Rome therefore not as Pope of Rome Nor any other Eluth 2. Elutherius sent Fugatius c. but what to do to Baptize King Lucius upon the same Errand he sent Victor into Scotland 3. Palladius and Ninian are instances of men Pallad c. sent to preach to the Picts and Scotland as Saint Patrick into Ireland this was kindly done but we have not one Syllable of any Jurisdiction all this while besides it is remarkable though there be a dispute about Palladius his being sent yet 't is certain he was rejected and after Bed in vit S Pat. l. 1. died in whose place Saint Patrick succeeded without any Mandate from Rome that we read of Jeffry of Monmouth saith that Dubricius Primate Object Legates S. W. of Brittain was Legate of the See Apost and we say that Jeffry tells many Fables and that it is
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
sift them CHAP. II. Our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England was not derived from the Pope but from the Crown before the Reformation by Henry the Eighth DARE any Protestant stand to the contrary had the Pope really Authority here before Henry the Eighth did our Bishops indeed receive all their power exercised so many hundred years together originally from the Pope was not their Political Jurisdiction derived from and depending on the Crown Imperial and founded in our own Laws the Customs and Statutes of the Realm are these the Popes Laws and not the Kings was there not Ecclesiastical power in England both for Legislation and Execution ab origine before the Papal Vsurpation was not Popery at first and all along till Hen. 8. an illegal usurpation upon our more Ancient Government never own'd much less establish'd in the true Ancient Laws of England and under that very Notion rejected and expelled by him How then did our Bishops c. derive all their power from the Pope before Hen. 8. to say so is not more like an Hobbist than a Papist I thought I had caught an Hobby but War-Hawk Proof against this Popish principle SECT I. From the root and branches of Ecclesiastical Power Donation Investiture Laws I. It was a known Law long before Hen. 8. that the Church of England was founded â—5 Edw. 3. 25 Edw. 1. in Episcopacy by our Kings c. and not in the Papacy II. The Collaetion and Donation of Bishopricks and Nomination of Bishops did always belong to the King yea all the Bishopricks in this Realm are of the Kings Foundation and the full Right of Investiture was ever in the Crown Coke 1. Inst 2. S. 648. to deny it may be a praemunire III. When once the Bishops are legally invested their proper Jurisdiction came into â—5 Hen. 8. 20. their hands by the Laws without any power derived from the Pope Who saith otherwise knows nothing or means ill IV. It was acknowledg'd That Convocations are always have been and ought to be Assembled by the Kings Writ only 't is Law 35 Hen. 8. 19. V. As the power to make Laws for the Church was ever in the King so the Laws themselves must be his and none other bind us This Realm Recognizing no Superiour 35 Hen. 8. 21. As 16 Rich. 2. 5. under God but the King hath been and is free from any Laws but such as have been devised within this Realm or at our Liberty have been consented to and made custom by use and not by any foreign power SECT II. Jurisdiction THUS our Ancient Ecclesiastical Governours and Laws depended upon the Crown and not upon the Pope by the Laws of England and in the Judgment of all the States of the Kingdom before Hen. 8. and so did also the execution of those Laws by those Governours in the same publick Judgment a little better than Mr. Hickeringill's Popish opinion 2. In sundry old Authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifest that this Realm is an Empire having an Imperial Crown to which belongs a body Politick compacted of Spiritualty and Temporalty furnished thus with Jurisdiction to yield Justice in all causes without restraint from any foreign Prince The body Spiritual having power when any Cause of Divine Law hapned to come in question the English Church called the Spiritualty which always hath been reputed and also found of that sort for knowledge c. without any exteriour person to declare and determine all such doubts and to administer all such offices as appertain to them for the due administration whereof the Kings of this Realm have endowed the said Church both with honour and possessions both these Authorities and Jurisdictions do conjoyn in the due Administration of Justice the one to help the other And whereas the King his most noble Progenitors and the Nobility and Commons of this Realm at divers and sundry Parliaments as well in the time of King Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. all which were certainly before Hen. 8. and other noble Kings made sundry Ordinances Laws Statutes and provisions for the entire and sure preservation of the Prerogatives and Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal of the said Imperial Crown from the annoyance and Authority of the See of Rome from time to time as often as any such attempt might be known or espied Vid. 25 Hen. 8. 12. These things plainly shew that the whole State in Hen. 8's time was not of Mr. Hickeringill's mind but that before that time the whole power of the Church was independent on the Pope and not derived from him but originally inherent in the Crown and Laws of England whatever he blatters to the contrary Vid. 25 Edw. 3. Stat. 4. cap. 22. pag. 123. Sect. 3. 27 Edw. 3. cap. 1. 38 Edw. 3. c. 4. Stat. 2. c. 1. 2 Rich. 2. cap. 6. 3 Rich. 2. c. 3. S. 2. 12 Rich. 2. c. 15. 13 Rich. 2. Stat. 2. c. 2. 16 Rich. 2. c. 5. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3 4. 7 Hen. 4. c. 6. 9 Hen. 4. c. 8. 1 Hen. 5. 7. 3 Hen. 5. Stat. 2. c. 4. Adde to these Mr. Cawdries Case in my Lord Coke and he must be unreasonably ill affected to the Church of England that is not more than satisfied that the chief and Supream Governours thereof were the Kings of England and not the Pope before the Reign of Hen. 8. 3. Also it was the sence of the whole Kingdom that the Pope's power and Jurisdiction here was usurped and illegal contrary to Gods Laws the Laws and Statutes of this Realm and in derogation of the Imperial Crown thereof and that it was timorously and ignorantly submitted unto before Hen. 8. as the words of that Statute are 28 Hen. 8. cap. 16. SECT III. BUT if our Gentleman be wiser than to believe their words the matter is evident in our ancient Laws and constant practice accordingly before Hen. 8. his time Indeed all the Statutes of provision against foreign powers are to own and defend the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction at home under this Crown Yea all the Statutes made on purpose to restrain and limit the Spiritual Jurisdiction in certain cases and respects do allow and establish it in others exceptio confirmat Regulam in non exceptis 2. Much plainer all the Statutes that prohibit the Kings Civil Courts to interrupt the Ecclesiastical proceedings but in such cases and the Statutes granting consultations in such cases and the Statutes directing appeals in the Spiritual Courts and appeals to the Chancery it self and the Laws ratifying and effectually binding their Sentence by the Writ de exc cap. much more plainly do these establish the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the laws of the Land before Hen. 8. 3. By this time 't is vain to mention the Statutes which of old did specifie and allow particular matters to be tried only in the Ecclesiastical Courts such as Tithes 18 Edw. 3. 7. the offences of Ecclesiastical persons 1 Hen. 7. c. 4.
Baronius himself confesseth and leaves the patronage of them and Spondanus in his contraction of Baronius relates it as his positive Ad an 325. n. 42. Opinion that he rejected all but twenty whether Arabick or other as spurious So that it will bear no further contest but we may safely conclude the Arabick Canons and consequently this of the Popes Authority is a mere Forgery of later times there being no evidence at all that they were known to the Church in all the time of the four first general Councils Vid. â— 20. SECT VI. Practice interpreted the Canons to the same Sence against the Pope Disposing of Patriarchs Cyprian Aug. VVE have found nothing in the Canons of the ancient Councils that might give occasion to the belief of the Popes Jurisdiction in England in the Primitive Ages of the Church but indeed very much to the contrary But the Romanist affirms against my Lord of Canterbury that the Practice of the Church is always the best Expositor and Assertor of the Canons We are now to examine whether the ancient practice of the Church was sufficient to persuade a belief of the Popes Jurisdiction as is pretended In the mean time not doubting but that it is a thing most evident that the Pope hath practised contrary to the Canons and the Canons have declared and indeed been practised against the Pope But what Catholick Practice is found on Record that can be supposed a sufficient ground of this Faith either in England or any part of Christendom Certainly not of Ordinations or Appeals or Visitations Yea can it be imagined that our English Ancestors had not heard of the practice of the Brittains in maintaining their liberty when it was assaulted by Austin and rejecting his demands of Subjection to the See of Rome No doubt they had heard of the Cyprian Priviledge and how it was insisted on in barr of the universal Pastorship by their friends the Eastern Church from whom they in likelihood received the Faith and with whom they were found at first in Communion about the observation of Easter and Baptism and in practice divers from the Church of Rome But one great point of practice is here pitcht Obj. upon by Baronius and after him by T. C. It is the Popes Confirmation of the Election deposing and restoring of Patriarchs which they say he did as Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs and consequently of the whole Church But where hath he done these strange feats Sol. Certainly not in England And we shall find the instances not many nor very early any where else But to each Branch 1. 'T is urged that the Popes Confirmation Confirm Patriarchs is required to all new elected Patriarchs Admit it but the Arch-Bishop of Paris Petrus Dr. Still de Marca fully answers Baronius and indeed every body else that this was no token of Jurisdiction but only of receiving into Communion De conc l. 6. c. 5. s. 2. and as a Testimony of Consent to the Consecration If any force be in this Argument then the Bishop of Carthage had power Cypr. Ep. 52. p. 75. over the Bishop of Rome because he and other African Bishops Confirm'd the Bishop of Rome's Ordination Baronius insists much upon the Confirmation of Anatolius by Leo I. which very instance answers it self Leo himself tells us that it was Ep. 38. to manifest that there was but one entire Communion among them throughout the World Yet it is not to be omitted that the practice of the Church supposeth that the Validity of the Patriarchs Consecration depended not upon Consec depends not on Confirmation the Confirmation or indeed Consent of the Pope of Rome Yea though he did deny his Comunicatory letters that did not hinder them from the Execution of their Office Therefore Flavianus the Patriarch of Antloch though opposed by three Roman Bishops successively who used all importunity with the Emperor that he might be displaced yet because the Churches of the Orient did approve of him and Communicate with him he was allowed and their consent stood against the Bishops of Rome At last the Bishop of Rome severely rebuked for his Pride by the Emperor yielded and his Consent was given only by renewing Communion with him But where was the Popes power either to make or make void a Patriarch while this was in Practice 2. Doth Practice better prove the Popes Deposing Patriarchs power to depose unworthy Patriarchs The contrary is evident for both before and after the Council of Nice according to that Council the practice of the Church placed the power of deposing Patriarchs in Provincial Councils and the Pope had it not till the Council of Sardica decreed in the case of Athanasius as P. de Marca abundantly proves Vid. de Concord l. 7. c. 1. Sect. 6. Also that the Council of Sardica it self did not as is commonly said decree Appeals to Rome but only gave the Bishop of Rome power to review their Actions but still reserving to Provincial Councils that Authority which the Nicene Council had established them in But T. C. urgeth that we read of no less than Obj. eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome Where doth he read it In an Epistle of Pope Sol. Nicolaus to the Emperor Michael Well chosen saith Doctor Still a Popes Testimony in his own Cause And such a one as was then in Controversie with the Patriarch of Constantinople and so late too as the Ninth Century is when his power was much grown from the Infancy of it Yet for all this this Pope on such an occasion and at that time did not say that the Patriarchs mention'd by him were depos'd by the Popes sole Authority but not Ejected Sine Consensu Romani Pontificis without his Consent and his design was only to shew that Ignatius the Patriarch ought not to have been deposed without his Consent v. Nic. 1. 8. Mich. Imp. Tom. 6. Con. p. 506. Did not Sixtus the third depose Policronius Obj. Bishop of Jerusalem No. He only sent eight Persons from a Synod Sol. at Rome to Jerusalem who offered not by the Popes Authority to depose him as should have have been proved but by their means seventy Neighbour Bishops were Called by whom he was deposed besides Binius himself Tâ—m 2. Con. p. 685. Condemns those very acts that report this story for Spurious 3. But have we any better proof of the Restoring Patriarchs Popes power to restore such as were deposed The only Instance in this Case brought by T. C. is of Athanasius and Paulus restored by Julius and indeed to little purpose T is true Athanasius Cndemned by two Synods goes to Rome where he and Paulus are received into Communion by Julius not liking the decree of the Eastern Bishops Julius never pleads his Power to depose Patriarchs but that his consent for the sake of Vnity should also have been first desired and that
so great a Matter in the Church required a Council both of the Eastern and Western Bishops Vid. P. de Marca l. 7. c. 4. s. 6. But saith Dr. Still when we consider with what heat and stomach this was received by the P. 401. Q. ac Eastern Bishops how they absolutely deny that the Western Bishops had any more to do with their proceedings than they had with theirs When they say that the Pope by this Vsurpation was the cause of all the mischief that followed You see what an excellent instance you have made choice of to prove the Popes power of Restoring Bishops to be acknowledged by the whole Church Sure so far the Churches practice abroad could not prevail to settle his right of Jurisdion in the English Faith especially considering the Practice of our own Church in opposing the Letters and Legates of Popes for six years together for the Restoring of Arch-Bishop Wilfred by two of our own successive Kings and the whole State of England Ecclesiastical and Civil as appeared above Moreover St. Cyprian professeth in the Council of Carthage neque enim quisquam c. for no one of us hath made himself Bishop of Bishops or driven his Fellow Bishops to a necessity of Obedience Particularly relating to Stephen then Bishop An. 258. n. 24. of Rome as Baronius himself resolves But upon a matter of Fact St. August gave his St. August own judgment both of the Popes Power and Action in that known case of the Donatists First they had leave to be heard by foreign Bishops 2. Forti non debuit yet perhaps Melciades the Bishop of the Roman Church ought not to ufurp to himself this Judgment which had been determined by seventy African Bishops Tigisitanus sitting Primate 3. St. Augustine proceeds and what will you say if he did not usurp this Power For the Emperor being desired sent Bishops Judges which should sit with him and determine what was just upon the whole cause So that upon the whole 't is easily observed that in St. Augustines judgment both the Right and the Power by which the Pope as the rest proceeded was to be resolved to the Emperor as a little before ad cujus curam to whose care it did chiefly belong de qua rationem Deo redditurus est of which he was to give account to God Could this consist with the belief of the Popes universal Pastorship by Divine Right if there can possibly after so clear evidence need Vid. Dr. Ham. disp p. 398. c. Still Rationale p. 405. more to be said of St. Augustines judgment in this it is only to refer you to the Controversies between the African Bishops and the Bishop of Rome in case of Appeals SECT VII Not the Sayings of Ancient Popes or Practice Agatho Pelagius Gregory Victor VVE can find nothing in the ancient Canons or ancient practice to ground Popes claimed a belief of the Popes Authority in England upon yet sure Popes themselves claimed it and used Expressions to let us know it Were it so indeed experience tells us how little Popes are to be believed in their own cause and all reason persuades us not to believe them against the Councils and Practice of the Church and the judgment of the Fathers But some of the ancient Popes have been found so honest as to confess against themselves and acknowledge plain truth against their own greatness The Popes universal headship is not to be believed from the words of Pope Agatho in his Agatho Letter to the Emperor where St. Paul stands as high as St. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Con. To. 2. p. 61. B. both are said by him to be heads or chief of the Apostles Besides he expresly claimed only the Western Patriarchate But Pope Pelagius the Second is more plain Pelagius and home to Rome it self Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus the Pope of Decret p. 1. dis 99. n. 10. Rome is not to be called universal Bishop This was the opinion of that Pope of Rome himself as it is cited out of his Epistle and put into the Body of the Law by Gratian now one would think that the same Law denied the Power that denied the Title properly expressing that Power How triflingly doth S. W. object these words are not found in the Council of Carthage while they are found in the Corpus Juris the Law now of as much force at Rome as that Council 'T is weaker to say they are Gratians own Addition seeing his Addition is now Law and also proved to be the Sense of the Pope Pelagius in his Epistle he saith let none of the Patriarchs ever use the name of Vniversal applying in the conclusion to himself being then Pope as one of that Number and so if he were either Pontifex Maximus or a Patriarch and neither himself nor any Patriarck might be Dr. Ham. disp disp p. 418 419. called Vniversalis then sure nothing was added by him that said in his Title to the fourth Chapter as Gratian did Nec etiam Pontifex not even the Bishop of Rome must be called Vniversal Bishop But what shall be said to Saint Gregory who Gregory in his Epistle to Eulogius Bishop of Alexandria tells him that he had prohibited him to call him Vniversal Father that he was not to do Epis ex Reg. l. 8. indic 1. c. 30. c. 4. ind 13. c. 72 76. it that reason required the contrary that it 's derogatory to his Brethren that this honour had by a Council that of Calcedon been offered to his Predecessors but refused and never used by any Again higher he tells Mauritius fidenter dico who ever calls himself Vniversal Priest or L. 7. Ep. 30. desires to be so called is by his pride a Forerunner of Antichrist his pride is an Indication of Antichrist approaching as he saith to the Lib. 4. Ep. 38. Empress l. 4. Ep. 34. Yea an Imitation of none but the Devil endeavouring to break out to the top of Singularity as he saith to John himself yea elsewhere he calls this Title the name of Blasphemy and saith that those that Ibid. Ep 32 40. consent to it do fidem perdere destroy the Faith A strong Title that neither Saint Gregory nor as he saith any one of his Predecessors no Pope that went before him would ever accept of and herein saith he I plead not my own Ibid. Ep. 32. cause but the cause of God of the whole Church of the Laws the Venerable Councils the Commands of Christ which are all disturbed with the invention of this proud pompatick stile of Vniversal Bishop Now can any one imagine except one prejudiced as S. W. that the Power is harmless when the Title that doth barely express it is so develish a thing Can any one imagine that Saint Gregory knew himself to be that indeed which in Word he so much
considered pretend no higher than Ecclesiastical Canons and the Universal Laws of Charity but never made claim to any Supremacy of power over all Bishops by Divine Institution It yet appears not that Saint Gregory practised the thing but to avoid Arrogance disclaims the name of Vniversal Bishop A. C. against my Lord of Canterbury goes another way to work he grants the Title and also the thing signified by it to be both renounced by Saint Gregory but distinguishes of the Term Vniversal Bishop into Grammatical to the exclusion of all other Bishops from being properly Bishops and Metaphorical whereby the Bishops are secured as such in their respective Diocesses yet all of them under the Jurisdiction of the Vniversal Bishop viz. of Rome This distinction Doctor Stillingfleet destroys Sol. not more elaborately than fully and perfectly shewing that 1. 't is impossible Saint Gregory should understand the Term of Vniversal Bishop Lib. 4. Ep. 32. in that strict Grammatical Sense for the reason why this Title was refused was because it seemed to diminish the honour of other Bishops when it was offered the Bishops of Rome in a Council of six hundred and thirty Bishops who cannot be imagined to divest themselves by their kindness of their very Office though they hazarded somewhat of their honour Can we think the Council that gave the same Title to John intended thus to depose themselves how comes it to pass that none of John's or Ciriacus's Successors did ever challenge this Title in that literal sence if so it was understood But to wave many things impertinent 't is evident Saint Gregory understood the Title Metaphorically from the reasons he gives against it which also equally serve to prove against S. W. that it was not so much the Title as the Authority of an Vniversal Bishop which he so much opposed He argueth thus to John the Patriarch What wilt thou answer to Christ the Head of the Vniversal Lib. 4. Ep. 38. Church in the day of Judgment who doest endeavour to subject all his Members to thee under the name of Vniversal Bishop Again doth he not arise to the height of Singularity Ibid. that he is Subject to none but Rules over all and can you have a more perfect description of the present Pope than is here given or is it the Title or the Power that makes him Subject to none that Rules over all Again he imitates the pride of Lucifer endeavouring Ibid. to be Head not sure in Title but Power of the Church Triumphant as the Pope of the Church Militant Exalting his Throne Ibid. not his Name as Gregory adds above the Stars of God viz. the Bishops and the height of the Clouds Again Saint Peter was the first Member of the Church Paul Andrew and John what are they else but Heads of particular Churches and yet they are all Members of the Church under one Head i. e. Christ as before he had said we see he allows not Peter himself to be Head of the Church None that was truly Holy was ever called by that name of Vniversal Bishop which he makes to be the same with the head of the Church But Lastly suppose St. Gregory did mean that this Title in its strict grammatical sence was to be abhorred and not as Metaphorically taken What hath the Pope gained who at this day bears that Title in the highest and strictest sence imaginable as the Dr. proves and indeed needs no proof being evident of it self and to the observation of the whole world Thus all the hard words of St. Gregory uttered so long agon against such as admitted or desired that Title unavoidably fall upon the Modern Roman Bishops that take upon them to be the sole Pastors of the Church and say that they are Oecumenical Bishops and that all Jurisdiction is derived from them They are Lucifers and Princes of Pride using a vain new rash foolish proud profane erroneous wicked hypocritical singular presumptuous blasphemous Name as that holy Pope inveighed against it Moreover as he also adds they transgress Gods Laws violate the Canons dishonour the Church despise their Brethren and cause Schism Istud nomen facere L. 6. ep 30 31. Obj. in dissessionem Ecclesiae But it is said that Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches all at once Therefore saith A. C. the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bishops and by confequence over the whole Church And this appears in that Irenaus in the name of the Gallican Bishops writes to Victor not to proceed so rashly in this Action as appears in Eusebius 1. We answer that those Bishops among Sol. whom Irenaeus was one did severely rebuke that Pope for offering to excommunicate those Asian Vid. Eus l. 5. c. 24. Churches Therefore they did not believe him to be the Supreme Infallible Pastor of the whole Church 2. His Letters declaring that Excommunication Ibid. not pleasing all his own Bishops they countermanded him Surely not thinking him to be what Popes would now be esteemed 3. Hence Card. Perron is angry with Eusebius and calls him an Arrian and an enemy to the Church of Rome for hinting that though the Pope did declare them excommunicate yet it took no effect because other Bishops continued still in Communion with them 4 But the force of the whole Argument leans upon a plain mistake of the Ancient Discipline both in the Nature and the Root or Ground of it For the nature of Ancient Excommunication Mistake of the nature Root of Discipline especially when practised by one Church against another did not imply a Positive Act of Authority but a Negative Act of Charity or a declaring against the Communion of such with themselves And therefore was done by Equals to Equals and sometimes by Inferiors to Superiors In Equals thus Johannes Antiochenus in the Ephesine Council excommunicated Cyril Patriarch Vict. Tu. nu cro p. 10. of Alexandria and in Inferiors in the sence of our Roman Adversaries for the African Bishops excommunicated Pope Vigilius Hence also Acacius the Patriarch of Const expunged the Name of Foelix Bishop of Rome out of the Dipticks of the Church And Hilary anethamatized Pope Liberius therefore Victors declaring the Asian Churches to be excommunicate is no argument of his power over them 2. The Root or Ground of the ancient Discipline is also as plainly mistaken which was not Authority always but Care and Charity Care I say not only of themselves who used it but also of the Church that was censured and indeed of the whole Church 'T is here proper to consider that though Bishops had their peculiar Seats and Limits for their Jurisdictions yet they had all a charitive inspection and care of that universal Church and sometimes denominations accordingly Hence we deny not that the ancient Bishops of Rome deservedly gained the Title of Oecumenical Bishops a thing of so great moment in the Controversie that if well considered might
the Nicene Canons they were contented to yield that it should be so till the true Canons were produced Now what can the Reader desire to put an eternal end to this Controversie and consequently to the claim of the universal Pastor in this Age but an account of the Judgment of this Council when they had received the Copy of the Nicene Canons on which the point depended out of the East This you have in that excellent Epistle of theirs to Pope Celastine who succeeded Boniface and the elaborate Dr. Stillingfleet who searcheth R. ac p. 410 411. all things to the bottom hath transcribed it at large as a worthy Monument of Antiquity and of very great light in the present Controversie To him I shall refer the Reader for the whole and only note some few expressions to the purpose We say they humbly beseech you to admit no more into your Communion those whom we have cast out For your Reverence will easily perceive that this is forbid in the Council of Nice For if this be taken care for as to the inferior Clergy and Laity how much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops The Decrees of Nice have subjected both the inferior Clergy and Bishops to their Metropolitans for they have most wisely and justly provided that every business be determined in the place where it begun Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one if he be offended to appeal to the Council of the Province or even to an universal Council Or how can a Judgment made beyond the Sea be valid to which the Persons of necessary Witnesses cannot be brought by reason c. For this sending of men to us from your Holiness we do not find it commanded by any Synod of the Fathers And as for that Council of Nice we cannot find it in the truest Copies sent by holy Cyril Bishop of Alexandria and the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople which also we sent to your Predecessor Boniface Take heed also of sending any of your Clerks for Executors to those who desire it lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ and concerning our brother Faustinus Apiarius being cast out we are confident that our brotherly Love continuing Africa shall no more be troubled with him This is the sum of that famous Epistle the Pope and the African Fathers referred the point in difference to the true Canons of the Nicene Council The Canons determine against the Pope and from the whole story 't is inferred evidently 1. That Pope Boniface himself implieth his Jurisdiction was limited by the general Council of Nice and that all the Laity and Clergy too except Bishops that lived beyond the Seas and consequently in England were exempted from his Jurisdiction by that Council 2. Pope Boniface even then when he made his claim and stood upon his terms with the African Fathers pleads nothing for the appeals of transmarine Bishops to Rome but the allowance of the Council of Nice no tu es Petrus then heard of 3. Then it seems the practices of Popes themselves were to be ruled and judged by the ancient Canons and Laws of the Church 4. The African Fathers declared the Pope fallible and actually mistaken both to his own power and sense of the Council Proving substantially that neither Authority from Councils nor any foundation in Justice Equity or order of Government or publick Conveniency will allow or suffer such Appeals to Rome and that the Pope had no authority to send Legates to hear causes in such cases All these things lye so obviously in prejudice both of the Popes Possession and Title as universal Pastor at that time both in his own the Churches sence that to apply them further would be to insult which I shall forbear seeing Baronius is so ingenious as to confess there are some hard things in this Epistle And Perron hath hereupon exposed his Wit with so much sweat and so little purpose but his own Correction and Reproach as Dr. Still notes Yet we may modestly conclude from this one plain instance that the sence of the Nicene Council was defined by the African Council to be against the Popes Supremacy and consequently they did not submit to it nor believe it and a further consequence to our purpose is that then the Catholick Church did not universally own it i. e. the Popes Supremacy then had not Possession of the faith of the whole Church For as A. C. p. 191. maintains the Africans notwithstanding the contest in the sixth Council of Carthage were always in true Communion with the Roman Church even during the term of this pretended Separation And Caelestine himself saith that St. Augustine one of those Fathers lived and dyed in the Communion of the Roman Church SECT IX The Conclusion touching Possession Anciently VVE hope it is now apparent enough that the Popes Supremacy had no possesion in England from the beginning or for the first six hundred years either de facto or in fide Our Ancestors yielded not to it they unanimously resisted it and they had no reason to believe it either from the Councils or practice of the Church or from the Edicts and Rules of the imperial Law or the very sayings of the Popes themselves Thus Sampson's Hair the strength and Pomp of their best Plea is cut off The foundation of the Popes Supremacy is subverted and all other pleas broken with it If according to the Apostles Canons every Nation had its proper Head in the beginning to be ackonwledged by them under God And according to a general Council all such Heads should hold as from the beginning there can be no ground afterwards for a lawful possession to the contrary If tu es Petrus pasce Oves have any force to maintain the Popes Supremacy why did not the ancient Fathers the Authors of those Canons see it Why was not it shewn by the Popes concerned in bar against them when nothing else could be pleaded When both Possession and Tradition were to be begun and had not yet laid their Foundation Yea when actual opposition in England was made against it when general Councils abroad laid restraints upon it and the Eastern Church would not acknowledge it Indeed both Antiquity Universality and Tradition it self and all colour of Right for ever fails with possession For Possession of Supremacy afterwards cannot possibly have either a divine or just Tâ—â— but must lay its Foundation contrary to Gods Institution and Ecclesiastical Canon And the Possessor is a Thief and a Robber our Adversaries being Judges He invades others Provinces and is bound to Restore And long Possession is but a protracted Rebellion against God and his Church However it be with the secular Powers Christs Vicar must certainly derive from him must hold the power he gave must come in it at his door And S. W. himself P. 50 against Dr. Hammond fiercely affirmeth That Possession in this
Legate of his Holiness indeed But let us examine what entertainment the Power of a Legate found here the Arch-Bishop Math. Par. p. 440. 17. An. 1237. was jealous that a Legate residing here would prove in suae dignitatis praejudicium and the King himself was not without suspitions and therefore would suffer none so much as to be taken for Pope but whom he approved nor any to receive so much as a Letter from Rome without acquainting him with it and held it an undoubted Right of the Crown that ut neminem Eadm p. 125. 53. p. 6. 25. p. 113. 1. c. none shauld be admitted to do the office of a Legate here if he himself did not desire it Things standing thus in 1100. the Arch-Bishop of Vienna coming over reported himself that he had the Legantine Power of all Brittain committed no him but finding no encouragement Eadm p. 58. 41. to use his Commission departed à nemine c. by none received as Legate nor doing any part of that office Fourteen years after Paschalis the Second by Letters expostulates with the King about Eadm p. 113. p. 116. several things in particular his non-admitting either Messenger or Letter without his leave A year after addrest Anselm Nephew to the late Arch-Bishop shewing his Commission Vices gerere Apostolicas in Angliâ this made known the Clergy and Nobility in Council at London sent the Arch-Bishop to the King in Normandy to make known unto him the Ancient Custom of Eadm p. 118. 120. the Realm and by his advice to Rome ut haec nova annihilaret After this An. 1119. the King sent his Bishops to a Council held by Calixtus the Eleventh at Rhemes with Instructions among other things that they should humbly hear the Pope's Precepts but bring no superfluas adinventiones into his Kingdom In November following the Pope and King had a meeting at Gisors in Normandy where Calixtus confirmed unto him his Father's Usages in special that of sending no Legate hither but on the King's desire and when the same Pope not full two years after his Grant to the contrary addrest another Legate to these parts Eadm p. 137 46. p. 138. 21. the Kings wisdom so ordered it that qui Legati c. he which came to do the office of a Legate in all Brittain was sent as he came without doing any part of that Office But it is said that Calixtus confirmed unto the Obj. King his Fathers usages Therefore it was in the Popes power originally and by delegation and not in the King Accordingly in our best Authors and in particular Eadmer we find these words Collata Concessa Impetrata Permissa as is urged in answer to my Lord Cook These words indeed intimate the Popes kindness Ans and peaceable disposition at present viz. that he will not disturb but allow our enjoyment of our ancient priviledges Concessa fungi permissa the same Eadm calls Antiqua Angliae consuetudo libertas Regni p. 118. 33 40. 2. The words do seem also to intimate the Popes claim at that time but the true question is about his Possession which in placing Legates there was ever denied him not as a thing granted formerly by the Pope but as one of the dignitates usus consuetudines as Hen. 1. claimed and defended 3. Lastly they rather intimated the Popes want of power than proved his Authority here and what our Princes did in their own right he would continue to them as a Priviledge for no other reason but because he could not take it from them or durst not deny it to them so he dealt with Edw. the Confessor Vobis Regibus Angliae committimus advocationem ejusdem loci but long before that our Kings looked upon it as their Office regere populum Domini Ecclesiam Baron an 1059. n. 23. ejus which the Pope knew well enough Therefore a Legate landing in England in Ed. 4. time was obliged to take Oath that he would attempt nothing to the derogation of the Rights of the King or Crown In Hen. 4's Nonage his Vncle was sent Legate Edw. 4. 16. by Martin 5. Rich. Cawdry the Kings Attorney made protestation that None was to come as Legate from the Pope or enter the Kingdom without the Kings appointment a Right enjoyed from all memory In the Reign of Hen. 5. the design of sending a Legate from Rome though it were the Kings own Brother was opposed the enterprise took no effect during that Kings Reign Vit. Arch. chic p. 78 80. And in the eleventh of the same King the Judges unanimously pronounce that the Statutes mentioned were only declaratory of the common custom of England fol. 69 76. It was in the Year 1242. when the whole Matth. par 1245 1246. State of England complained of the Popes infamous Messenger non obstante by which Oaths Customs c. were not only weakned but made void And unless the grievances were removed Opportebit nos ponere Murum pro domo Domini libertate Regni Yea long after this in the year 1343. Edw. 3. made his Addresses likewise to Rome which the Pope branded with the Title of Rebellion But to requite him that wise and stout Prince made the Statutes of Proviso's and Praemunire directly opposed to the Incroachments and Vsurpations Walsing p. 161. of the Court of Rome whereby he so abated their power in England for sundry Ages following that a Dean and Chapter was able to deal Bramhall p. 99. with the Pope in England and to foil him too an 1420. The Sum is during the Reigns of all the Brittish and Saxon Kings until the Norman Conquest Legations from Rome were seldom and but Messengers A Legantine or Nuncio's Court we find not Gregory Bishop of Ostium the Popes Spel. conc an 784. own Legate did confess that he was the first Roman Priest that was sent into those parts of Brittain from the time of St. Austin When these Legates multiplied and usurped Authority over us the Kingdom would not bear it as appears by the Statute of Clarendon confirming the ancient Brittish English Custom with the consent and Oaths of all the Prelates and Peers of the Realm and upon this custom was the Law grounded Si quis inventus c. If any one be found bringing in the Popes Letter or Mandate let him be apprehended let justice pass upon him without delay as a Traitor to the King and Kingdom Math. Par. an 1164. Hoved. in Hen. 2. And all along afterwards we have found that still as occasion required the same custom was maintained and vindicated both by the Church and State of the Realm till within an hundred years before Hen. 8. So that the rejection of the Popes Legate is founded in the ancient Right the common and Statute Laws of the Realm and the Legantine power is a plain Vsurpation contrary thereunto and was ever lookt upon as such it never having any real possession
other such kind of Instruments as the Statute 25 Hen. 8. 21. mentions and that this Power was denied or taken from him by the same Statute as also by another 28 Hen. 8. 16. and placed in or rather reduced to the Jurisdiction of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury saving the Rights of the See of York in all Causes convenient and necessary for the Honour and Safety of the King the Wealth and Profit of the Realm and not repugnant to the Laws of Almighty God The Grounds of removing this Power from the Pope as they are expressed in that excellent Preamble to the said Statute 25 Hen. 8. are worthy our Reflexion they are 1. The Pope's Vsurpation in the Premises 2. His having obtained an Opinion in many of the people that he had full Power to dispence with all humane Laws Uses and Customs in all Causes Spiritual 3. He had practised this strange Usurpation for many years 4. This his practice was in great derogation of the Imperial Crown of this Realm 5. England recognizeth no Superior under God but the King only and is free from Subjection to any Laws but such as are ordained within this Realm or admitted Customs by our own Consent and Usage and not as Laws of any Forreign Power 6. And lastly that according to Natural Equity the whole State of our Realm in Parliament hath this Power in it and peculiar to it to dispence with alter Abrogate c. our own Laws and Customs for Publick good which Power appears by wholsom Acts of Parliament made before the Reign of Henry the Eighth in the time of his Progenitors For these Reasons it was Enacted in those Statutes of Henry the Eighth That no Subject of England should sue for Licences c. henceforth to the Pope but to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Now 't is confessed before and in the Preamble to the Statute that the Pope had used this Power for many years but this is noted as an Aggravation of the Grievance and one Reason for Redress but whether he enjoyed it from the time of Saint Austine or how long quietly is the proper question especially seeing the Laws of the Land made by King Henry's Predecessors are pleaded by him in contradiction to it Yea who will come forth and shew us one Instance No Instance 1110 years after Christ of a Papal Dispensation in England for the first eleven hundred years after Christ if not five hundred of the nine hundred years Prescription and the first five hundred too as well as the first eleven hundred of the fifteen are lost to the Popes and gained to the Prescription of the Church of England But Did not the Church of England without any reference to the Court of Rome use this Power during the first eleven hundred years what man is so hardy as to deny it against the multitude of plain Instances in History Did not our Bishops relax the Rigor of Ecclesiastical Canons did not all Bishops all over the Christian World do the like before the Monopoly was usurped In the Laws of Alured alone and in the conjoynt Gervis Dorober p. 1648. Laws of Alured and Gunthrun how many sorts of Ecclesiastical Crimes were dispensed with by the Sole Authority of the King and Church of England and the like we find in the Laws of Spel. Conc. p. 364. c. some other Saxon Kings Dunstan the Arch Bishop had Excommunicated a great Count he made his peace at Rome the Pope commands his Restitution Dunstan answered I will obey the Pope willingly when I Ibid. p. 481. see him penitent but it is not God's will that he should lie in his sin free from Ecclesiastical Discipline to insult over us God forbid that I should relinquish the Law of Christ for the Cause of any Mortal man this great Instance doth two things at once justifieth the arch-Arch-Bishops and destroyeth the Pope's Authority in the Point The Church of England dispensed with those irreligious Nuns in the days of Lanfrank with the Council of the King and with Queen Maud the Wife of Henry the First in the like Case in the days of Anselm without any Suit to Rome or Forreign Dispensation Lanfr Ep. 32. Eadm l. 3. p. 57. These are great and notorious and certain Instances and when the Pope had usurped this Power afterwards As the Selected Cardinals Stile the avaritious Dispensations of the Pope Sacrilegious Vulnera Legum so our Statutes of Provisors expresly 27 Ed. 3. say they are the undoing and Destruction of the Common Law of the Land accordingly The King Lords and Commons complained of this abuse as a Mighty Grievance of the frequent coming among them of this Infamous Math. Par. Au. 1245. Messenger the Pope's non-obstante that is his Dispensations by which Oaths Customs Writings Grants Statutes Rights Priviledges were not only weakned but made void Sometimes these dispensative Bulls came to legal Trials Boniface the Eighth dispensed with the law where the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was Visitor of the University of Oxford and by his Bull exempted the Vniversity from his Jurisdiction and that Bull was decreed void in Parliament by two Successive Kings as being obtained to the prejudice of the Crown the weakning of the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom and the probable Ruine of the said University Ex Arch. Tur. Londini Ex Antiq. Acad. Cantab. p. 91. In interruption of this Papal Vsurpation were those many Laws made in 25 Edw. 1. and 35 Et 12 Rich. 2. Edw. 1. 25 Edw. 3. and 27 and 28 Edw. 3. and afterwards more expresly in the sixteenth of Richard the Second where complaining of Processes and Censures upon Bishops of England because they executed the King's Comandments in his Courts they express the mischiefs to be the Disinherison of the Crown the Destruction of the King Laws and Realm that the Crown of England is subject to none under God and both the Clergy and Laity severally and severely protest to defend it against the Pope and the same King contested the Point himself with him and would not yield it An Excommunication by the Arch-Bishop albeit Lord Coke Cawdrie's Case it be disanulled by the Pope is to be allowed by the Judges against the Sentence of the Pope according to the 16 Edw. 3. Titl Excom 4. For the Pope's Bulls in special our Laws have abundantly provided against them as well in case of Excommunication as Exemption vid. 30 Edw. 3. lib. Ass pl. 19. and the abundant as is evidenced by my Lord Coke out of our English Laws in Cawd Case p. 15. he mentions a particular Case wherein the Bull was pleaded for Evidence that a Person stood Excommunicate by the Pope but it was not allowed because no Certificate appeared from any Bishop of England 31 Edw. 3. Title Excom 6. The same again 8 Hen. 6. fol. 3. 12 Edw. 4. fol. 16. R. 3. 1 Hen. 7. fol. 20. So late as Henry the Fourth if any Person
not many of your selves ashamed and weary of it do not some of you deny it and set up Tradition in stead of it was not the Apostle too blame to say there must be Heresies or Divisions among you and not to tell them there must be an Infallible Judge among you and no Heresies but now men are wiser and of another mind To conclude whether we regard the Truth or Vnity of the Church both Reason and Sence assures us that this Infallibility signifies nothing for as to Truth 't is impossible men should give up their Faith and Conscience and inward apprehension of things to the Sentence of any one man or all the men in the World against their own Reason and for Vnity there is no colour or shadow of pretence against it but that the Authority of Ecclesiastical Government can preserve it as well without as with Infallibility But if there be any Sence in the Argument methinks 't is better thus the Head and Governour of the Christian Church must of necessity be Infallible but the Pope is not Infallible either by Scripture Tradition or Reason therefore the Pope is not the Head and Governour of the Christian Church CHAP. XVIII Of the Pope's Universal Pastorship its Right divine or humane this Civil or Ecclesiastical all examined Constantine King John Justinian Phocas WE have found some flaws in the pretended Title of the Pope as our Converter Patriarch Possessor and as the Subject of Infallibility his last and greatest Argument is his Vniversal Pastorship and indeed if it be proved that he is the Pastor of the whole Church of Christ on Earth he is ours also and we cannot withdraw our obedience from him without the guilt of that which is charged upon us viz. Schism if his Commands be justifiable but if the proof of this fail also we are acquitted This Right of the Pope's Universal Pastorship is divine or humane if at all both are pretended and are to be examined The Bishop of Calcedon is very indifferent and reasonable as to the Original if the Right be granted 't is not de fide to believe whether it come from God or no. If the Pope be Universal Pastor Jure humano only his Title is either from Civil or from Ecclesiastical Power and least we should err Fundamentally we shall consider the pretenses from both If it be said that the Civil Power hath conferred this honour upon the Pope may it not be questioned whether the Civil Powers of the World extend so far as either to dispose of the Government of the Church or to subject all the Churches under one Pastor However de facto when was this done when did the Kings of England in Conjunction with the Rulers of the whole World make such a Grant to the Pope I think the World hath been ashamed of the Const donat Donation of Constantine long agon yet that no shadow may remain unscattered we shall briefly take an account of it They say Constantine the third day after he was baptized left all the West part of the Empire to Pope Sylvester and went himself to dwell at Constantinople and gave the whole Imperial and Civil Dominion of Rome and all the Western Kingdoms to the Pope and his Successors for ever A large Boon indeed this looks as if it was intended that the Pope should be an Emperor but who makes him Vniversal Pastor and who ever since hath bequeathed the Eastern World to him either as Pastor or Emperor for it should seem that part Constantine then kept for himself But Mr. Harding throws off all these little Cavils and with sufficient Evidence out of Math. Hieromonachus a Greek Author shews the very Words of the Decree which carry it for the Pope as well in Ecclesiastical as Civil Advantages they are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We decree and give in charge to all Lords and to the Senate of our Empire that the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter chief of the Apostles have Authority and Power in all the World greater than that of the Empire that he have more honour than the Emperor and that he be Head of the four Patriarchal Seats and that matters of Faith be by him determined this is the Charter whereby some think the Pope hath Power saith De potest Pap. c. 19. Harveus as Lord of the whole World to set up and pull down Kings 'T is confessed this Grant is not pleaded lately with any Confidence Indeed Bishop Jewel did check it early when he shewed Harding the wisest and best among the Papists have openly disproved it such as Platina Cusanus Petavius Laurent Valla Antoninus Florentinus and a great many more Cardinal Cusanus hath these words Donationem Constantini dilligenter expendens c. Carefully weighing this Grant of Constantine even Conc. Cath. lib. 3. c. 2. in the very penning thereof I find manifest Arguments of Forgery and Falshood 'T is not found in the Register of Gratian that is in the allowed Original Text though it be indeed in the Palea of some Books yet that Palea is not read in the Schools and of it Pope Pius himself said dicta Palea Constantinus Pius 2. dial falsa est and inveighs against the Canonists that dispute an valuerit id quod nunquam fuit and those that speak most favourably of it confess that it is as true that Vox Angelorum Audita est that at the same time the voice of Angels was heard in the Air saying hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam Much more to the discountenance of this P. 537 538. 539. vain Story you have in Bishop Jewel's Defence which to my observation was never since answered to him therefore I refer my Reader But alas if Constantine had made such a Grant Pope Pipus tells us it was a question among the very Canonists an valuerit and the whole World besides must judge the Grant void in it self especially after Constantine's time Had Satan's Grant been good to our Saviour if he had faln down and worshipped him no more had Constantine's pardon the comparison for in other things he shewed great and worthy zeal for the flourishing Grandeur of the Church of Christ though by this he had as was said given nothing but poyson to it for the Empire of the World and the Vniversal Pastorship of the Church was not Constantine's to give to the Pope and his Successors for ever Arg. 2 King John But it is urged nearer home that King John delivered up his Crown to the Pope and received it again as his Gift 'T is true but this Act of present fear could not be construed a Grant of Right to the Pope if King John gave away any thing it was neither the Power of making Laws for England nor the exercise of any Jurisdiction in England that he had not before for he only acknowledged unworthily the Pope's Power but pretended not to give him such Power to
Innovations and Tyranny are the Fruits of his Pride Ambition and Perjury but if possible the guilt is made more Scarlet by his Cruelty to Souls intended by his formal Courses of Excommunications against all that own not his usurped Authority viz. the Primitive Churches the 8 first general Councils all the Fathers of the Latine and Greek Churches for many hundred years the greater part of the present Catholick Church and even the Apostles of Christ and our Lord himself The Sum of the whole matter A touch of another Treatise The material Cause of Separation THe Sum of our defence is this If the Pope have no Right to Govern the Church of England as our Apostle or Patriarch or as Infallible if his Supremacy over us was never grounded in but ever renounced by our Laws and Customs and the very constitution of the Kingdom If his Supremacy be neither of Civil Ecclesiastical or Divine Right if it be disowned by the Scriptures and Fathers and condemned by the Ancient Councils the Essential Profession of the present Roman Church and the solemn Oaths of the Bishops of Rome themselves If I say all be certainly so as hath appeared what reason remains for the necessity of the Church of England's re-admission of or submission to the Papal Authority usurped contrary to all this Or what reason is left to charge us with Schism for rejecting it But it remains to be shewn that as the claim of the Popes Authority in England cannot be allowed so there is cause enough otherwise of our denial of obedience actually to it from Reasons inherent in the Vsurpation it self and the Nature of many things required by his Laws This is the second Branch of our defence proposed at first to be the Subject of another Treatise For who can think it necessary to communicate with Error Heresie Schism Infidelity and Apostacy to conspire in damning the Primitive Church the Ancient Fathers General Councils and the better and greater part of the Christian World at this day or willingly at least to return to the infinite Superstitions and Idolatries which we have escaped and from which our blessed Ancestors through the infinite mercy and providence of God wonderfully delivered us Yet these horrid things cannot be avoided if we shall again submit our selves and enslave our Nation to the pretended Powers and Laws of Rome from which Libera nos Domine THE POSTSCRIPT Objections touching the First General Councils and our Arguments from them answered more fully SECT I. The Argument from Councils drawn up and Conclusive of the Fathers and the Cath. Church IN this Treatise I have considered the Canons of the ancient Councils two ways as Evidence and Law As Evidence they give us the undoubted sence and Faith both of the Catholick Church and of single Fathers in those times and nothing can be said against that As Law we have plainly found that none of them confer the Supremacy pleaded for but every one of them in special Canons condemn it Now this latter is so great a proof of the former that it admits of no possible reply except Circumstances on the by shall be set in opposition and contradiction to the plain Text in the body of the Law And if neither the Church nor single Fathers had any such faith of the Popes Supremacy during the first General Councils then neither did they believe it from the Beginning For if it had been the Faith of the Church before the Councils would not have rejected it and indeed the very form and method of proceeding in those Ancient Councils is sufficient Evidence that it was not However why is it not shewn by some colour of Argument at least that the Church did believe the Popes Supremacy before the time of those Councils why do we not hear of some one single Father that declared so much before the Council of Nice or rather before the Canons of the Apostles Or why is there no notice taken of such a Right or so much as Pretence in the Pope either by those Canons or one single Father before that time Indeed our Authors find very shrewd Evidence of the contrary Why saith Casaubon was Dionysins so utterly Dionysins silent as to the Vniversal Head of the Church Reigning at Rome if at that time there had been any such Monarch there Especially seeing he professedly wrote of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Government Exerc. 16. in Bar. an 34. Nu. 2â—0 The like is observable in Ignatius the most Ignatius Epist ad Tral Ancient Martyr and Bishop of Antioch who in his Epistles frequently sets forth the Order Ecclesiastical and dignity of Bishops upon sundry occasions but never mentions the Monarchy of St. Peter or the Roman Pope Ibid. he writing to the Church of Trallis to obey Bishops as Apostles instanceth equally in Timothy St. Paul's Scholar as in Anacletus Successor to St. Peter The Prudence and Fidelity of these two prime Fathers are much stained if there were then an Vniversal Bishop over the whole Church that professedly writing of the Ecclesiastical Order they St. Paul should so neglect him as not to mention Obedience due to him and indeed of St. Paul himself who gives us an enumeration of the Primitive Ministry on set purpose both in the ordinary and extraordinary kinds of it viz. Some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists some Pastors and Teachers and takes no notice of the Vniversal Bishop but we hence conclude rather there was no such thing For who would give an account of the Government of a City Army or Kingdom and say nothing of the Mayor General or Prince This surpasseth the fancy of Prejudice it self Irenaeus is too ancient for the Infallible Chair Ireneus lib. 2. c. 3. p. 140 141. and therefore refers us in the point of Tradition as well to Polycarp in the East as to Linus Bishop of Rome in the West Tertullian adviseth to consult the Mother-Churches Tertullian praescr p. 76. immediately founded by the Apostles and names Ephesus and Corinth as well as Rome and Polycarpus ordained by St. John as well as Clemens by Peter Upon which their own Renanus notes that Tertullian doth not confine the Catholick and Apostolick Church to one place for which freedom of Truth the Judex expurgatorius corrected him but Tertullian is Tertullian still These things cannot consist either with their own knowledge of an Vniversal Bishop or the Churches at that time therefore the Church of Egypt held the Catholick Faith with the chief-Priests naming Anatolinus of Constant Basil of Antioch Juvenal of Jerusalem as well as Leo Bishop of Rome Bin. To. inter Epist illust person 147. And it is decreed saith the Church of Carthage we consult our Brethren Syricius Bishop of Rome and Simplicius Bishop of Milain Concil Carth. 3. c. 48. The like we have observed out of Origen Clemens Alex. Cyprian c. before Hence it follows that the Church and the Fathers before the Councils had no knowledge of the Popes Supremacy and we have
Lord the King do or in the least wise attempt to do any of the Premises viz. owning the Authority of the Pope by his answer touching his Right to Scotland so strange so unlawful prejudicial and otherwise unheard of though the King would himself See that famous Letter sent to the Pope the 29 of Edw. 1. taken out of Cor. Christi College-Library and printed this year at Oxford the reading of which gave the occasion of these Meditations 3. It appears further in the Sheet where you have that Letter that the Commons in Parliament have heretofore held themselves bound to resist the invasion and attempts of the Pope upon England though the King and the Peers should connive at them their words are resolute Si Dominus Rex Regni majores hoc vellent meaning Bishop Adomers Revocation from Banishment upon the Popes order Communitas tamen ipsius ingressum in Angliam nullatenus sustineret This is said to be recorded about the 44 of Hen. 3. 4. It is there observed also that upon the Conquest William the Conquerour made all the Freeholders of England to become sworn Brethren sworn to defend the Monarchy with their Persons and Estates to the utmost of their Ability and manfully to preserve it So that the whole Body of the people as well as the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament stood anciently bound by their Oath to defend their King and their Country against Invasion and Usurpation 5. The present Constitution of this Kingdom is yet a stronger Bulwark against Popery Heretofore indeed the Papal pretensions were checkt sometimes in temporal sometimes in spiritual concerns and Instances But upon the Reformation the Popes Supremacy was altogether and at once rejected and thrown out of England and the consequence is an universal standing obligation upon the whole Kingdom by Statutes Customs and most solemn Oaths to defend our Monarchy our Church our Country and our Posterity against those Incroachments and that Thraldom from which we were then so wonderfully delivered and for this hundred years have been so miraculously preserved blessed be God Accordingly in our present Laws both the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Supremacy is declared to be inherent in the Crown and our Kings are sworn to maintain and govern by those Laws And I doubt not but all Ministers of the Church and all Ministers of State and of Law and War all Mayors and Officers in Cities and Towns corporate c. together with all the Sheriffs and other Officers in their several Countries and even all that have received either Trust or power from his Majesty within the Kingdom All these I say I suppose are sworn to defend the King's Supremacy as it is inconsistent with and in flat opposition to Popery In the Oath of Allegiance we swear to bear true Allegiance to the King and to defend him against all Conspiracies and Attempts which shall be made against his Person and Crown to the utmost of our power meaning especially the Conspiracies and Attempts of Papists as is plain by that which follows in that Oath and yet more plain by the Oath of Supremacy In which Oath we swear that the King is the only Supreme Governor in this Realm as well in all spiritual things and causes as temporal and that no foreign Prince or Prelate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within this Realm and that we do abhor and renounce all such We swear also that we will bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King and to our power assist and defend all Jurisdictions viz. Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal granted or belonging to the Kings Highness 6. Now next to Oaths nothing can be thought to oblige us more than Interest But if neither Oaths nor Interest neither Conscience nor Nature neither Religion nor self-Preservation can provoke us to our own defence what remains but a certain fearful expectation of judgment to devour a perjur'd and senseless Generation If either our joynt or several Interests be considerable how are we all concern'd 1. Is there any among us that care for nothing but Liberty and Mony they should resist Popery which would many ways deprive them of both 2. But if the knowledge of the Truth if the Canon of life in the holy Scriptures if our Prayers in our own tongue if the Simplicity of the Gospel the purity of Worship and the Integrity of Sacraments be things valuable and dear to Christians let them abhor Popery 3. If the ancient Priviledges of the Brittish Church the Independency of her Government upon Foreign Jurisdiction if their legal Incumbencies their Ecclesiastical Dignities if their opportunities and capacities of saving Souls in the continuance of their Ministries if their judgment of discretion touching their Doctrine and Administrations their judgment of Faith Reason and Sence touching the Eucharist if exemption from unreasonable impositions of strange Doctrines Romish Customs groundless Traditions and Treasonable Oaths And lastly if freedom from spiritual Tyranny and bloody Inquisitions if all these be of consequence to Clergy-men let them oppose Popery 4. If our Judges and their several Courts of Judicature would preserve their Legal proceedings and judgments and decrees if they would not be controlled and superseded by Bulls Sentences and Decrees from the Pope and Appeals to Rome let them never yield to Popery 5. If the Famous Nobility and Gentry of England would appear like themselves and their heroick Ancestors in the defence of the Rights of their Country the Laws and customs of the Land the Wealth of the people the Liberties of the Church the Empire of Brittain and the grandeur of their King or indeed their own honour and Estates in a great measure let them never endure the re-admission of Popery 6. Yea let our great Ministers of State and of Law and of War consider that they stand not firm enough in their high and envied places if the Roman Force breaks in upon us and remember that had the late bloody and barbarous design taken effect one consequence of it was to put their places into other hands And therefore in this capacity as well as many other they have no reason to be Friends to Popery 7. As for His Most Excellent Majesty no suspicion either of inclination to or want of due vigilance against Popery can fasten upon him and may he long live in the Enjoyment and under a worthy Sence of the Royalties of Monarchy and the honour and exercise of his Natural and Legal Supremacy in all Causes and over all Persons within his Dominions both Civil and Ecclesiastical his Paternal Inheritance of Empire and at last leave it intirely to his Heirs and Successors upon Earth for a more glorious Crown in Heaven And in the mean time may he defend the Faith of Christ his own Prerogative the Rights Priviledges and Liberties and Estates of his People and the defensive Laws and Customs of his Royal Progenitors And therefore may he ever manage his Government both with Power Care
a long Epistle the truth is I thought my self accountable to your Lordship for a Brief of the Book that took its being from your Lordship's Encouragement and the rather because it seems unmannerly to expect that your good Old Age should perplex it self with Controversie which the Good God continue long and happy to the honour of his Church on Earth and then crown with the Glory of Heaven It is the hearty prayer of My Lord Your Lordships most obliged and devoted Servant FR. FULLWOOD A PREFACE TO THE READER Good Reader OUr Roman Adversaries claim the Subjection of the Church of England by several Arguments but insist chiefly upon that of possession and the Universal Pastorship if any shall deign to answer me I think it reasonable to expect they should attach me there where they suppose their greatest strength lies otherwise though they may seem to have the Advantage by catching Shadows if I am left unanswered in those two main Points the Substance of their Cause is lost For if it remain unproved that the Pope had quiet possession here and the contrary proof continue unshaken the Argument of Possession is on our side I doubt not but you will find that the Pope had not possession here before that he took not possession by Austine the Monk and that he had no such possession here afterwards sufficient to create or evince a Title ' T is confessed that Austine took his Arch-Bishoprick of Canterbury as the Gift of Saint Gregory and having recalled many of the People to Christianity both the Converts and the Converter gave great Submission and respect to Saint Gregory then Bishop of Rome and how far the People were bound to obey their Parent that had begotten them or he his Master that sent him and gave him the Primacy I need not dispute But these things to our purpose are very certain 1. That Conversion was anciently conceived to be the ground of their Obedience to Saint Gregory which Plea is now deserted and that Saint Gregory himself abhorred the very Title of Universal Bishop the only thing now insisted on 2. ' T is also certain that the Addition of Authority which the King ' s Silence Permission or Connivence gave to Austine was more than Saint Gregory ' s Grant and yet that Connivence of the new Converted King in the Circumstances of so great Obligation and Surprize who might not know or consider or be willing to exercise his Royal Power then in the Point could never give away the Supremacy inherent in his Crown from his Successors for ever 3. ' T is likewise certain that neither Saint Gregory ' s Grant nor that King ' s Permission did or could obtain Possession for the Pope by Austine as the Primate of Canterbury over all the Brittish Churches and Bishops which were then many and had not the same Reason from their Conversion by him to own his Jurisdiction but did stifly reject all his Arguments and Pretenses for it King Ethelbert the only Christian King at that time in England had not above the twentieth part of Brittain within his Jurisdiction how then can it be imagined that all the King of England ' s Dominions in England and Wales and Scotland and Ireland should be concluded within the Primacy of Canterbury by Saint Augustine ' s possession of so small a part 4. ' T is one thing to claim another to possess Saint Augustine ' s Commission was to subject all Brittain to erect two Arch-Bishopricks and twelve Bishopricks under each of them but what possession he got for his Master appears in that after the death of that Gregory and Austine there were left but one Arch-Bishop and two Bishops of the Roman Communion in all Brittain 5. Moreover the Succeeding Arch-Bishops of Canterbury soon after discontinued that small possession of England which Augustine had gotten acknowledging they held of the Crown and not of the Pope resuming the Ancient Liberties of the English Church which before had been and ought always to be Independent on any other and which of Right returned upon the Return of their Christianity and accordingly our Succeeding Kings with their Nobles and Commons and Clergy upon all occasions denied the Papal Jurisdiction here as contrary to the King 's Natural Supremacy and the Customs Liberties and Laws of this Kingdom And as Augustine could not give the Miter so neither could King John give the Crown of England to the Bishop of Rome For as Math. Paris relates Philip Augustus answered the Pope's Legate no King no Prince can Alienate or give away his Kingdom but by Consent of his Barons who we know protested against King John ' s endeavour of that kind bound by Knighs Service to defend the said Kingdom and in case the Pope shall stand for the contrary Error his Holiness shall give to Kingdoms a most pernitious Example so far is one unwarrantable act of a fearful Prince under great Temptations from laying a firm ground for the Pope's Prescription and 't is well known that both the preceeding and succeeding Kings of England defended the Rights of the Crown and disturbed the Pope's possession upon stronger grounds of Nature Custom and plain Statutes and the very Constitution of the Kingdom from time to time in all the main Branches of Supremacy as I doubt not but is made to appear by full and Authentick Testimony beyond dispute 2. The other great Plea for the Pope ' s Authority in England is that of Universal Pastorship now if this cannot be claimed by any Right either Divine Civil or Ecclesiastical but the contrary be evident and both the Scriptures Emperors Fathers and Councils did not only not grant but deny and reject the Pope ' s Supremacy as an Usurpation What Reason hath this or any other Church to give away their Liberty upon bold and groundless Claims The pretence of Civil Right by the Grant of Emperors they are now ashamed of for three Reasons 't is too scant and too mean and apparently groundless and our discourse of the Councils hath beaten out an unanswerable Argument against the claim by any other Right whether Ecclesiastical or Divine for all the General Councils are found first not to make any such Grant to the Pope whereby the Claim by Ecclesiastical Right is to be maintained but secondly they are all found making strict provisions against his pretended Authority whereby they and the Catholick Church in them deny his Divine Right 'T is plainly acknowledged by Stapleton himself that before the Council of Constance non divino sed humano Jure positivis Ecclesiae Decretis primatum Rom. Pont. niti senserunt speaking of the Fathers that is the Fathers before that Council though the Primacy of the Pope was not of Divine Right and that it stood only upon the Positive Decrees of the Church and yet he further confesseth in the same place that the Power of the Pope now contended for nullo sane decreto publico definita est is
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
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
History that it is beyond Before Conquest question that during all the time from St. Gregory to the Conquest the Brittish Saxon and Danish Kings without any dependance on the Pope did usually make Ecclesiastical Laws Witness the laws of Excombert Ina Withred Alfrede Edward Athelstan Edmond Edgar Athelred Canutus and Edward the Confessor among which Laws one makes it the Office of a King to Govern the Church as the Vicar of God Indeed at last the Pope was officiously kind and did bestow after a very formal way upon the last of those Kings Edward the Confessor a Priviledge which all his Predecessors had enjoyed as their own undoubted Right before viz. the Protection of all the Churches of England and power to him and his Successors the Kings of England for ever in his stead to make just Ecclesiastical Constitutions with the advice of their Bishops and Abbots But with thanks to his Holiness our Kings still continued their ancient custom which they had enjoyed from the beginning in the right of the Crown without respect to his curtesie in that matter After the Conquest our Norman Kings did After Conquest also exercise the same Legislative power in Ecclesiastical Causes over Ecclesiastical Persons from time to time with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal Hence all those Statutes concerning Benefices Tythes Advowsons Lands given in Mortmain Prohibitions Consultations Praemunires quare impedits Priviledge of the Clergy Extortions of Ecclesiastical Courts or Officers Regulation of Fees Wages of Priests Mortuaries Sanctuaries Appropriations and in sum as Bishop Bramhall adds All things which did belong to the external subsistence Regiment and regulating of the Church and this in the Reigns of our best Norman Kings before the Reformation Arch Bishop Bramh. p. 73. But what Laws do we find of the Popes making in England or what English Law hath he ever effectually abrogated 'T is true many of the Canons of the Church of Rome were here observed but before they became obliging or had the force of Laws the King had power in his great Council to receive them if they were judged convenient or if otherwise to reject them 'T is a notable instance that we have of this 20 Ed. 3. c. 9. in Ed. 3. time When some Bishops proposed in Parliament the reception of the Ecclesiastical Canon for the legitimation of Children born before Marriage all the Peers of the Realm stood up and cried out with one voice Nolumus leges Angliae mutari we will not have the Laws of England to be changed A clear evidence that the Popes Canons were not English Laws and that the Popish Bishops knew they could not be so without the Parliament Likewise the King and Parliament made a legislative exposition of the Canon of the Council of Lions concerning Bigamy which they would 4 Ed. 1. c. 5. not have done had they not thought they had power according to the fundamental Laws of England either to receive it or reject it These are plain and undeniable evidences that when Popery was at highest the Popes Supremacy in making Laws for the English Church was very ineffectual without the countenance of a greater and more powerful viz. the Supremacy of our own Kings Now admit that during some little space Obj. the Pope did impose and England did consent to the authority of his Canons as indeed the very Consent admitted rejecting of that authority intimates yet that is very short of the Possession of it without interruption for nine hundred years together the contrary being more than evident However this Consent was given either by By Permission Permission or Grant If only by Permission whether through Fear or Reverence or Convenience it signifies nothing when the King and Kingdom see cause to vindicate our ancient Liberties and resolve to endure it no longer If a Grant be pretended 't was either from Or by Grant the King alone or joyned with his Parliament If from the King alone he could grant it for his time only and the power of resuming any part of the prerogative granted away by the Predecessors accompanies the Crown of the Successor and fidelity to his Office and Kingdom obligeth him in Justice to retrieve and recover it I believe none will undertake to affirm that the Grant was made by the Law or the King with his Parliament Yet if this should be said and proved too it would argue very little to the purpose for this is to establish Iniquity by a Law The Kings Prerogative as Head of this Church lieth too deep in the very constitution of the Kingdom the foundation of our common Law and in the very Law of Nature and is no more at the will of the Parliament than the fundamental liberties of the Subject Lastly the same Power that makes can repeal a Law if the Authority of Papal Canons had been acknowledged and ratified by Parliament which cannot be said 't is most certain it was revoked and renounced by an equal Power viz. of Henry the Eighth and the whole Body of the Kingdom both Civil and Ecclesiastical It is the Resolution both of Reason and Law that no Prescription of time can be a bar to the Supreme Power but that for the Publick good it may revoke any Concessions Permissions or Priviledges thus it was declared in Parliament in Edward the Third his Reign when reciting the Statute of Edward the First they say the Statute holdeth alway his force and that the King is bound by Oath to cause the same to be kept and consequently if taken away to be restored to its Observation as the Law of the Land that is the Common Fundamental unalterable Law of the Land Besides the Case is most clear that when Henry the Eighth began his Reign the Laws asserting the Supreme Authority in Causes and over Persons Ecclesiastical were not altered or repealed and Henry the Eight used his Authority against Papal Incroachments and not against but according to the Statute as well as the Common Law of the Land witness all those Noble Laws of Provisors and praemunire which as my Lord Bramhall saith we may truly call 25 Ed. 1. 27 Ed. 3. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3 4. 7 Hen. 4. c. 6. the Palladium which preserved it from being swallowed up in that vast gulph of the Roman Court made by Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. CHAP. XI Of the Power of Licences c. here in Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Hen. 7. THough the Pope be denied the Legislative and Judiciary or Executive Power in England yet if he be allowed his Dispensatory Power that will have the effect of Laws and fully supersede or impede the Execution of Laws in Ecclesiastical Causes and upon Ecclesiastical Persons 'T is confest the Pope did usurp and exercise this strange Power after a wonderful manner in England before Henry the Eighth by his Licences Dispensations Impositions Faculties Grants Rescripts Delegacies and
enjoyed them the Kingdom was so intolerably burthened with Papal Taxes before of which we shall speak hereafter and these First-Fruits and Tenths being a Remembrance of those extraordinary Taxes and a way devised to settle and continue them upon us they were presently felt and complained of The Parliament complained in general of such oppressions 25 Edw. 3. An. 1351. and again more particularly among other things of First-Fruits in the fiftieth of Edward the Third and desire Rot. Parl. n. 105 106. his Majesty no Collector of the Pope may reside in England The King not complying they again instance the year following that the Pope's Collector Rot. Parl. 51 Edw. 3. n. 78 79. was as very an enemy to this State as the French themselves that he Annually sent away 20000 Marks and sometimes 20000 Pounds and that he now raised for the Pope the First-Fruits of all Dignities which in the very beginning ought to be crusht Yet they prevailed not to their minds and in the next Parliaement the Commons preferred three Petitions First touching the payment of Rot. Parl. 1 R. 2. n. 66 67 68 First-Fruits not used in the Realm before these times Secondly Reservation of Benefices Thirdly Bestowing them on Aliens c. praying Remedy as also that the Petitions of the two last Parliaments might be considered and convenient Remedies ordained the King hereupon refers the matters for Remedy to his grand or Privy-Council But neither yet was full satisfaction obtained as appears for that the Commons renewed Rot. Parl. Rich. 2. n. 37. in effect the same Suits in the third and fifth of Rich. 2. the inconveniences still continuing after which the next Parliament obtained the Statute 13 Ri. 2. c. 2. of Praemunire which as Pol. Virgil observes was a Confining the Papal Authority within the Ocean To which Law three years after some 16 R. 2. c. 5. Additions were made and none of these Laws were repealed by Queen Mary To say the Bishops were pressed by the Laity to pass that last Act is so much otherwise as that it is enrolled as Twisden observes on the desire of the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Rot. Parli 16. Rich. 2. n. 20. in fine Neither would Answer to Sir Edward Cook the Pope tolerate as one insinuates any thing so exceedingly prejudicial to him upon any reasonable pretence whatsoever In the same Parliament the Commons Petition that the Popes Collector may have forty days for his Removal out of the Kingdom the King considers But in the Sixth of Hen. 4. upon grievous 6 Hen. c. 1. complaints made by the Commons to the King of the horrible mischiefs and damnable Customs which are introduced of new by the Church of Rome that none could have provision for an Arch-Bishoprick or Bishoprick until he had compounded with the Popes Chamber to pay great excessive Sums of Money as well for the first fruits as other lesser fees it was Enacted that whosoever shall pay such Sums shall forfeit all they had This Statute was made about an hundred years before Hen. 8. an inconsiderable time for so considerable a Prescription 3. We have noted that the Clergy of England were not free from Roman Taxations before Payments extraordinary the payment of Annates and Tenths as they were afterwards stated For there were occasional charges exacted from us by the Pope which afterwards terminated in those constant payments as before was intimated The first extraordinary contribution raised by allowance for the Popes use in this Kingdom Twisden observes to have been an 1183. far enough Hoved. an 1183. f. 354. b. 43. off from the time of St. Austin When Lucius the third at odds with the Citizens of Rome sent to Hen. 2. Postulans auxilium of him and his Clergy whereupon two things considerable are observed 1. The King in this point concerning the Pope consulted his own Clergy and followed their advice 2. The great care the Clergy took to avoid ill presidents for they advised the King that he would receive the monies as given by them to him and not to the Pope leaving the King to dispose it as he thought fit This wariness being perceived the Pope did not suddenly attempt the like again We do not find any considerable sum raised from the Body of the Clergy for the support of the Papal designs till Gregory 9. demanded a Tenth of all the moveables both of them and the Laity an 1229. The Temporal Lords refused and the Clergy unwillingly were induced to the Contribution for it was no other The Pope ventured no more upon the Laity but eleven years after he demanded of the Clergy a fifth part of their goods And after many Math. par an 1240. p. 526. 20. p. 534. 8. 39. Contests and struglings and notwithstanding all the arguments of the poor Clergy by the Kings and Arch-Bishops means they were forced to pay it But neither that Reluctancy nor the Remonstrance of the Kingdom at the Council of Lions 1245. nor that to the Pope himself the year following could prevail then to change the Shoulder or the method of Oppression For Innocent 4. 1246. invents a new way by charging every Religious house with finding of Souldiers for his Service for one year c. which amounted to eleven thousand Marks for that year with many devices for his advantage but did he Rot. Parl. 50. Ed. 3. n. 107. go on more quietly than he began No certainly See the Petition of the Commons in Parliament 1376. The two Cardinals Priests Agents were not suffered to provide for them a thousand marks a year apiece But the State chased them out of the Kingdom and the King sent through every County that none henceforth should be admitted per Bullam without the special License of the King And a while after the Parliament held the 20 Ed. 3. 1346. Petition more plainly and mention the matter of the two Cardinals as an intollerable Ro. Par. n. 33 35. grievance in which the King gave them satisfaction However the Vsurpation grows against all opposition and 't is no longer a Tax for one year only as at first but for six years successively pretending war with Infidels so dealt John 21. an 1277. and Clement 5. in the Council of Vienna 1311. Exactions of this kind were so abominable that Martin 5 at the Council of Constance 1417. Sess 43. was constrained to make that Remedy Nullatenus imponantur c. upon which decree a supply of the Tenth being twice demanded viz. 1515 and 1518. by Leo 10. against the Turk the English Clergy denied them both times Thus the Papacy by little and little and through great opposition at length brought the Taxes to that we now call Tenths and Annates proceeded gradually but by milder measures to a like Settlement yet neither continued without the disturbances before mentioned 4. There is nothing remains under the head of Money but the casual and accidental profits accrewing by Bulls
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-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
Ephesus the first and second of Calcedon to this day Therefore Arch-Bishop Bramhall had reason to say that this Council was never incorporated into the English Laws and consequently hath no force in England especially being urged in a matter contrary to the Famous Memorial of Clarendon a Fundamental Law of this Land all Appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Bishop to the Arch-Bishop and from him to the King to give order for Redress But to wipe away all colour of Argument what ever Authority these Canons may be thought to have in other matters 't is certain they have none in this matter of Appeals for as to this Point the undoubted General Councils afterward decreed quite otherwise reducing and limiting Appeals ultimately to the Primate of the Province or a Council as hath been made to appear When I heare any thing of moment urged from any other Council as a Grant of the pretended Supremacy to the Pope I shall consider what may be answered till then I think there is an end of his Claim Jure humano either by a Civil or Canonical Grant by Emperors or General Councils So much hath been said against and so little to purpose for the Council of Trent that I shall excuse my self and my Reader from any trouble about it But I must conclude that the Canons of the Council of Trent were never acknowledged or received Epist Synod Conc. Basil by the Kingdom of England as the Council of Basil was which confirmed the Acts of the Council of Constance which Council of Constance without the presence or concurrence of the Pope did decree themselves to be a lawful complete general Council Superior to the Pope and that he was subject to their censures and deposed three Popes at a time The words of the Council are remarkable The Pope is subject to a general Council as well in matters of Faith as of manners so as he may not only be corrected but if he be incorrigible be deposed To say this Decree was not conciliarly made and consequently not confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth signifies nothing if that Martin were Pope because his Title to the Papacy depended merely upon the Authority of that Decree But indeed the word Conciliariter was spoken by the Pope upon a particular occasion after the Council was ended and the Fathers were dismissed as appears in the History CHAP. XX. Of the Popes Title by Divine Right The Question Why not sooner 'T is last Refuge THe modern Champions of the Church of Rome sleight all that hath been said and judge it beneath their Master and his Cause to plead any thing but a Jus divinum for his pretended Supremacy and indeed will hardly endure and tolerate the question Whether the Pope be universal Monarch or Bishop of the whole Church as St Peter's Successor Jure divino But if this point be so very plain may I have leave to ask why was it not urged sooner why were lesser inconsistent Pleas so long insisted on why do not many of their own great men discern it to this day The truth is if the managery of the Combat all along be seriously reflected on this Plea of divine Right seems to be the last Refuge when they have been driven by Dint of Argument out of all other Holds as no longer to be defended And yet give me leave to observe that this last ground of theirs seems to me to be the weakest and the least able to secure them which looks like an Argument of a sinking cause However they mightily labour to support it by these two Pillars 1. That the government of the whole Church is Monarchical 2. That the Pope is the Monarch and both these are Jure divino But these Pillars also must be supported and how that is performed we shall examine SECT I. Whether the Government of the whole Church be Monarchical by Divine Right Bellar. Reason Scripture BEllarmine hath flourished with this argument through no less than eight whole Chapters and indeed hath industriously and learnedly beaten it as far as it would go and no wonder if he have left it thin What solidity is in it we are to weigh both from Reason and Scripture Not from Reason in 3 Arg. From Reason they argue thus God hath appointed Arg. 1 the best and most profitable Government for he is most wise and good but Monarchical Government is the best and most profitable 'T is plainly answered that to know which is Ans the best Government the state of that which is to be governed must be considered the end of Government being the profit and good of the State governed so that unless it appear that this kind of Government be the most convenient for the State of the Church nothing is concluded 2. We believe that God hath the care of the World and not only of the Church therefore in his wise and good Providence he ought to have settled the World under the best and most profitable Government viz. under one universal Monarch 3. Bellarmine himself grants that if particular Churches should not be gathered inter se so as to make one visible Political Body their own proper Rector would suffice for every one and there should be no need of one Monarch But all particular Churches are not one visible political Body but as particular Bodies are complete in themselves enjoying all parts of ordinary Worship and Government singly neither is there any part of Worship or Government proper to the Oecumenical Church qua talis 4. The Argument seems stronger the contrary way God is good and wise and hath appointed the best Government for his own Church but he hath not appointed that it should be Monarchical Therefore that kind of Government seems not to be the best for his Church Christ might foresee the great inconveniences of his Churches being governed by one Ecclesiastical Monarch when divided under the several secular Powers of the World though the Ambition of men overlook it and consider it not Yet that the Government of the Church appointed by God as best for it is Monarchical is not believed by all Catholicks The Sorbon Doctors doubt not to affirm that Aristocratical Government is the best of all and most agreeable to the nature of the Church De Eccl. Polit. potest an 1611. 6. But what if we yeild the whole Argument as the government of the Church is Imperial 't is in Christ the Vniversal Monarch over it but he being in a far Country he governs the several parts of his Church in distinct Countries by visible ministerial Monarchs or Primates proper to each The distinction of imperial and ministerial Power is given us in this very case by our Adversaries There is nothing unreasonable unpracticable or contrary to the practice of the world in the Assertion We grant that Monarchy is the best kind of Government in a due Sphere the World is wide enough for many Monarchs and the Church too The Argument concludes
perhaps may be contrived by wise men without prejudice to the said Jurisdiction 3. That there is reason to reascertain the Fees for Probates of Wills and granting Letters of Administration with some moderate respect had to the difference of the value of Mony when the former Act was made and at this time so as the Officers in the Kings Spiritual Courts may live upon their Employment 4. And why Excommunication decreed in Court may not be sent to the Parochial Minister to be not only declared but Executed by him as the Bishops Surrogate and convenient time allowed him to endeavour to reconcile the offender and to prevent the Sentence if it may be I see not if that may give any satisfaction Such kind of Alterations perhaps may be admitted without real prejudice to the Church or rather with advantage as well as those made by the Conqueror when he divided the Ecclesiastical from the Civil Courts The Law by which he made that Division is famous the clauses of it concerning this matter may be desired by the Reader therefore I shall take the pains to transcribe them they are these Willielmus Gratia Dei Rex Anglorum c. William by the Grace of God King of England to all that have Land in the Bishoprick of Lincoln know ye all and all others my faithful People in England that the Episcopal Laws that have Non benè not well been exercised nor according to the Precepts of holy Canons even to my time in this Kingdom Concilio Communi with Common Counsel and with the Counsel of the Bishops and Abbots and all the chief men of my Kingdom I judge fit to be amended Moreover I Command and by my Kingly Authority injoyn That no Bishop or Archdeacon de Legibus Episcopalibus hold Placita Pleas any longer in Hundret nor bring any Ecclesiastical Cause to the Iudgment of Secular men but whosoever shall be called or questioned for any Cause according to the Ecclesiastical Laws he shall come to the place which the Bishop shall chuse and there shall answer for his Cause and not secundum Hundret and he shall do right to God and the Bishop not according to the Hundred but according to the Canons and Episcopal Laws But if any through pride will not appear Venire ad Justiciam Episcopalem let him be called the first second and third time and if yet he will not come let him be Excommunicated and if need be let the Strength and Iustice of the King or Sheriff ad hoc Vindicandum adhibeatur This also I defend and by my Authority interdict that no Sheriff or other Minister of the King or any Lay-man do intermeddle with the Laws which belong to the Bishop Give me leave to subjoyn a few Notes upon this Law of the Conqueror and I have done 1. The substance and matters of Ecclesiastical Power and Connusance was the same long before this Law was made and not Altered by it 't was a Law of King Alured Si quis Dei rectitudines aliquas deforciat reddat lathlite cum Dacis witam cum Anglis And the same is afterwards confirmed and renewed by Canutus and other Kings whereby it appeareth that long before the Conquest the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Church was maintained by the setled Laws of the Kingdom and that Ecclesiastical Judges had power so anciently to Excommunicate and had the help of the King and the Sheriff to proceed against the obstinate 2. 'T is yet very remarkable that for the form and manner of their Spiritual Courts and proceedings before the Conquest it was not here in England as it was at Rome and therefore our most Ancient Church-Government was not derived or Received from Rome This Law observes that before the Conqueror the Precepts of holy Canons as to distinct Jurisdictions were not observed in England that is the Canons of the Imperial Church for six or seven Hundred years before the Jurisdiction of that Church was divided from the Civil even by the Emperor Constantine himself but for so many hundred years before the Conquest our Jurisdictions were exercised together in Hundret as the Law acknowledgeth and is confessed 3. We here see a plain Establishment of our Spiritual Courts with power of Excommunication for non-appearance in the letter of this Ancient Law under the Kings defence and enforced with the Secular Arm and 't is observable that the distinction of the Ecclesiastical front the Civil Courts was made in the Kings own Name and not the Pope's by the Kings power and none other with the Counsel of his own Subjects only and not of Rome that we read of and only with respect and not in any obedience to the ancient Canons or foreign methods And thus the Jurisdiction in our Courts Ecclesiastical as distinct from the Civil is as far from being Popish in their Original as it was when they were conjoyned and therein so unlike to the distinct proceedings of the Spiritual power beyond the Seas so many hundred years before And thus our Spiritual Courts both before they were divided and when they came to be divided from our Civil Courts stand firm in the Ancient Laws of this Land 4. There are certain great Epoche's of the Legal Establishment of the Churches power which I shall but touch 1. It was received with Christianity and grew and flourished by our Ancient Laws before the Conquest 2. In the beginning of our Norman Constitution it was thus distinguished and establish'd by the Conqueror So it was in Magna Charta the first Statute 3. Vpon the Reformation in Hen. 8. it was re-establish'd 4. So it was upon the Return of Reformation after Queen Mary by Queen Eliz. And 5. so likewise upon the Return of our present gracious Soveraign King Charles II. 5. Further I hence observe that some Alterations in Ecclesiastical proceedings may be made by Law without any prejudice to the Churches power 'T is observed out of Spelman before that by this Law the Conqueror did not lessen the Churches power indeed some Inconveniences are usually consequent to publick changes and 't is thought by our Civilians that the many prohibitions which interrupt our Ecclesiastical Courts are occasioned by their being divided from the Temporal but may not that inconvenience be accidental to that Division Or if at any time there be just cause for the Church to complain in that respect is it not rather of the Judges than the Laws or the Constitution But to the matter before us admit for Instance that after Summary hearing and Sentence of the Judge in Cases of small Tithes Church rates and such trivial matters a Justice of the Peace or some other person being legally certified were impowered and obliged to grant Warrants of Distress It seems to me a greater inconvenience in exposing Excommunication in such light Causes would be hereby removed than any contracted by such an Alteration and methinks no one should disdain the new Office seeing the Superior Judge hath been ever
of this Realm and to continue to exercise its power in the Spiritual Courts as before according to the Laws and Customs of the Land Read the Statute and you will not only see a continuance of the Spiritual Courts supposed and allow'd but special directions touching proceedings and Appeals therein SECT II. IF King Hen. 8. did take away the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Church of England he did either remove the Officers or deny their power to make Canons or destroy their Courts and the exercise of their Jurisdiction but he did do neither but rather by Acts of Parliament establish'd them all I. For the first touching the Governours of the Church consult Statute 31 Hen. 8. 3. that it may be Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament that all Archbishops and Bishops of this Realm may by Authority of this present Parliament and not by any provision or other foreign Authority enjoy and retain their Archbishopricks and Bishopricks in as large and ample manner as if they had been promoted elected confirmed and Consecrated according to the due course of the Laws of this Realm And that every Archbishop and Bishop of this Realm may minister use and exercise all and every thing and things pertaining to the Office or Order of any Archbishop or Bishop with all Tokens Ensigns and Ceremonies thereunto lawfully belonging Further that all Ecclesiastical persons of the Kings Realm all Archdeacons Deans and other having Offices may by Authority of this Act and not c. administer use and exercise all things appertaining to their Dignities and Offices so it be not expresly against the Laws of God and this Realm II. Neither did King Hen. 8. take away the power of the Bishops and others to make Canons in Convocation as appears by the Statute of the 25 of Hen. 8. 19. In that Statute among other things upon the Petition of the Clergy two things are granted to our purpose touching Ecclesiastical Canons 1. The old ones 't is provided that such Canons being already made which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the Laws Statutes and Customs of this Realm nor to the damage of the Kings prerogative Royal shall now be used and exercised as they were before the making of this Act till such time as they be viewed by the said Thirty two persons according to the Tenor of this Act which was never done therefore such old Canons are yet of force by this Act. Vid. Sect. 6. 2. For the making of new Canons the Convocation hath power reserved by this same Act provided the Convocation be called by the Kings Writ and that they have the Royal assent and licence to make promulgate and execute such Canons as you may read Sect. 1. of the said Statute Indeed the Convocation used a larger power in making Canons before as is there noted which they say they will not henceforth presume to do but it therefore follows that they may still use their power so limited and derived from the Crown which is the evident intention of the Act. For by restraining the Clergy thus to proceed in making Canons the Law allows them the power so to do and by making the exceptions and limitations confirms their Authority so far as it is not excepted against III. Neither lastly did King Hen. 8. take away the ordinary Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Governours as exercised in the Spiritual Courts according to the Laws and Canons of this Church but indeed establish'd them by Acts of Parliament as is plainly to be seen in the 37 Hen. 8. c. 16. Sect. 4. in these words May it therefore please your Highness that it may be Enacted that all singular persons which shall be made deputed to be any Chancellor Vicar-general Commissary Official Scribe or Register by your Majesty or any of your Heirs or Successors or by any Archbishop Bishop Archdeacon or other person whatsoever having Authority under your Majesty your Heirs and Successors to make any Chancellor Vicar-general Commissary Official or Register may lawfully execute all manner of Jurisdiction commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and all Censures and Coercions appertaining unto the same c. 2. 'T is acknowledged that in the Sect. 2. of this Statute it seems as if the Parliament concluded that by the 25 of Hen. 8. 19. the ancient Canons were abrogated which I wonder Mr. Hickeringill his sagacity had not discovered yet 't is plain enough that wise Parliament did not thereby reflect upon or intend all the Canons but such Canons as the present matter before them was concerned in that is such Canons as forbad Ecclesiastical Officers to marry as the words Sect. 1. are that no Lay or married man should or might exercise any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction c. directly repugnant to your Majesty 's as Supream Head your Grace being a Lay-man then it follows in the next words And albeit the said Decrees viz. being contrary to the Royal prerogative as supream Head of the Church be in the 25 year of your most Noble Reign utterly abolished That this is the meaning of that clause is reasonable to believe because they take no further care to correct the matter but only by enacting persons lawfully deputed though they be Lay persons though married or unmarried shall have power and may exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction notwithstanding any Law or Constitution to the contrary as the Statute is concluded 3. Besides we are assured that all the ancient Canons that were not repugnant to the Kings Prerogative or the Laws and Customs of this Realm were not abrogated but declared to be of force i. e. to be executed in the Spiritual Courts as was noted in the very letter of that Statute 25 Hen. 8. 19. and that this clause speaking only of such Canons as were abrogated by that Statute abrogates nothing that was not so by the Act referred to 4. And thus the Jurisdiction and Canons of the Church stood in force at the latter end of the Reign of Hen. 8. this Statute being made in the last year wherein any were made by that great Prince 5. Thus we have found in the time of King Hen. 8. an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction exercis'd in England without any dependance on the Pope and other Authority for Canon-makers Synodical as Mr. Hickeringill cants besides the Statute for the High Commission 1 Eliz. upon which Statute of Eliz. Mr. Hickeringill very learnedly asserts the Authority of all Canon-makers Synodical was built qu. Naked Truth SECT III. NO more is needful under this Head but to shew my respect to Mr. Hickeringill his doughty and only Argument taken out of the Petition of the Clergy to Queen Mary whereby he would fain prove that the extinguishing Act of Hen. 8. took away all ordinary Jurisdiction from the Church of England and that there was no such thing till she revived it 2. The words of the Petition from whence he thus argues you shall have in his own Translation in this manner they pray that her Majesty would make
Land and not from the Pope Again they all take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance before their Instalment which are the fence of the Crown against Popery And then in all their publick Prayers before their Sermons the Bishops and Archdeacons c. do Recognize the Kings Supremacy in all Ecclesiastical things and causes as well as Civil Again they Take the late Test and the same Oaths at the publick Sessions And lastly Mr. Cary himself confesseth that they acknowledge the said Supremacy in their publick Canons or Constitutions of the whole Church of England as he notes p. 2. in Can. 1 2 1603. And are all these less significant to testifie their dependance on and acknowledgement of their derivation from the Crown than the Kings Name and Stile and Arms which may be far enough from the Conscience in a Processe 2. For the second that there is not the same reason to use the Kings name in Ecclesiastical as in Civil Courts is apparent from the true cause of using it in the Civil Courts which being not known or well heeded may be the cause of the exception for Bishop Sanderson hath well observed the true reason of using the Kings name in any Court is not thereby to acknowledge the Emanation of the power or Jurisdiction of that Court from or the subordination of that power unto the Kings power or Authority as the objector seems to suppose but rather to shew the same Court to be one of the Kings own immediate Courts wherein the King himself is supposed in the construction of the Law either by his personal or virtual power to be present and the not using the Kings name in other Courts doth not signifie that they do not Act by the Kings Authority but only that the Judges in them are no immediate representatives of the Kings person nor have consequently any allowance from him to use his Name in the execution of them 1. This difference is evident among the Common Law Courts of this Kingdom for though all the immediate Courts of the King do act expresly in his Name yet many other more distant Courts do not as all Courts-Baron Customary-Courts of Copyholders c. and such Courts as are held by the Kings grant by Charter to Corporations and the Universities in all which Summons are issued out and Judgments given and all Acts and proceedings made and done in the name of such persons as have chief Authority in the said Courts and not in the Name of the King thus their stiles run A. B. Major Civitatis Exon N. M. Cancellarius Vniversitatis Oxon. and the like and not Carolus Dei gratia 2. Once more a little nearer to our case there are other Courts that are guided by the Civil as distinguish'd from the Common Law as the Court-Marshal and the Court of Admiralty the Kings Name in these is no more used than it is in the Courts Spiritual but all Processes Sentences and Acts in these Courts are in the Name of the Constable Head Marshal or Admiral and not in the Kings Name 3. I shall conclude this with those grave and weighty words of the same most admirable Bishop Sanderson in his excellent Treatise shewing that Episcopacy as Established by Law in England is not prejudicial to Regal Power worthy of every Englishman's reading his words to our purpose are these Which manner of proceeding like that of the Spiritual Courts constantly used in those several Courts before mentioned sith no man hath hitherto been found to interpret as any diminution at all or disacknowledgment of the Kings Soveraignty over the said Courts it were not possible the same manner of proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts should be so confidently charged with so hainous a crime did not the intervention of some wicked lust or other prevail with men of corrupt minds to become partial judges of evil thoughts p. 68 69. Mr. Hickeringill is one of those whom the Bishop describes i. e. that so confidently chargeth the Ecclesiastical Courts with that hainous crime and foundeth that confidence in the Statute of the 1 Eliz. 1. In charity to him I shall give him such words out of that Statute as do not only secure the Act of Queen Mary that repealed the Act of 1 Edw. 6. 2. requiring the use of the Kings Name in our proceedings from repeal in that particular but directly and expresly ratifies and confirms the same and our contrary proceedings accordingly So that our proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts without using the Kings Name or Stile or Arms according to 1 Edw. 6. 2. are allow'd and established by this very Act of Queen Eliz. thus Further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid that all other Laws and branches of any Act repealed by the said Act of repeal of Mar. and not in this Act specially mention'd and revived shall stand and be repealed in such manner and form as they were before the making of this Act any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding 1 Eliz. 1. 13. but the Act of 2 Phil. and Mar. was not specially mentioned in this Act of Repeal nor any other And the Learned Judges in 4 Jac. observe that this Act of 1 Eliz. revives an Act of Hen. 8. repealed by Queen Mary and in both these Statutes 1 Edw. 6. 2. is made void and the present proceeding of Spiritual Courts without the Kings Name c. plainly confirm'd but vid. Coke Rep. 12. p. 7. CHAP. V. The Act of 1 Eliz. 1. Establishing the High-Commission Court was not the foundation of ordinary Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England against Mr. Hickeringill THE worthy Gentleman though he useth much Modesty and will not peremptorily assert and hath only fitted the matter for the consideration of wiser men if he can think there be any such reasons wonderfully after this new and unheard of manner or to this purpose if at all The Statute of Eliz. for the High-Commission Court was the only Basis of all Ecclesiastical power this continued indeed during her time and King James's but being repealed by 17 Car. 1. 11. and 13 Car. 2. 12. down came the Fabrick their great foundation thus torn up now they have neither power from God nor man nor ever shall for his Majesty hath by Statute Enacted never to empower them with any more Commissions to the worlds end Now their basis is taken away I cannot discern where their Authority lies Nak T. q. 1. p. 4 5 6. This is the Spirit of his Reason which he confesseth is not infallible for he saith as before he doth not peremptorily assert it But can a man have the face to write this first and then to say he is not peremptory Would a man in his wits expose himself in this manner in Print and blunder out so much prejudice envy spite and wrath against Government and talk such pitiful unadvised stuff about Law and think to shake the Fabrick of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction that hath stood firm so long in the midst of all
Jurisdiction of the Courts Ecclesiastical it was very carefully restored and established by the Stat. 13. Car. 2. in these words Neither this Act shall take away any ordinary Jurisdiction from the said Archbishops c. but that they and every of them may proceed in all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and in all Censures and Coercions belonging to the same as they did and might lawfully have done before the making of the said Act. Vid. 17 Car. 1. 4. 'T is sufficient yet I cannot but subjoyn one notable way more Argumentative enough alone by it self to prove the Ecclesiastical Courts to be allow'd and confirm'd by Statute viz. when the Statutes direct such particulars to be tried in these Courts and require these Spiritual Courts to use their power for the punishment of offenders and the doing Justice And I think there cannot be a better medium or clearer evidence than we have in this matter For if the Spiritual Courts have no power to try such matters and pass Judgment and punish in such cases why do the Statutes direct and remit such matters to them and why do the Statutes enjoyn them to take Connusance and proceed accordingly that so they do is plain In the 18 of Edw. 3. 6. 't is said that Processe in Causes Testamentary notoriously appertaineth to holy Church We must not blemish the Franchize of Holy Church And in the 18 of Edw. 3. 6. parties are to be dismissed from Secular Judges in Cause of Tithes and left to the Church Ordinaries have power to punish Ministers and Priests as in 1 Hen. 7. c. 4. Synodals Proxies Pensions c. are to be recovered in the Spiritual Courts Vid. 15 Hen. 8. c. 7. Sect. 7. The like is known touching Causes Matrimonial and Defamations c. I shall only instance one more viz. in the great Cause of Non-Conformity and that in an Act that is nearer to us and of unquestionable Authority which both directs what we should punish and most solemnly requires by its own Authority to exercise our Ecclesiastical Power by the very rules and proper methods of our Spiritual Courts in these words 1 Eliz. before the Common Prayer Provided always and be it Ordained and Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That all and singular Archbishops and Bishops and every of their Chancellors Commissaries Archdeacons and other Ordinaries having any peculiar Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction shall have full power and Authority by vertue of this Act as well to enquire in their Visitatiions Synods and elsewhere within their Jurisdiction at any other time or place to take accusation and informations of all and every the things above mentioned done committed or perpetrated within the limits of their Jurisdictions and Authority as to punish the same by Admonition Excommunication Sequestration or Deprivation and other Censures and Processe in like form as heretofore hath been used in like cases by the Queens Ecclesiastical Laws This doubtless is very plain And hereupon 't is solemnly required in these words a little-before For the due execution hereof they do in Gods name earnestly require and charge all Archbishops Bishops and other Ordinaries that they shall endeavour themselves to the utmost of their knowledges that the due and true execution hereof may be had throughout their Dioceses and Charges as they will answer before God for such evils and plagues whereby Almighty God may justly punish his people for neglecting this good and wholsom Law Now if in like cases it had not been lawful before this Act for the Spiritual Courts so to proceed why are the former Laws and use to be followed by these directions Or if this Act cannot impower us give us reason or Law against it Or if any thing be a greater grievance to you in the Spiritual Courts than the punishment provided for the crimes mentioned in this Act say what it is or say nothing But if these cases be not sufficient Mr. Cary can tell you of at least ten particular matters upon which the Law is to grant the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo and according to a know Act of Parliament made after this viz. 5 Eliz. 23. which sufficiently allows and confirms our Ecclesiastical proceedings to the fences of too many as some complain CHAP. VII Of Canons and Convocations WE see what Reason Mr. Hickeringill had to keep such a pother about the force of Ecclesiastical Canons and the Authority of Convocations Especially 1. Seeing the late mentioned Act of 1 Eliz. supposeth the Ecclesiastical Laws i. e. the Canons to be her own Laws and requires Ecclesiastical Judges so severely to put them in execution 2. Seeing since the Reformation most of the matters of Canons are expressed and enjoyned in Acts of Parliament insomuch that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction might stand and proceed well enough had we no other Canon but Acts of Parliament as Mr. Hickeringill insinuates and 't is worthy his observation that the greatest complaints of Dissenters since the Kings happy return have been upon the execution of Acts of Parliament and that not so much by Ecclesiastical as Civil Ministers Indeed the Statute of Car. 2. that restored the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction hath a Proviso That by vertue of that Act the Canons of 1640. shall not be of force and that no Canons are made of force by that Act that were not formerly confirm'd by Acts of Parliament or by the establish'd Laws of the Land as they stood in Ann. 1639. But 't is evident enough that by the 25 Hen. 8. c. 19. the old Canons not against Law or Prerogative are of force and that the King with the Convocation may make new ones with the same Condition and indeed while the Convocation is so limited by that Act their power seems not very formidable My Lord Coke who was not a Bigot for Spiritual Power declares the Law in both those Cases and tells us That it was resolved by the Judges at a Committee of Lords these restraints of the Convocation were grounded on that Statute 1. They cannot Assemble without the assent of the King 2. They cannot Constitute any Canons without his licence 3. Nor execute them without his Royal assent 4. Nor after his assent but with these four limitations 1. That they be not against the Kings Prerogative 2. Nor against Common Law 3. Nor against Statute Law 4. Nor against any Custom of the Kingdom Rep. 12. p. 720. And my Lord Coke adds That these restraints put upon the Convocation by the 25 Hen. 8. are but an affirmance of what was before the Statute and as he saith in his book of Courts are but declaratory of the old Common Law Pag. 323. consequently the Courts of Common Law are to bound and over-rule all Ecclesiastical executions of Canons and secure the Crown and the Laws against them But what Acts of Parliament have abrogated the Authority of the Synod 1603. and quite annihilated the very beings of Convocations I am yet to learn though Mr. Hickeringill so boldly after his own
Answers which appear in the said Act and all and singular things in the said Answers contained We do for Vs and Our Heirs grant and command that the said be inviolably kept for ever willing and granting for Vs and Our Heirs that the said Prelates and Clergie and their Successors for ever do exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Premises according to the tenour of the said Answer VIII The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is a branch of the Kings Supremacy and he that denieth it denieth the King to be a compleat Monarch and Head of the whole intire body of Cawdries Case the Realm as my Lord Coke assures us both from the Common Law and many Statutes in all Ages made on purpose from time to time to vindicate the Crown and secure our own Church and its Jurisdiction under the Crown from the Pope and his illegal Encroachments and Vsurpations before and more especially by Hen. 8. and since the Reformation as is very amply proved by my Lord Coke in his most excellent discourse on Cawdrie's Case and since very learnedly and fully by Sir John Davis Atturny General in Ireland in his Case of Praemunire called Lalor's Case both which should be well read by all that desire satisfaction in this weighty point Thus the Jurisdiction of this Church in subordination to the Supream Head of it hath proceeded through all time in the Laws and Statutes of our own Kingdom and was never legally interrupted till the 17 of Car. 1. but that Act repeal'd by the 13 of our present gracious King it stands firm again according to the letter of the said last Act upon its ancient legal Basis IX The old Objection that the Spiritual Courts do not Act in the Kings Name c. is fully Answered in the Book but because it is only mentioned there that the Case was resolved by the Judges in King James's time I shall here set it L. Coke Rep. 12. p. 7. down as abridg'd for brevity out of my Lord Coke by Manly Pasch 4 Jac. Regis At this Parliament it was strongly urg'd at a grand Committee of the Lords and Commons in the Painted Chamber that such Bishops as were made after the first day of the Session were not lawful Bishops 1. Admitting them Bishops yet the Manner and Form of their Seals Stiles Processe and proceedings in their Ecclesiastical Courts were not consonant to Law because by the Stat. 1 Edw. 6. 2. it is provided tht thenceforth Bishops should not be Elective but Donative by Letters Patents of the King and for that at this day all Bishops were made by Election not Donation of the King therefore the said Bishops are not lawful 2. By the same Act it is provided that all Summons c. and Processe in Ecclesiastical Courts shall be made in the Kings Name and Stile and their Seals engraven with the Kings Arms and Certificates made in the Kings Name it was therefore concluded that the said Statute being still in force by consequence all the Bishops made after the Act of 1 Jac. were not lawful Bishops and the proceedings being in the Name of the Bishop makes them unlawful quia non observata forma infertur adnullatio Actus Upon consideration of these Objections by the Kings Commandment it was Resolved by Popham Chief Justice of England and Coke Atturny of the King and after affirmed by the Chief Baron and the other Justices attendant to the Parliament that the said Act of 1 Edw. 6. 2. is not now in force being Repealed Annulled and Annihilated by three several Acts of Parliament any whereof being in force it makes that Act of 1 Edw. 6. that it cannot stand quia Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant And by the Act of the 25 Hen. 8. c. 20. is set forth the manner of Election and Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and also for the making and Execution of all things which belong to their Authority with which words the Stile and Seal of their Courts and the manner of their proceedings are included which Act of 25 Hen. 8. is Revived by 1 Eliz. c. 1. and consequently that of 1 Edw. 6. c. 2. is Repealed I advise the Reader to see it as more at large expressed and the repealing Statutes particularly mentioned and argued in my Lord Coke 12 Rep. p. 7 8 9. and bid him farewel and not be wiser than the Law FINIS A Catalogue of some Books lately Printed for Richard Royston ROma Ruit The Pillars of Rome broken wherein all the several Pleas for the Pope's Authority in England with all the Material Defences of them as they have been urged by Romanists from the beginning of our Reformation to this day are Revised and Answered By Fr. Fullwood D. D. Archdeacon of Totnes in Devon The New Distemper Or the Dissenters Usual Pleas for Comprehension Toleration and the Renouncing the Covenant Consider'd and Discuss'd with some Reflections upon Mr. Baxter's and Mr. Alsop's late Pamphlets published in Answer to the Reverend Dean of S. Paul's Sermon concerning Separation The Lively Picture of Lewis du Moulin drawn by an incomparable Hand Together with his Last Words Being his Retractation of all the Personal Reflections he had made on the Divines of the Church of England in several Books of his Signed by himself on the Fifth and the Seventeenth of October 1680. Christ's Counsel to his Church In Two Sermons preached at the two last Fasts By S. Patrick Dean of Peterburgh and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty THE END