care of the whole Province and all the inferior cities and Bishops in them and the Bishops commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is straight added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to the ancient Canon of the Fathers which hath continued in force from the first times also unto that Councel Where if it be demanded what is the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I conceive the word to be best explained by Hesychius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it should doubtlesse be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so the meaning of the Canon to be agreeably to the expresse words of other Canons that as any ordinary Bishop hath full power in his own Church which he may in all things wherein that alone is concerned exercise independently from the commands or directions of any So in any thing of a more forein nature wherein any other Church is concerned equally with that and so falls not under the sole cognizance or judgement of either there the Bishop of that Church is to do nothing without directions from the Metropolitane and that is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that no Bishop must do any thing but what belongs particularly to him ratione officii any thing that another is concerned in as well as he without the Metropolitane § 24. Act. 15 Can. 9. So in the Councel of Chalcedon the direction is given for appeals in this order from the Bishop to the Metropolitane from the Metropolitane to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primate of the Diocese or Province as where there are more Metropolitanes then one as was shewed of Ephesus in Asia 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ulp. Obser D. de Offic. Procons and elsewhere frequently there some one is Primate or Patriarch among them and to him lyes the appeal in the last resort and from him to no other see Justinian Novel 123. c. 22. and Cod. l. 1. tit 4. leg 29. who speaking of this calls it an ancient decree § 25. That which we find in the eighth Canon of the Great Councel of Ephesus shall conclude this matter when upon some claim of the Patriarch of Antioch for an interest in the ordaining of the Patriarch of Cyprus the Bishops of Cyprus deny his claim and deduce their privilege of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or independence from any forein Bishop from the very Apostles times A sanctis Apostolis say they nunquam possunt ostendere quòd adfuerit Antiochenus ordinaverit vel communicaverit unquam insulae ordinationis gratiam neque alius quisquam From the very Apostles times they can never shew that the Patriarch of Antioch or any other was present and ordained or being absent sent the grace of ordination to this Island but that the Bishops of Constantia the Metropolis of that Island by name Troilus Sabinus and Epiphanius and all the orthodox Bishops from the Apostles times ab his qui in Cypro constituti sunt have been constituted and ordained by their own Bishops of the Island and accordingly they required that they might continue in the same manner Sicut initio à temporibus Apostolorum permansit Cypriorum Synodus as they had done from the times of the very Apostles still appealing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the ancient manner the ancient custome the privileges which from their first plantation they had enjoyed and that from the Apostles themselves And accordingly that Councel condemned the pretension of the Patriarch of Antioch as that which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an innovation against the Ecclesiastical Lawes and Canons of the holy Fathers and orders not only in behalf of the Cypriots that the Bishops of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall continue to enjoy their right inviolate according to the ancient custome but extended their sentence to all other Dioceses in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The same shall be observed in all other Dioceses and Provinces wheresoever that no Bishop shall lay hold of another Province which hath not been formerly and from the beginning under their or their Ancestors power And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This holy and Oecumenical Synod hath decreed that the privileges and rights of every Province shall be conserved pure and inviolate as they have enjoyed them from the beginning according to the custome that hath anciently been in force All deducing this power of Primates over their own Bishops and together excluding all forein pretenders from the Apostles and first planters of the Churches and requiring all to remain as they were first thus constituted Wherein as there be many things of useful observation which will be more fitly appliable in the progresse of this discourse so that which is alone pertinent to this place is only this that there may be a disobedience and irregularity and so a Schisme even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitanes and of the authority which they have by Canon and Primitive custome over them which was therefore to be added to the several Species of Schisme set down in the former chapters CHAP. IV. The pretended evidences of the Romanist against the Church of England examined and first that from the Bishop of Romes Supremacy by Christs donation to S. Peter § 1. THE Scene being thus prepared and the nature and sorts of Schisme defined and summarily enumerated our method now leads us to inquire impartially what evidences are producible against the Church of England whereby it may be thought lyable to this guilt of Schisme And these pretended evidences may be of several sorts according to the several Species of this sort of Schisme described and acknowledged by us § 2. The first charge against us Our casting out the Popes Supremacy The first evidence that is offered against us is taken from a presumed Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as Successor to S. Peter over all Churches in the world which being in the dayes of Henry VIII renounced and disclaimed first by both Vniversities and most of the greatest and famous Monasteries of this kingdome in their negative answer and determination of this question An aliquid Authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuiquam Episcopo extero Whether the Pope of Rome have of right any authority in the Realme of England more then any other forein Bishop hath and that determination of theirs testified under their hands and scales and after by Act of Convocation subscribed by the Bishops and Clergy and confirmed by their corporal oaths and at last the like imposed by Act of Parliament 35 Hen. VIII c. 1. all this is looked on and condemn'd as an Act of Schisme in this Church and Nation in renouncing that power of S. Peters Successors placed over all Christians by Christ § 3. This objection against us consisting of many branches every of which must be manifested or granted to have truth in it or else the objection will be of no
other but by both and in the ancient if not Ignatian Epistle to the Antiochians You saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have been the disciples of Peter and Paul i. e. converted and ruled by them the Jewish part by one and the Gentile by the other and the Church of the Gentiles at Antioch and Syria of which Antioch was the chief city and Cilicia is it to which peculiarly the decrees of the Councel at Jerusalem are sent Act. 15.23 and inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To the brethren at Antioch those of the Gentiles and that separately from the Jewish Church in that city or region as is evident both by the contents of that Rescript or Decretal Epistle in which only the Gentiles were concerned v. 28 29. and also by that which we read of S. Peter and the Jewish proselytes Gal. 2.11 that they withdrew from all communion and Society with the Gentile Christians upon which S. Paul reproved him publickly v. 12. According to this condition of disparate not subordinate Churches at Antioch it is that the writer of the Apostolical constitutions tells us that Euodius and Ignatius at the same time sate Bishops of Antioch one succeeding S. Peter the other S. Paul one in the Jewish the other in the Gentile congregation and so continued a while till both the Churches the wall of Separation being by compliance and Christian Charity removed joined and united together under Ignatius who therefore as by a Hom. 4. in Luc. Origen and b l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius he is called the Second so by S. Hierome is called the third Bishop of Antioch and yet as truly by c de Syn. Arim. Seleuc. Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said to be constituted Bishop after the Apostles and by d Ex com Ignat. S. Chrysostome to the same purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the blessed Apostles hands were laid upon him whil'st yet Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affirms him to have received the Archisacerdotal honour from the hands of S. Peter § 9. The same is as evident at Rome where these two great Apostles met again and each of them erected and managed a Church S. Peter of Jewes S. Paul of Gentiles So saith e l. 3. c. 3. Euseb l. 4. c. 6. S. Irenaeus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the blessed Apostles founded and built the Church there and f l. 1. adv Carpocrat Epiphanius more expressely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Peter and Paul were Apostles and Bishops in Rome So the Inscription on their Tombes which saith a l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eusebius continued to his time mentions them both as founders of that Church So Gaius an Ecclesiastick writer of great antiquity coaetaneous to Pope Zephyrynus speaking of the monuments of S. Peter and S. Paul calls them b Euseb Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the monuments of them that founded that Church § 10. So Dionysius the Bishop of Corinth who lived about 20 years after their death affirms both of the Church of Rome and of Corinth c Euseb Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was each of them the plantation of Peter and Paul And d De Prom. Praedict implend c. 5. Prosper Petrus Paulus Apostoli in urbe Româ Peter and Paul the Apostles consecrated or constituted a Church in the city of Rome And the very Seales of Popes are an irrefragable evidence of the same as they are set down by Mathew Paris in the year of our Lord 1237. In bullâ Domini Papae saith he stat imago Pauli à dextris crucis in medio bullae figuratae Petri à sinistris In the Bull of the Pope stands the image of S. Paul on the right hand of the Crosse which is graven in the midst of the Seal and the image of S. Peter on the left hand and this only account given for S. Pauls having the nobler place Quia Paulus credidit in Christum quem non vidit à dextris figuratur because he believed on Christ without seeing him here on earth And all this very agreeable to the story of Scripture which as according to the brevity of the relations there made it only sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the circumcision and of his being so at Rome we make no question So it affirms of S. Paul that he preached at Rome in his own hired house receiving them which came unto him Act. 28.30 which will most fitly be applied to the Gentiles of that city the Jewes having solemnly departed from him v. 29. § 11. Accordingly in Ignatius Ep. ad Trall we read of Linus and Clemens that one was S. Paul's the other S. Peter's Deacon both which afterward succeeded them in the Episcopal chaire Linus being constituted Bishop of the Gentile Clemens of the Jewish Christians there And hence growes unquestionably that variety or difference observed among writers some making S. Peter others S. Paul the founder of that Church but others as hath been shewed both of them some making Clemens others Linus the first Bishop after the Apostles both affirmers speaking the truth with this Scholion to interpret them Linus was the first Bishop of the Gentile Christians after S. Paul Clemens the first of the Jewish after S. Peter and after Linus his death Cletus or Anacletus succeeding him and dying also both congregations were at length joyned in one under Clemens by which one clew I suppose it easie to extricate the Reader out of the mazes into which the ancient writers may lead him in rehearsing the first Bishops of Rome so very diversly but this is not a place to insist on it § 12. By all which it appears that even in those Churches whereof S. Peter is acknowledged the founder as that of Rome and the like yet he cannot be deemed the sole founder but coequal to him S. Paul of the Gentile as he of the Jewish Proselytes and if the sole government of that Church be devolved to the original it will be found to have begun in Clemens in whom the union of the Jewish and Gentile congregations there was first made and not in S. Peter § 13. But then for another great part of the Christian world it is manifest that S. Peter had never to doe either mediately or immediately in the planting or governing of it and consequently that from him that power can never descend to any other Not to mention the travailes and labours and plantations of the other Apostles which certainly had each their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consequently their Provinces by Apostolical joynt consent assigned them Act. 1. though that short History written by S. Luke S. Paul's attendant mention them not I shall only insist on the beloved Disciple his fellow-Apostle of the Circumcision and that abundant Labourer S. Paul § 14. Nor all the Circumcision For S. John who had the favour of Christ
of the two swords or from Thou art Peter they have so little apparence of strength in them and have so often been answered by those of our perswasion that I cannot think it useful or seasonable to descend to any farther survey of them his other pretensions are at an end for the Vniversal Pastorship of the Pope his successor whose power and authority over all other Bishops cannot farther be extended upon this account of succession then S. Peter's was over all other Apostles the several Bishops of the world holding from as succeeding some Apostle or other as certainly as the Bishop of Rome can by any be supposed to succeed S. Pe-Peter according to that of * De Praescript c. 32. Tertullian Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia Polycarpum à Joanne collocatum refert Sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit perinde utique caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habent As the records of the Church of Smyrna deduce Polycarp their Bishop from S. John and as the Church of Rome relates that Clement their Bishop was ordained by S. Peter in like manner the rest of the Churches shew us the Bishops which they have had constituted by the Apostles and who have brought down and derived the Apostolick seed unto them § 2. What therefore I shall now adde in return to the second branch of this argument concerning the power of S. Peters successor as such will be perfectly ex abundanti more then needs and so I desire it may be looked on by the reader whose curiosity perhaps may require farther satisfaction when his reason doth not and in compliance therewith I shall propose these few considerations * The privileges attending S. Peters successor belonging rather to the Bishop of Antioch then of Rome First whether S. Peter did not as truly plant a Church of Jewish believers at Antioch and leave a successor Bishop there as at Rome he is supposed to have done 2. Whether this were not done by him before ever he came to Rome 3. Whether the Concession of these two unquestioned matters of fact doe not devolve all power and Jurisdiction on the Bishop of Antioch S. Peters successor there which by that tenure and claim of succession from S. Peter can be pretended to by the Bishop of Rome S. Peters successor also Nay Whether the right of Primogeniture be not so much more considerable on this side then any circumstance on the other side which can be offered to counterbalance it that he which succeeded him in his first seat Antioch is if there be force in the argument of succession to be looked on as the chief of his strength partaker of more power by virtue of that succession then he that afterward succeeded him at Rome § 3. This we know that anciently there were three Patriarchates and Antioch was one of them as Rome was another and though I who lay not that weight on the argument of succession from S. Peter am not engaged to affirme that Antioch was the chief of these yet this I contend that there is much lesse reason that any precedence which is afforded Rome by the ancient Canons should be deemed imputable to this succession from S. Peter when 't is evident that claim belongs to Antioch as well as to Rome and first to Antioch and afterwards to Rome and no otherwise to Rome then as it was first competible to Antioch § 4. The Primacy belonged to Rome upon another score Of Rome it is confessed that the primacy of dignity or order belonged to that the next place to Alexandria the third to Antioch which is an evidence that the succession from S. Peter was not considered in this matter for then Alexandria which held only from S. Mark must needs have yeelded to Antioch which held from S. Peter The original of this precedence or dignity of the Bishop of Rome is sure much more fitly deduced by the fourth General Councel holden at Chalcedon Can. penult confirming the decree of the Councel of Constantinople that that See shall have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges and dignities and advantages with Rome upon this account that Constantinople was New Rome and the seat of the Empire at that time which say they was the reason and not any donation of Christs to S. Peter or succession of that Bishop from him that Rome enjoyed such privileges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Fathers at Constantinople being moved with the same reasons had rightly judged that now the same privileges should belong to that Church or City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that this being next to Old Rome should in all Ecclesiastical affaires have the same dignity or greatnesse that Old Rome had Where as the Original of the dignity of that See is duly set down and which is observable in the whole contest never so much as quarelled at by the Legats viz. the residence of the Imperial Majesty there a thing very remarkable in the several degrees of dignity in the Church that of Patriarchs Primates Archbishops Bishops which generally observed their proportions with the civil state as hath been shewed so is the nature of it also no supremacy of power over all the Bishops of the world for that monarchical power is not at once competible to two equals or rivals and withall the moveablenesse or communicablenesse of that dignity as that which may follow the Imperial seat whithersoever it is removeable and is not fixed at Rome by any commission of Christ or succession from S. Peter § 5. The Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon rejected by the Romanists But because I shall suppose that a Canon though of an Vniversal Councel when it is found thus derogatory to the height which Rome now pretends to shall not by the Romanist be acknowledged to be authentick as wanting that which the Romanist makes absolutely necessary to the validity of Councels or Canons the suffrage of the Bishop of Rome and consent of his Legates and because I mean not here to goe out of my way to vindicate which I could very readily doe the authority of that Canon or to shew the strangenesse of this dealing not to admit any testimony against them but wherein they have given their own suffrage a method of security beyond all amulets if no man shall be believed against me till I have joyned with him to accuse and condemne my self I shall therefore lay no more weight on this then will without this support be otherwise upheld and is in some measure evident by the Romanists rejecting this Canon and adding that the Church of Antioch rejected it also which argues that that which the Church of Constantinople was willing to acquire by this decree was as derogatory to the dignity of Antioch as of Rome And as that concludes that Antioch had professedly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equal privileges with Rome the dignity of a
or practise which their Ancestors at their very departure from them had not discerned and then though those errors subscribed to by them had the Lenitive or Antidote of blameless ignorance yet because those that now really discern that truth which the Ancestors discerned not cannot lawfully professe not to discern it or professe against conscience to believe what they doe not believe it is therefore necessarily consequent that the return of such to the peace of the Roman Church may by this means be rendred impossible though their Ancestors continuance there lying under no such prejudice their separation were acknowledged unlawful CHAP. III. The several sorts of Schisme § 1. THus much hath been necessarily premised for the true notion of Schisme taken from the origination of the word as that includes in the neuter sense a recession or departure in the reciprocal a separating or dividing himself § 2. It is now time to proceed and inquire how many sorts there are of this schisme in the Ecclesiastical sense or by how many waies the guilt of this sin of the flesh may be contracted § 3. In which inquiry it will be first necessary to consider wherein Ecclesiastical unity consists viz Unity Ecclesiastical wherein it consists in the preserving all those relations wherein each member of the whole Church of Christ is concerned one towards another These relations are either of subordination paternal on one side and filial on the other or of equality fraternal Unity of Members subordinate The unity of those members that are subordinate one to the other consists in the constant due subjection and obedience of all inferiors to all their lawful superiors and in due exercise of authority in the superiors toward all committed to their charge Of fellow brethren And the unity of the fellow brethren in the performance of all mutual duties of justice and charity toward one another § 4. The former Of the former sort is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 obedience to the Rulers of the Church Heb. 13.17 and back again the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 due feeding i. e. governing the flock of God among them 1 Pet. 5.2 And because there be under the King or Emperor or supreme power to whom all are subject in any his dominions many possible links in that subordination Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops Presbyters Deacons and the brethren or congregation the unity must be made up of the due subordination and Christian i. e. charitative exercise of power in all these § 5. The later Of the later sort there are as many branches as there are varieties of equalities The brethren or believers in every congregation i. e. all beside the Governors of the Church however unequal in other respects are in this respect equalized and comprehended all under the one title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the younger 1 Pet. 5.5 And this whether we respect all other fellow-members of the same or whether of any other congregation whether Parish or City or Diocese or Province or Nation of the West of the East of the whole Christian world as farre as each member is qualified to exercise any fraternal duty toward them So again the several Deacons or Presbyters of any Diocese the several Bishops of any Province the several Metropolitans of any Nation the several Primates or Patriarchs one with another as the several Apostles over the whole world are each of them to be looked on as equals to all others of the same sort And proportionably and together with the Pastors the flocks the several communities or congregations of Christian men considered in complexo the Parishes Dioceses Provinces Nations Climes of the whole Christian world And according to these so many equalities there are or ought to be so many sorts of unities so many Relations of that mutual fraternal charity which Christ came to plant in his Church § 6. Communion Having seen what the unity is to which Communion superadds no more but the relation of external association whether by assembling for the worship of God in the same place where the matter is capable of it or whether by letters communicatory by which we may maintain external Communion with those which are most distant from us It will be easie to discern what Schisme is viz the breach of that Vnity and Communion and what be the sorts or species of it either those that offend against the subordination which Christ hath by himself and his Apostles setled in his Church or those that offend against the mutual charity which he left among his disciples § 7. The branches of Schisme as it is an offence against Subordination For the first of these those that offend against the due subordination they are possibly of as many sorts as there be distinct links in the subordination As first those brethren or people which reject the ministerie of the Deacons or Presbyters in any thing wherein they are ordained and appointed by the Bishop and as long as they continue in obedience to him and of their own accord break off and separate from them Schism against the Deacons or Presbyters refuse to live regularly under them they are by the Antient Church of Christ adjudged and looked on as Schismaticks So Ignatius the holy Bishop and Apostolical person and Martyr of Antioch in Ep ad Trall admonishing them to beware of the poyson of seducers i. e. the Schismaticks of those times he directs them this one way to doe it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This ye shall doe saith he if ye be not puffed up and if ye be not separated from God from Christ from the Bishop He that continues within the sept is pure He that doth ought without the Bishop and Presbyterie and Deacon is not of a pure conscience accounting all that live out of this obedience to be so far infected and defiled with schisme So again in the former part of the same Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let all revere the Deacons as the ministers of Jesus Christ and in like manner the Bishop as Jesus Christ the son of the Father the Presbyters as the Senate of God and College of Apostles without these it is not called a Church Where every particular Church being administred by these no man is farther deemed a member of the Church then he lives regularly within this obedience And the same is the importance of his exhortation to the Philippians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Observe the Bishop and the Presbyters and the Deacons intimating this to be the only way of preserving unity against schisme as appears by that which had gone before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 There is one altar or sept as there is one Bishop together with his Presbyters and Deacons and the living in union with obedience to these is the only way to doe whatsoever ye doe according to the will of God Where this subordination being looked on as that which is placed in
it is evident that there were other Episcopal Sees in that Asia beside those seven named in the Revelation and those afterward appear to have been subject to the Metropolis of Ephesus which alone of all the seven continued till Constantin's time the rest being destroyed § 17. From these manifest footsteps of Metropolitical power in Scripture it is easie to descend through the first times and find the like In Ignatius As when Ignatius the Archbishop of Antioch the Primitive Martyr in his Epistle to the Romans styleth himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastor of the Church which was in Syria that whole region belonging then to that Metropolis of Antioch Agreeable to which is that of the author of the Epistle to the Antiocheni whosoever it was inscribing it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church of God in Syria that belongs as a Province to that of Antioch In the Bishop of Rome what his Province So the Epistle to the Romans is inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church which hath the Presidencie in the place of the Region or Province of the Romans which gives the Bishop of Rome a Metropolitical power over all other the Bishops of that Province the Vrbicarian region as it was styled and * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Sardic Epist ad Alex. ap Athan. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. Epist ad solit vit agent Ex Provinciâ Italiae civ Med ex Prov. Romanâ Civitate Portuensi Syn. Arelat 1. in nominibus Synodo praefixis distinguished from the Province of Italy properly so called confined to the seven Provinces of the civil jurisdiction of the Vicarius Italiae and the Ecclesiastical of the Archbishop of Milan the chief Metropolis thereof Of the circuit or compasse of this Province of the Bishop of Rome many learned men have discoursed excellently out of the Antient Surveys of the Provinces particularly that very learned Frenchman so rarely skilled and judicious in Antiquity Jacobus Leschaserius in his little tract de Region Suburbic but none with more evidence of conviction then our Modest countreyman M r Brerewood who thus describes the antient jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome that it contained all those Provinces of the Diocese of Italy which the old Lawyers term Suburbicarias of which there were ten three Islands Sicily Sardinia and Corsica and the other seven in the firm land of Italy taking up in a manner all the narrow part of it viz. all Italy Eastward but on the West no farther extended then to the River Magra the limit of Tuscanie toward the Tyrrhene sea and to the River Esino antiently Asius toward the Adriatick Sea For at that River Esino met both the Picenum Suburbicarium and Annonarium the former of which belonged to the Prefecture of Rome of which that city was the Metropolis And the later with all the other Provinces in the broader part of Italy seven of them in all to the Diocese of Italy of which Milan was the Metropolis Hist Eccl. l. 1· c. 6. Thus Ruffinus in his Paraphrase rather then translation of the Nicene Canon saith that the Bishop of Rome was thereby authorized Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum Sollicitudinem gerere to take and manage the care of the suburbicarian Churches and there is no reason to doubt but that he that lived so neer after that Councel and was of Italy knew competently what he affirmed of that matter And it being evident that in all other places the Ecclesiastical jurisdictions were proportioned to the temporal of the Lieutenants and that the Suburbicarian region and the so many and no more provinces in them pertain'd to the Praefecture of the city of Rome It must follow that these were the limits of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of that Bishop also But this by the way in passing § 18. In Alexandria Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So when of S. Mark it is affirm'd out of the ancâ—ent records by Eusebius that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first constituted Churches in the plural in Alexandria and under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Province of Alexandria put them all into the hands of Anianus in the 8 th of Nero Ibid. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is evident that Alexandria was a Metropolitical or Patriarchal See to which all Aegypt did belong § 19. In S. Cyprian So S. Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage to which the whole Province of Africk pertained is by the Councel of Constantinople in Trullo Can. 2. called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Archbishop of the Region of Africk And accordingly he often mentions the many Bishops in his Province Vniversis vel in nostrâ Provinciâ to all the Bishops in our Province Ep. 40. And Latiùs fusa est nostra Provincia habet etiam Numidiam Mauritanias duas sibi cohaerentes Our Province is extended farther hath Numidia and the two Mauritania's annexed to it Ep. 45. in each of which there being a Church and consequently a Bishop in every city as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 14.23 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every city Act. 16.4 they were all subject to this Metropolitane § 20. The subjection of Bishops to Archbishops By all this and much more which might be added it is manifest that as the several Bishops had Praefecture over their several Churches and the Presbyters Deacons and people under them such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schisme So the Bishops themselves of the ordinary inferior cities for the preserving of unity and many other good uses were subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropolitanes § 21. Of Archbishops to Primates c. Nay we must yet ascend one degree higher from this of Arch-Bishops or Metropolitanes to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs the division of which is thus cleared in the division and Notitia of the Roman Empire Original of Primates Constantine the Great instituted four Praefecti Praetorio two in the East as many in the West Of the Western one at Rome another at Triers this last then called Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum These Praefects had their several Vicarii who in their power and name judged the Provinces As for example The Praefectus Praetorio placed at Triers had three Vicarii or Lieutenants one placed at Triers a second at Lions a third at Vienna from the greatnesse of whose authority and the resort of all other cities and Provinces to them for justice sprang the splendor and dignity of those cities where they resided and the dependence of large Provinces and many other cities on each of them This whole circuit which was thus subject to or dependent on any such Lieutenant was by the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the style devolving from the civil to the Ecclesiastical divisions as the former both of cities and of Territories and of Metropoles
one pay an obedience where an obedience is due and no way usefull toward that end that those that are born free should resigne up divest themselves of that privilege and become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 servants or subjects of their own making But I shall not enlarge on this matter but conclude with that of our Bishops in Convocation Anno Chr 1537. in their Book intituled The Institution of a Christian man that it was many hundred years before the Bishop of Rome could acquire any power of a Primate over any other Bishops which were not within his Province in Italie And that the Bishops of Rome doe now transgresse their own profession made in their Creation For all the Bishops of Rome alwaies when they be consecrated and made Bishops of that See doe make a solemn profession and vow that they shall inviolably observe all the Ordinances made in the eight first General Councels among which it is especially provided that all causes shall be determined within the Province where they be begun and that by the Bishops of the same Province which absolutely excludes all Papal i. e. forein power out of these Realms CHAP. VI. Their third plea from the Bishop of Rome having planted Christianity among us § 1. THE next part of the Romanist's arguing against us is taken from a peculiar right or claim that the Bishop or See of Rome hath to our obedience upon the score of having planted Christianity among us § 2. The plea from Planting the Faith unreconcileable with the former But before I proceed to shew the invalidity of this plea I desire it may first be observed that the pleading of this as the title by which the Bishop of Rome hath right to our subjection is absolutely unreconcileable with his former pretensions founded in his oecumenical Pastorship by succession to S. Peter For certainly he that is supposed in grosse to have that original title to all power over all Churches cannot be imagined to acquire it afterward by way of retail over any particular Church He that claims a reward as of his own labour and travail must be supposed to disclaim Donation which is antecedent to and exclusive of the other as the title of descent is to that of Conquest And it is a very great prejudice to the justice of his pretensions who findes it necessary to mix things that are so incompetible § 3. A Dilemma to the Romanist And therefore I am obliged to offer this Dilemma to the Romanist in this place and to demand Which is the Pope's true title to the subjection of this Island the Donation of Christ or conversion wrought by Augustine the Monk If the latter be affirmed to be it then it must be granted by him both that this Island before the time of Pope Gregory was no way subjected to the Romish See and withall that no Christian nation is at this day thus subject but such as doth appear to have been converted by Rome as the Saxons here are supposed to have been And then this concession will lose more subjects to the Apostolick See then the return of these Islands to the desired subjection would ever be able to countervail or recompense and therefore it is reasonable to insist on the terms of this bargain and not to yeild the one till the other be yeilded to us But if the former be affirmed to be it and that indeed the commission from Christ to S. Peter be still the fundamental hold by which our subjection is and alwaies hath been due to his successors then is that other of the conversion by Augustine but a fallacious pretense a non causa pro causâ to amuze us and need not farther be answered or invalidated then by this confession § 4. The Faith planted here before Augustine the Monk But then passing by this advantage and taking the objection as it lies by it self these farther considerations will take off all force from it 1. That this Island was converted to the Faith of Christ long before Augustine's preaching to the Saxons either in or very neer the Apostles times in Tiberius his reign saith Gildas and long before Tertullian's and Origen's time as by them appears Tertull in Apol and Orig in Ezech Hom 4. To this I shall not need to adde the testimony of Eleutherius the Bishop of Rome in the vulgar Epistle to our Lucius the first Christian King of the world styling him vicarium Dei in regno suo God's vicegerent in his own kingdome because as there is some doubt of the authenthenticknesse of that Epistle so the * Suscepistis nuper in Regno Britanniae legem fidem Christi only thing that we have now need to conclude from it is otherwise evident viz that the Nation was in his time converted and so long before Augustine's coming And though by Dioclesian's persecution Christianity were here shrewdly shaken yet I suppose that will not be thought argumentative both because it might be of ill example against other nations where the faith was as bloodily persecuted in that or other times and possibly at some point of time against Rome it self And not quite destroyed by Dioclesian where S. Peter's chair was not alwaies amulet sufficient to avoid the like destructions and especially because it is evident that the British Church survived that calamity three of our Bishops being ten years after that present and their names subscribed Eborius of Yorke Restitutus of London and Adelfius Coloniae Londinensium at the Councel of Arles eleven years before the first Councel of Nice So likewise at the time of that Nicene Councel it appears that as Britaine was one of the six Dioceses of the West Empire see Notitia Provinc Occident so there were in it three Metropolitanes the Bishop of York his Province Maxima Caesariensis the Bishop of London his Province Britannia prima the Bishop of Caeruske his Province Britannia secunda in Monmouthshire * See S. Hen Spelman Concil Anglic pag. 26. out of the Annales of Gisburne which after in King Arthur's time was translated to S. Davids where it continued an Archbishoprick till King Henry I. who subjected it to Canterbury and †à Samsone usque tempus Henrici primi sederunt Meneviae undecim Episcopi usque ad hoc tempus Episcopi Meneviae à suis suâ—fraganeis Wallensibus ibidem fuerunt consecrati nullâ penitus professione vâ—l subjectione factâ alteri Ecclesiae Ibid. all this space of about 500 years after Augustines coming the Bishops thereof eleven in number were all consecrated by the suffragan Bishops of that Province without any profession or subjection to any other Church as the Annales there affirm § 5. To the same purpose is it The Britains rejection of the Bishop of Rome that when Augustine required subjection to the Pope and Church of Rome the Abbat of Bangor is recorded to have returned him this answer Notum sit vobis quòd nos omnes sumus Be it known unto you that
if it have respect to a civil right may in this or that nation be repealed is the judgment of Roger Widrington or Father Preston in his last rejoinder to Fitzherbert c. 11. § 44. and c. 8. he confirms it by the doctrine of Zuarez l. 2. de leg c. 19. and the reason of Zuarez is because such a law made at a general meeting of Princes is intrinsecally a civil law and hath not force by virtue of the law to binde the subjects of any particular kingdome or Common-wealth any otherwise then as it is enacted or received by the Governors and subjects of that kingdome § 23. And this is affirmed and extended by Balsamon to all Canons in general as the judgment of learned men in his notes on that 16 th Canon of the Councel of Carthage before cited § 24. So if alienated by prescription And for the matter of Prescription the decision of †Clav Reg l. 9. c. 12. Sayr is worth observing that in such cases as these Cum Praescriptio sit tantùm de jure Civili Canonico When the Prescription is neither of the law of Nature nor the Divine law nor the law of Nations but only of the Civil and Canon law there non plus se extendit quà m unusquisque supremus Princeps in suo Regno eam suis legibus extensam esse velit it extends no farther then every supreme Prince in his Realm by his laws is supposed to will that it shall be extended which saith he cannot be supposed in matters of this nature of exempting subjects from making their appeal to their King for saith he non est de mente alicujus Principis ut quispiam subditorum possit praescribere quòd ad Principem ab eo non appelletur aut quòd eum coercere non potest quando ratio justitia postulat It is not imaginable to be the minde of any Prince that any of his subjects should be able to prescribe that he is not to appeal to his Prince but to some other or that his Prince may not punish him when reason and justice requires It were easie to apply this distinctly to the confirming of all that I here pretend but I shall not thus expatiate CHAP. VII Their third Evidence from our casting off Obedience to the Bishop of Rome at the Reformation § 1. UPon that one ground laid in the former Chapter the power of Kings in general and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchates whatsoever can be pretended against the lawfulnesse of the Reformation in these kingdomes will easily be answered And therefore supposing the third and last objection to lie against our Reformation that it was founded in the casting off that obedience to the Bishop of Rome which was formerly paid him by our Bishops and people under them I shall now briefly descend to that first laying down the matter of fact as it lies visible in our records and then vindicating it from all blame of schisme which according to the premises can any way be thought to adhere to it § 2. The history of what was done against the Bishop of Rome in the Reformation And first for the matter of fact it is acknowledged that in the reigne of King Henry VIII the Papal and with it all forein power in Ecclesiastical affairs was both by acts of Convocation of the Clergie and by statutes or acts of Parliament cast out of this kingdome The first step or degree hereof was the Clergie's synodical recognizing the King singularem Ecclesiae Anglicanae Protectorem unicum supremum Dominum the singular Protector the only and supreme Head of the Church of England Upon this were built the statutes of 24 Hen VIII prohibiting all Appeals to Rome and for the determining all Ecclesiasticall suits and controversies within the kingdome The statute of 25 Hen VIII for the manner of electing and consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops and another in the same year prohibiting the payment of all impositions to the court of Rome and for the obtaining all such dispensations from the See of Canterbury which were formerly procured from the Popes of Rome and that of 26 Hen VIII declaring the King to be the supreme head which in Queen Elizabeth's reign was to avoid mistakes changed into supreme Governour of the Church of England and to have all honours and praeeminencies which were annexed to that title § 3. This was in the next place attended with the submission of the Clergie to the King agreed on first in Convocation and afterward in 25 Hen VIII enacted by Parliament to this purpose that as it was by the Clergie acknowledged that the Convocation of the Clergie then was alwaies had been and ought to be assembled by the Kings writ and as they submitting themselves to the King's Majestie had promised in verbo sacerdotis that they would never from thenceforth presume to attempt allege claim or put in ure enact promulge or exercise any new Canons Constitutions Ordinances Provincial or other unlesse the King 's most royal assent may to them be had to make promulge execute the same so it was now enacted that none of the Clergie should enact promulge or execute any such Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial or Synodical without assent and authority received from the King upon pain of imprisonment and fine at the Kings pleasure § 4. The third and last step of this began with the debate of the Vniversities and most eminent Monasteries in the kingdome An aliquid authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuiquam Episcopo extero Whether any authority did of right belong to the Bishop of Rome in the Kingdome of England more then to any other forein Bishop and upon agitation it was generally defined in the negative and so returned testified under their hands and seals The like was soon after concluded and resolved by the Convocation of the Bishops and all the Clergie and subscribed and confirmed by their corporal oathes And at that time was written and printed the Tract de verâ differentiâ Regiae et Ecclesiasticae potestatis set out by the Prelates the chief composers of which were John Stokesly Bishop of London Cutbert Tunstall Bishop of Durham Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester and D r Thirlby afterward Bishop where from the practise of the Saxon and first Norman Kings they evidence the truth of that Negative out of story And what was thus concluded by the Clergie was soon turned into an Act of Parliament also in 28 Hen VIII called An Act extinguishing the authority of the Bishop of Rome and prescribing an oath to all Officers Ecclesiastical and lay of renouncing the said Bishop and his authority § 5. By these three degrees it is acknowledged that the Bishops and Clergie first then the King confirming the Acts of the Convocation and after making Acts of Parliament to the same purposes renounced the authority of the Roman See and cast it
out of this Island The Praemunire and though the first Act of the Clergie in this were so induced that it is easie to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung over them by a Praemunire incurred by them could probably have inclined them to it therefore I shall not pretend that it was perfectly an act of their first will and choice but that which the necessity of affairs recommended to them yet the matter of right being upon that occasion taken into their most serious debate in a synodical way and at last a fit and commodious expression uniformly pitch'd upon by joynt consent of both houses of the Convocation there is no reason to doubt but that they did believe what they did professe the fear being the occasion of their debates but the reasons or arguments offered in debate the causes as in all charity we are to judge of their decision § 6. But I shall not lay much weight on that judgment of charity because if that which was thus determined by King and Bishops were falsly determined then the voluntarinesse or freenesse of the determination will not be able to justifie it and on the other side if the determination were just then was there truth in it antecedent to and abstracted from the determination and it was their duty so to determine and crime that they were unwilling to doe it And therefore the whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry Whether at that time of the reign of Henry VIII the Bishop of Rome were supreme head or Governour of this Church of England or had any real authority here which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other viz to the Archbishop of Canterbury if he pleased § 7. The Right of the Bishop of Rome considered And this is presently determined upon the grounds which have been formerly laid and confirmed to have truth in them For the pretensions for the Popes supremacy of power among us being by the assertors thereof founded in one of these three either in his right as S. Peter's successour to the Vniversal Pastorship that including his power over England as a member of the whole or 2. by the paternal right which by Augustine's planting the Gospel among the Saxons is thought to belong to the Pope and his successours that sent him or 3. in the voluntary concession of some Kings the two former of these have been largely disproved already Chap. 4 5 and 6. in discourses purposely and distinctly applied to those pretensions The concession of Kings And for the third that will appear to have received its determination also I. by the absolutenesse of the power of our Princes to which purpose I shall mention but one passage that of †in Goldast de Mon G. de Heimburg some two hundred years since in the last words of his tract de Injust Vsurp Pap where speaking of the Emperors making oath to the Pope he saith that this is a submission in him and a patience above what any other suffers and proves it by this argument Nam eximius Rex Angliae Franciae Dux Marchio non astringitur Papae quocunque juramento factus Imperator jurare tenetur secundum Decretales eorum fabulosè fictas ita ut supremus Monarcha magis servilis conditionis quà m quilibet ejus inferior fieri censeatur The King of England and France any Duke or Marquesse of that Kingdome is not bound to the Pope by any oath yet the Emperour at his creation is thus bound to swear according to the Popes Decretals fabulously invented so that the supreme Monarch is made to be of a more servile condition then any his inferior Prince And 2. by the rights of Kings to remove or erect Patriarchates and will be farther confirmed in the Negative if answer be first given to this Dilemma § 8. A Dilemma against the plea drawn from that The authority of the Pope in this Kingdome which is pretended to be held by the concession of our Kings was either so originally vested in our Kings that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleased pleased and so did lawfully grant it to the Pope or it was not thus originally vested in our Kings If it were not then was that grant an invalid null grant for such are all concessions of that which is not ours to give presumptions invasions robberies in the giver which devolve no right to the receiver and then this is a pitiful claim which is thus founded But if that authority were so vested in the Kings of England that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleased which is the only way by which the Pope can pretend to hold any thing by this title of regal concession then certainly the same power remains still vested in the King to dispose it from him to some other as freely as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chancellour or any other of his officers from his place and commit it to another this way of arguing is made use of by the Bishops in Convocation Anno Chr 1537. in the Book by them intituled The Institution of a Christian man Or if the same power doe not still remain in the King then is the King's power diminished and he consequently by this his act of which we treat become lesse a King then formerly he was And then we know that such acts which make him so are invalid acts it being acknowledged to be above the power of the King himself to divest himself and his successors of any part of his regal power § 9. Two sorts of gifts To which purpose it must be observed 1. that some things are so ours that we may freely use them but cannot freely part with them as all those things wherein our propriety is not confined to our persons but intailed on our posterity and such the regal power is supposed to be 2. That as some things which are part of our personal proprieties are so freely ours to give that when they are given they are departed out of our selves and cannot justly be by us resumed again in which case that Maxim of the civil law stands good data eo ipso qu◠dantur fiunt accipientis what is given by the very act of being given becomes the goods of the receiver so other things are given to others so as we doe not part with them our selves they are as truly and properly ours after as before the Concession § 10. Some revocable Thus the Sun communicates his beams and with them his warmth and influences and yet retains all which it thus communicates and accordingly withdraweth them again And God the spring of all life and grace doth so communicate each of these that he may and doth freely withdraw them again and when he taketh away our breath we die And thus certainly the King being the fountain of all power and authority as he is free to communicate this power to one so is he equally free to recall
unity of the Faith which was once delivered to the saints under that head also comprehending the institutions of Christ of his Apostles and of the Vniversal Church of the first and purest ages whether in Government or other the like observances and practises The second is an offence against external peace and Communion Ecclesiastical The third and last is the want of that charity which is due from every Christian to every Christian Beside these I cannot foresee any other species of schisme and therefore the vindicating our Reformation from all grounds of charge of any of these three will be the absolving the whole task undertaken in these sheets § 3. 1. A departure from the Unity of Doctrines or Traditions Apostolical For the first it may be considered either in the Bullion or in the coyn in the grosse or in the retail either as it is a departure from those rules appointed by Christ for the founding and upholding his truth in the Church this Vnity of Doctrine c. or else as it is the asserting any particular branch of Doctrine contrary to Christs and the Apostolical pure Churches establishment § 4. Our Church vindicated from this in two branches And here it is first suggested by the Romanist that by casting out the authority of the Bishop of Rome we have cast off the head of all Christian Vnity and so must needs be guilty of Schisme in this first respect To which the answer is obvious 1. In the first Christs Rules for upholding the truth that that Bishop of Rome was never appointed by Christ to be the head of all Christian unity or that Church to be the conservatory for ever of all Christian truth any more then any other Bishop or Church of the Apostles ordaining or planting and whatever can be pretended for the contrary will be easily answered from the grounds already laid and cleared in the former part of this discourse concerning the Vniversal Pastorship of S. Peter's successors which must not be here so unnecessarily repeated § 5. 2 dly That the way provided by Christ and his Apostles for the preserving the unity of the faith c. in the Church is fully acknowledged by us and no way supplanted by our Reformation That way is made up of two acts of Apostolical providence First their resolving upon some few heads of special force and efficacie to the planting of Christian life through the world and preaching and depositing them in every Church of their plantation 2. Their establishing an excellent subordination of all inferior officers of the Church to the Bishop in every city of the Bishops in every Province to their Metropolitanes of the Metropolitanes in every region or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Patriarchs or Primates allowing also among these such a Primacie of Order or dignity as might be proportionable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the scripture and agreeable to what is by the antient Canons allowed to the Bishop of Rome And this standing subordination sufficient for all ordinary uses and when there should be need of extraordinary remedies there was then a supply to be had by congregating Councels Provincial Patriarchal General as hath formerly been shewed And all this it is most certain asserted and acknowledged by every true son of the Church of England as zealously as is pretended by any Romanist And from hence by the way that speech of the learned and excellent Hugo Grotius which I discern to be made use of by the Romanists and look'd on with jealousie by others will I suppose receive its due importance and interpretation in his Rivet Apologet Discuss p. 255. Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idémque corpus c. § 6. As for the subjection and dependence of this Church to the Monarchick power of the Bishop of Rome this will never be likely to tend to the unity of the whole body unlesse first all other Churches of Christians paid that subjection too and were obliged and so by duty morally ascertain'd alwaies to continue it which it is evident the Eastern Churches had not done long before the time of our pretended departure and 2. unlesse the Bishop of Rome were in probability able to administer that vast Province so as would be most to the advantage of the whole body For which whether he be fitly qualified or no as it is not demonstrable in the causes so is it to be looked on as a Politick Probleme the truth of which belongs to prudent persons and and such as are by God intrusted with the Flock to judge of i. e. to the Princes the nursing Fathers of every Church who are prudentially and fatherly to determine for themselves and those that are under them what is most ordinable to that end and cannot be obliged to conclude farther then the motives or premises will bear to decree what they doe not reasonably and cordially believe § 7. In the Second Particular doctrines Lastly for the particular doctrines wherein we are affirmed by the Romanists to depart from the Vnity of the Faith and so by departing from the unity to be schismatical as heretical by departing from the faith this must be contested by a strict survey of the particular doctrines wherein as we make no doubt to approve our selves to any that will judge of the Apostolical doctrine and traditions by the Scriptures and consent of the first 300 years or the four General Councels The Church of Englands temper in respect of particular doctrines the most competent witnesses of Apostolical traditions so we shall secure our selves of our innocence in this behalf by that principle acknowledged in our Church and owned as the rule by which we are concluded in any debate or controversie That whatever is contrary to the doctrine or practises of those first and purest ages shall by us assoon as it thus appears be renounced and disclaimed also Which resolution of rulinesse and obedience will I suppose conserve us in the unity of the Faith and render us approveable to God though our ignorance thus unaffected should betray us to some misunderstandings of those first times and be an instrument much more probable to lead us into all truth then the supposed infallibility of the Church of Rome can be imagined to be which as it leaves the proudest presumer really as liable to error as him that acknowledgeth himself most fallible so it ascertains him to persevere incorrigible whether in the least or greatest error which by fault or frailty he shall be guilty of § 8. This consideration of the humble docible temper of our Church together with our professed appeal to those first and purest times to stand or fall as by those evidences we shall be adjudged as it necessarily renders it our infelicity not our crime if in judging of Christ's truth we should be deemed to erre so may it reasonably supersede that larger trouble of the Reader in this place which the view and examination of the severals would cost him
it being thus farre evident that it is our avowed wish and our care should it be denied to be our lot a special mark of the Church of England's Reformation to preserve the Vnity of the Apostolical Faith and Primitive practises as intire as we would have done Christ's body or garment and the probability being not weak on our side that the fact of the crucifying souldiers which hath so much of our abhorrence and detestation shall never be our choice our known or wilfull guilt or if it be that we so farre recede from our Profession CHAP. IX The Second species of this Schisme examined as it is an offence against external peace or Communion Ecclesiastical § 1. This Church free from breach of Communion Ecclesiastical NOW for the second branch of this second sort of Schism as it is an offence against external peace or communion Ecclesiastical This cannot with any colour be charged on us As appears by six Considerations of whom these 6 things are manifest and that by the tenure of our Reformation 1. The first that we have alwaies retained the form of Government in and under which the Apostles founded Ecclesiastical assemblies or Communion viz that of the Bishop and his inferiour officers in every Church and so in that respect are in Ignatius his phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 within the altar have no part of that breach of Ecclesiastical communion upon us which consists in casting out that order 2. The second That as we maintain that Order so we regularly submit to the exercise of it acknowledge the due authority of these Governors profess Canonical obedience to them submit to their Censures and Decrees and give our selves up to be ruled by them in all things that belong to their cognizance secundum Deum according to God 3. The third That the circumstances which are necessary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the assembling our selves together for the publick worship whether 1. that of place our Churches consecrated to those offices or 2. that of time the Lords day and other primitive festivals and Fasts and in their degree every day of the week or 3. that of forms of Prayer and Praises celebration of Sacraments and sacramentals Preaching Catechizing c. or 4. that of Ceremonies such as the practise of the Primitive Church hath sent down recommended to us or lastly that of Discipline to binde all these performances upon every member of the Church in his office or place are all entered into our Confessions setled by Article as part of our establishment and so the want of either or all of those are not imputable to our Reformation § 2. The fourth Fourthly That in every of these three whatsoever the Romanist requires us to adde farther to that which we voluntarily and professedly receive 1. the supreme transcendent monarchick power of the Pope 2. the acknowledgment of and obedience to his supremacy 3. the use of more ceremonies festivals c. is usurpation or imposition of the present Romanists absolutely without Authority or Precedent from the antient Primitive Church from whom we are so unwilling to divide in any thing that we choose a conformity with them rather then with any later modell and if by receding from the Ordo Romanus in any particular we doe not approve our selves to come neerer to the first and purest times it is the avow'd Profession of our Church the wish and purpose of it which I may justly style part of our establishment to reduce and restore that whatsover it is which is most pure and Primitive in stead of it § 3. The fift Fiftly That as we exclude no Christian from our communion that will either filially or fraternally embrace it with us being ready to admit any to our assemblies that acknowledge the Foundation laid by Christ and his Apostles so we as earnestly desire to be admitted to the like freedome of external Communion with all the members of all other Christian Churches as oft as occasion makes us capable of that blessing of the one heart and one lip and would most willingly by the use of the antient method of literae Communicatoriae maintain this Communion with those with whom we cannot corporally assemble and particularly with those which live in obedience to the Church of Rome § 4. The sixt Sixtly that the onely hindrances that interpose and obstruct this desired freedome of external Communion are wholly imputable to the Romanists § 5. First their excommunicating and separating from their assemblies all that maintain communion with the Church of England which we know was done by Bull from the Pope about the tenth year of Q. Elizabeth before which time those English which had not joyned in our Reformation might and did come to our assemblies and were never after rejected by us but upon their avowed contumacie against the orders of our Church which consequently brought the censures on them and to that it is visibly consequent that we that were cast out cannot be said to separate as in the former part of this discourse hath been demonstrated § 6. Secondly their imposing such conditions on their Communion belief of doctrines and approbation of practises which we neither believe nor approve of and are ready to contest and maintain our Negatives by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by that we cannot without sinning or seeming to sin against conscience without wilfull falling on one side or dissembling and unsound confession on the other side or at least the scandal of one of these accept of their communion upon such conditions as hath formerly been demonstrated also § 7. A consideration concerning our Church And in this matter it were very well worthy our considering how farre the Articles of our Church of England proceed in accord with the present Roman doctrines and practises and in what particulars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we cannot perswade our selves to consent to them and then to offer it to the Vmpirage of any rational arbitrator whether we that unfeignedly professe to believe so much and no more nor to be convinced by all the reasons and authorities proofs from Scripture or the first Christian writers those of the first three hundred years or the four General Councels produced by them being in full inclination and desire of minde ready to submit upon conviction are in any reason or equity or according to any example or precept of Christ or his Apostles or the antient Primitive Church to be required to offer violence to our mindes and to make an unsound profession or else for that one guilt of not doing so to be rejected as hereticks and denied the benefit of Christian Communion which we heartily desire to extend and propagate to them which deny it to us All this thus put together and applied to this present matter will certainly vindicate us from all appearance of guilt of this second branch of the second sort of Schisme CHAP. X. The third species of this Schism as
most ignorant rusticks some so void of all degree of knowledge saith Josephus that they knew not what the very word Priest signified The Roman Conquerours by their Procurators put in annually whom they pleased to choose without consideration of the Aaronical line into the chief Priest's office I shall here demand of any Whether supposing and granting it as undeniable that the Zelots were formally Schismaticks or with some improvement in Josephus his style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seditious there can be any ground of reason or equity to involve or conclude under the same guilt those that lived under those imposed usurping High Priests supposing those inferiors to have been as farre from consenting to the continuance as to the beginning of such usurpation and that the circumstances were such that they lay not under the appearance of doing what they did not and so had not the scandal any more then the reality of that guilt The Reader I suppose will be able to answer this Quaere to himself and supersede all necessity of making up the Parallel § 7. The Conclusion And then I have at this time no farther exercise for him but that he will joyn in ardent prayers with me that God will restore that which is lost reduce that heavenly grace and incomparable blessing of Christian peace and holy communion among all that have received the honour of being called by his name that we may all minde the same thing fix the same common designes love and aid and promote one anothers good unanimously glorifie him here with one tongue and heart that we may all be glorified with him and sing joynt Hosannah's and Hallelujah's to him to all eternity Amen ERRATA PAge 42. line 3. dele p. 73. li. 9. lege S. Peter so p. 81. marg li. 12. lege 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 85. l. 24. lege Where as p. 91. li. 4. lege 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 107. li. 2. for third lege second p. 141. li. 25. for quae re quo p. 157. li. 3. lege that the The Contents CHAP. I. AN Introduction the danger and sin of Schism page 1 CHAP. II. What Schism us together with some general considerations thereon 12 CHAP. III. The several sorts of Schism 31 CHAP. IV. The pretended evidences of the Romanist against the Church of England examined and first that from the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy by Christ's donation to S. Peter 66 CHAP. V. The evidences from the Bishop of Romes succeeding S. Peter examined 92 CHAP. VI. Their second plea from the Bishop of Rome having planted Christianity among us 107 CHAP. VII Their third Evidence from our casting off Obedience to the Bishop of Rome at the Reformation 132 CHAP. VIII Of the second sort of Schism as that is an offence against mutual Charity This divided into three species and the first here examined 155 CHAP. IX The second species of this Schism examined as it is an offence against external peace or Communion Ecclesiastical 163 CHAP. X. The third species of this Schism as an offence against that charity due from every Christian to every Christian examined 169 CHAP. XI Concerning the present Persecution of the Church of England and the advantages sought from thence 174 THE END A CATALOGUE of some Books Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivie-lane London A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament by Henry Hammond D. D. in fol. The Practical Catechisme with all other English Treatises of Henry Hammond D. D. in two volumes in 4 o. Dissertationes quatuor quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scripturis Primaeva Antiquitate adstruuntur contra sententiam D. Blondelli aliorum Authore Henrico Hammond in 4 o. A Letter of Resolution of six Quaere's in 12 o. The names of several Treatises and Sermons written by Jer. Taylor D. D. viz. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A Course of Sermons for all the Sundaies of the Year Together with a Discourse of the Divine Institution Necessity Sacrednesse and Separation of the Office Ministerial in fol. 2. Episcopacy asserted in 4 o. 3. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ 2 d Edit in fol. 4. The Liberty of Prophesying in 4 o. 5. An Apology for authorized and Set-forms of Liturgie in 4 o. 6. A Discourse of Baptisme its institution and efficacy upon all Beleivers in 4 o. 7. The Rule and Exercises of holy living in 12 o. 8. The Rule and exercises of holy dying in 12 o. 9. A short Catechisme for institution of young persons in the Christian Religion in 12 o. 10. The Reall Presence and Spirituall of CHRIST in the Blessed Sacrament proved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in 8 o. Certamen Religiosum or a Conference between the late King of England and the late Lord Marquis of Worcester concerning Religion at Ragland Castle Together with a Vindication of the Protestant Cause by Chr. Cartwright in 4 o. The Psalter of David with Titles and Collects according to the matter of each Psalm by the Right honourable Chr. Hatton in 12 o. Boanerges and Barnabas or Judgement and Mercy for wounded and afflicted souls in several Soliloquies by Francis Quarles in 12 o. The life of Faith in Dead Times by Chr. Hudson in 12 o. Motives for Prayer upon the seven dayes of the Week by Sir Richard Baker Knight in 12 o. The Guide unto True Blessedness or a Body of the Doctrine of the Scriptures directing man to the saving knowledge of God by Sam. Crook in 12 o. Six excellent Sermons upon several occasions preached by Edward Willan Vicar of Hoxne in 4 o. The Dipper dipt or the Anabaptists duck'd and plung'd over head and ears by Daniel Featly D. D. in 4 o. Hermes Theologus or a Divine Mercury new descants upon old Records by Theoph. Wodnote in 12 o. Philosophical Elements concerning Government and Civil society by Thomas Hobbs of Malmesbury in 12 o. An Essay upon Statius or the five first books of Publ. Papinius Statius his Thebais by Tho. Stephens School-master in S. Edmonds-bury in 8 o. Nomenclatura Brevis Anglo-Latino Graeca in usum Scholae Westmonasteriensis per F. Gregory in 8 o. Grammatices Graecae Enchiridion in usum Scholae Collegialis Wigorniae in 8 o. A Discourse of Holy Love by Sir Geo. Strode Knight in 12 o. The Saints Honey-Comb full of Divine Truths by Rich. Gove Preacher of Henton S. Gorge in Somersetshire in 8 o. Devotion digested into several Discourses and Meditations upon the Lords most holy Prayer Together with additional Exercitations upon Baptism The Lords Supper Heresies Blasphemy The Creatures Sin The souls pantings after God The Mercies of God The souls complaint of its absence from God by Peter Samwaies Fellow lately resident in Trinity College Cambridge in 12 o. Of the Division between the English and Romish Church upon Reformation by Hen. Fern D. D. in 12 o. Directions for the profitable reading of the Scriptures by John White M. A. in 8 o. The Exemplary Lives and Memorable Acts of 9. the most worthy women of the world 3 Jews 3 Gentiles 3 Christians by Tho. Heywood in 4 o. The Saints Legacies or a Collection of promises out of the Word of God in 12 o. Judicium Universitatis Oxoniensis de Solemni Lega Foedere Juramento Negativo c. in 8 o. Certain Sermons and Letters of Defence and Resolution to some of the late Controversaries of our times by Jasper Mayne D. D. in 4 o. Janua Linguarum Reserata sive omnium Scientiarum Linguarum seminarium Auctore Cl. Viro J. A. Comâ—nio in 8 o. A Treatise concerning Divine providence very seasonable for all Ages by Tho. Morton Bishop of Duresme in 8 o. Animadversions upon Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan with some Observations upon Sir Walter Rawleighs History of the World by Alex. Rosse in 12 o. Fifty Sermons preached by that learned and reverend Divine John Donne in fol. Wits-Common-wealth in 12 o. The Banquet of Jests new and old in 12 o. Balzac's Letters the fourth part in 8 o. Quarles Virgin Widow a Play in 4 o. Solomons Recantation in 4o. by Francis Quarles Amesii antisynodalia in 12 o. Christ's Commination against Scandalizers by John Tombes in 12 o. Dr. Stuart's Answer to Fountain's Letter in 4 o. A Tract of Fortifications with 22 brasse cuts in 4 o. Dr. Griffiths Sermon preached at S. Pauls in 4 o. Blessed birth-day printed at Oxford in 8 o. A Discourse of the state Ecclesiastical in 4 o. An Account of the Church Catholick where it was before the Reformation by Edward Boughen D. D. in 4 o. An Advertisement to the Jury-men of England touching Witches written by the Author of the Observations up Mr. Hobbs Leviathan in 4o Episcopacy and Presbytery considered by Hen. Fern D. D. in 4 o. A Sermon preached at the Isle of Wight before His Majesty by Hen. Fern D. D. in 4o The Commoners Liberty or the English-mans Birth-right in 4o An Expedient for composing Differences in Religion in 4 o. A Treatise of Self-denial in 4 o. The holy Life and Death of the late Vi-countesse Falkland in 12 o. Certain Considerations of present Concernment Touching this Reformed Church of England by Hen. Fern in 12 o. Englands Faithful Reprover and Monitour in 12 o. Newly published The grand Conspiracy of the Members against the Minde of Jews against their King As it hath been delivered in four Sermons by John Allington B. D. in 12 o. The Quakers Questions objected against the Ministers of the Gospel and many sacred acts and offices of Religion with brief Answets thereunto Together with a Discourse of the holy Spirit his workings and impressions on the souls of men by R. Sherlock B. D. in 8 o. Now in the Presse Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to Practise by H. Hammond D. D. in 12 o.
kingdome of heaven and so doth all unjust excommunication now unite us to the Apostles by this conformity with and participation of their sufferings And I suppose the arguments and testimonies produced by the Chancellour of Paris are and when they were first published were so deemed by those of the Romish communion unanswerable to this matter And accordingly that of Thomas de Curselis in the Councel of Basil that it was * Papae à Christo dictum Quicquid ligaveris super terram erit ligatum non quicquid dixeris esse ligatum Jacob Angularis in Ep ad Wesselum ap Goldast l. 1. p. 575. Which holds in the Interpretative Excommunication said by Christ to the Pope Whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound not whatsoever thou shalt affirm to be bound hath with it the evidence of undeniable truth equally applicable to him and all Bishops in that and in all future ages § 5. And then certainly what hath thus been said of the Formal will with the same evidence be extended also to the Interpretative excommunication whensoever the conditions of the communion contain in them any sinne and so become as the former censures were supposed to be For in that case certainly it is no act of Schisme from any Church for any member to be or to continue thus excluded from it For how desireable and valuable soever an intire inviolate peace with all Christians with all men together with the approbation of our willing cheerful obedience and submission of our judgments and practises to our superiors must forever be deemed by all true disciples of Christ Yet must not the purchase of this treasure be attempted by the admission of any sin any more then the glory of God might be projected by the Apostle's lie The least transgression of God's Law must not be adventured on upon any the most Christian designe or consideration The peaceable living with all men which is so often exhorted to and inculcated is yet no farther recommended then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if it be possible and as much as in us lies and that we know must be interpreted of a moral and legâ—â— possibility by which we are pronounced able to doe that and no more which we can doe lawfully and so when the Apostle 1 Thess 4.11 exhorts to the most earnest pursuit of this blisful state this ease and rest and quiet from the labours and toils and hell of the factious turbulent spirit it is in a style which supposes this reserve we must saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 have an ambition and emulation and contention to live peaceably and quietly obliging us to use all means that would be allowed to the ambitious person in his warmest pursuit i. e. the utmost lawful but not the lowest unlawful means M r Knots Concession in this matter c. 7. p. 471 472. § 6. In which matter it is remarkable what course hath been taken by the late author of Infidelity unmasked in his discourse of the Schisme of Protestants where having acknowledged how perfectly unlawful it is to dissemble equivocate or lie in the matters of faith and withall urgeing from all antiquity that to forsake the external communion of God's visible Church is the sin of schisme he makes a shift to conclude as a natural consequence from hence that therefore the Church I suppose he means of Rome is infallible and not subject to errour because otherwise men might forsake her communion Where though the consequence be very strange that we may forsake the Churches communion in case she be fallible or subject to errour for this supposes it lawful 1. to forsake the communion of any erroneous Church which is much more then we would desire to be granted us and 2. to forsake all that are fallible though they be not actually in errour which is in effect to forsake the communion of all but Saints and Angels and God in heaven for they only have the privilege of impeccable and infallible yet it absolutely acknowledges that it would be lawful to separate from and forsake the even Vniversal Church of Christ in case or on supposition that we could not be permitted to communicate with it without lying and dissembling and equivocating in matters of faith which he there acknowledgeth to be the denying God on earth § 7. Now to return to our present consideration Severe conditions of some Churches Communion Of this there is no question but that as it is said to be customary among the Kings of the Hunnes as soon as they have any children and so no need of their brethrens assistance to banish all their brethren out of their dominions and not to admit them again without putting out their eyes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Cinnamus Hist l. 1. so it is possible I wish it were not justly supposable for a particular Church so to fence and limit to guard and restrain their communion to require such severe conditions of all whom they will admit or tolerate within their Church that some men cannot without putting out their eyes or wilful acknowledgment of untruths others without committing sin against conscience undergoe the conditions thus required nor consequently be admitted to communion with it Make Communion with them impossible As in case any unsound or untrue position be entred into the Confession or Catechisme of any Church and all the members of that Communion be explicitly required to believe Such are prescribing subscription of errors and acknowledge the truth of every branch of that Confession and so that confession be really the condition and accordingly in the reputation of men esteemed the tessera or symbol of that communion then he that shall enter this communion thus conditionated must certainly either actually subscribe or which as to the scandal of the action is equivalent be reasonably supposed to acknowledge that untruth and if in some persons blameless ignorance may be supposed sufficient for the excusing or alleviating that fault yet 1. he that hath means of discovering that untruth and criminously neglects to make use of those means and 2. he that hath discovered the truth and yet thus professeth himself to believe the contrary will not be thus excusable And it is not here sufficient to object the supposable levity of the error or intellectual falsity For how light and inconsiderable and extrinsecal to the foundation soever the error be supposed to be yet if there be obstinacy in continuing in it against light and conviction or if there be falsness in professing or subscribing contrary to present perswasions or scandal and ill example temptation and snare to others in seeming to doe so these certainly are sins and neither light nor inconsiderable nor reconcileable with that fabrick of Christian practise which ought to be superstructed on that foundation § 8. or Profession against Conscience Nay if the errors be really on the other side if the doctrines so proposed as the condition of the communion
of any Church be indeed agreeable to truth but yet be really apprehended by him to whom they are thus proposed to be false and disagreeable it will even in that case be hard to affirm that that man may lawfully thus subscribe contrary to his present perswasions For though it be certain that he that thus erres be obliged to use all probable means to reform and deposite his error and as long as he remains in it is so farre guilty of sin as he wants the excuse of invincible ignorance and being obliged to charity and peace as farre as it is possible and in him lies he cannot be freed from offending against that obligation if he doe not communicate with those the condition of whose communion contains nothing really erroneous or sinful and so though such a man on that side be or may be in several respects criminous yet it is as evident on the other side that he that professes to believe what he really doth not believe that subscribes with his hand what he rejects in his heart or that doth that which is under the scandal of doing so is farre from being guiltless he certainly offends against the precept of sincerity and veracity yea and of charity to his brethren in respect of the scandal hath added hypocrisie to his error and so which way soever he turns he is sure to sin the worst and most unhappy kinde of straight he remains in error and schisme on the one side and by flying from that he advances to lying and hypocrisie on the other and the desire of avoiding one of these cannot justifie the other § 9. This I say in case the error be really on the mans not on the Churches side But if as in the case proposed the errors be supposed to be wholly on the Churches side and withall indispensably required to be subscribed by all and so the conditions of that communion being exacted of him who cannot without sin undertake them be to him really and unexcusably unlawful then certainly to that man in that case it is no crime not to communicate when he is thus excluded from communicating with that Church but a crime and a great one thus by testifying against the truth and his own conscience to qualifie himself for that communion The admission of such guilts as these hypocrisie and lying against conscience and due grounds of conviction is too high a price to be paid even for peace or communion it self § 10. A meek son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase and when the fundamentals of the Faith and superstructures of Christian practise are not concerned in the concessions he will cheerfully expresse his readiness to submit or deposit his own judgment in reverence and deference to his superiours in the Church where his lot is fallen But when this proves unsufficient when peace with the brethren on earth will not be had at a cheaper rate then this of a voluntary offending against our father which is in heaven in this case the Christian must be content to live without it and though he would rejoice to sell all that he hath to purchase that jewel yet his conscience the health and peace of that which is interrupted by every wilful sin is a commodity that must not be parted with whatsoever the acquisition be which is in his view and thus offers it self in exchange for it § 11. Application to the Church of Rome in relation to the present Church of England The evidence of which is I conceive so demonstrative and irresistible that it will be justly extended much farther then the present case of the Church of England gives me any temptation to extend it For in case our Ancestors had unjustly and criminously made a separation from the Church of Rome which it shall anon appear that they have not and we their successors in that schisme should unfeignedly confess and repent and desire to reform that sin and uprightly discharge our conscience in neglecting no means that patience humility charity could suggest to us in order to obtaining our reconciliation yet if that cannot be obtained by all these submissions without that harder condition of renouncing or professing or seeming in common reputation of men to renounce any part of Divine truth or Christian practise which we verily believe to be the truth and our duty it would not be our guilt but only our unhappiness that we were thus forced to continue in that separation The reason is evident from the former grounds we must not sin that we may give glory to God such is confession fruits of repentance Jos 7.19 a penitent thief must not lie to enable himself to make restitution nor the contrite schismatick commit any new sin such certainly is hypocrisie lying professing contrary to present perswasion to complete his repentance for the old § 12. If this last be conceived as it is not the present case of the Church of England so to be an impossible unsupposeable case not only upon the Romanists grounds who I presume will not acknowledge any such hard condition as is the profession of an untruth to be required to any mans reconciliation and readmission to their communion but upon this other score because if any false profession be now required to our re-admission the same was formerly required to our continuance in their communion and consequently our Ancestors departure then could not be supposed as in this last fiction of case it is a schismatical departure I shall not need to give any more distinct answer to this then 1. That we that acknowledge not the Church of Rome to be infallible may be allowed to make a supposition which is founded in the possibility of her inserting some error in her Confessions and making the explicite acknowledgment of that the peremptory indispensable condition of her communion 2. That it is possible also though not by us pretended that she should since that supposed departure of our Ancestors introduce some new doctrines and consequently some new errors and those now be supposeable to lie in the way to our return though they had no part before their birth in driving us from them 3. That that may be by the Church of Rome permitted and allowed to those that have alwaies remained in their communion which to them that have departed and either in their persons or posterity desire to return to it will not be permitted by them It being more ordinary to indulge liberties to sons that have alwaies continued in the family then to grant them to offenders and suppliants that expect favours and graces and restauration to privileges 4. That those which have had their education out of the Communion of the Church of Rome may very possibly probably come to discern that which in that communion would never have been for want of representation discerned by them and consequently may observe some errors in her doctrine
the Church by God it is both schisme and impiety not to continue regularly under it And so in the inscription of that Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He salutes them in the blood of Christ especially if they be at one with their Bishop and the Presbyters with him as also the Deacons designed by the appointment of Jesus Christ looking upon all as Schismaticks that were not so Thus again in his Epistle to the Ephesians he admonisheth them to obey the Bishop and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an undivided minde making the disobedience an act of schism or division in any And so generally throughout all those Epistles § 8. Against the Bishop In like manner if we ascend to the next higher link that of the Bishop to whom both Presbyters and Deacons as well as the brethren or people are obliged to live in obedience the withdrawing or denying this obedience in any of these will certainly fall under this guilt So the same holy Ignatius in Ep ad Smyr 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let no man without the Bishop doe any of those things which belong to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wherever the Bishop appears there let the multitude be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that doth any thing without the privity of the Bishop serves the Devil the title by which those foule Gnostick hereticks and schismaticks the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the troublers and dividers of the Church were signified So in the processe of that Epistle having mentioned obedience to their Bishop as a necessary requisite to their sanctification supposing the contrary to be an act of pollution i. e. of the poyson of the schismaticks and again admonishing them as of their duty 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to concurre with the sentence of their Bishop he adds that he that doth not so expressed by not being within the altar or sept 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 falls short of the bread of God is an excommunicate person being rendred such by this act of division from the Bishop So in the Epistle to the Magnesians speaking of those that act without the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these seem not to him to be men of a good conscience the phrase by which he oft expresses Schismaticks whose minde and conscience was defiled by the poyson of the Gnosticks at that time because they assembled not according to that order and establishment which was setled in the Church And again as Christ did nothing without his Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being united to him or all one with his Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so neither must ye doe any thing without the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but assemble together and have but one prayer common to you all where the living out of this regular obedience to the Bishop is the contrary to union and communion and so is formally schisme And to the Philadelphians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as many as are God's and Christ's are with the Bishop excluding them from the unity of Christ's body who are thus separated from the Bishop And in the same Epistle speaking of the repentance of schismaticks and hereticks and God's pardon offered to such the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 condition of that pardon and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the syncerity of that repentance is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if they return to the unity of God and senate of the Bishop So frequently in S. Cyprian the schisme especially of the five Presbyters of Faelicissimus his faction Ep 40. appears to consist in their disobedience to and breaking off from their †Contra Episcopatum meum c. Ep. 40. Hi tribuebant ne concordarent cum Episcopo suo Ibid. contra sacerdotium Dei partionem ruptae fraternitatis armare voluisse proper Bishop and causing others to doe so and De Vnit Eccl the Schismatick is described to be filius impius qui contemptis Episcopis Dei sacerdotibus derelictis constituere audet aliud altare an impious son which having contemned the Bishops and which is all one forsaken the Priests of God dares constitute another altar and Ep 76. qui schisma faciunt relicto Episcopo alium sibi foris Pseudo-episcopum constituunt the schismaticks are they that having left their Bishop set up for themselves abroad another false Bishop and all their adherents are involved in the same guilt qui se schismaticis contra Praepositos sacerdotes irreligiosâ temeritate miscuerunt who joyn with the schismaticks against their Bishops and Ep 65. Hi sunt conatus schismaticorum ut sibi placeant ut Praepositum superbo tumore contemnant These are the endevours of schismaticks that they may please themselves and proudly contemn their Bishop and Ep 69. Vnum scire debes si quis cum Episcopo non sit in Ecclesiâ non esse One thing you are to know that he that is not with the Bishop is not in the Church the Church being there by him defined plebs sacerdoti adunata Pastori suo grex adhaerens the people united to the Bishop and the flock to their Pastor § 9. This of a lighter a grosser sort And as this disobedience may be of two sorts either of a lower or of a higher kinde the denying obedience in any particular lawful command of the superior or the casting off all obedience together dethroning them or setting up our selves either in their steads or in opposition to them the first parallel to the contumacy of the Levites the sons of Eliab Num. 16.12 14. which said We will not come up the second to their rebellion levelling and equalling themselves to Moses and Aaron v. 3. ◠and both together subjecting them first to that curse of Gods not accepting their sacrifice v. 15. and then to that sudden exemplary destruction v. 31. so will the Schisme be also a lighter and a grosser separation a defection from the Bishop and a rebellion against him the former ordinarily called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schisme the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sedition the latter adding very much to the guilt of the former and uncapable of the alleviating excuses of ignorance or mistake in thinking the commands unlawful and consequently the obedience which may be pretended in the former § 10. Against the Metropolitan From this of Bishops we may further ascend to the higher dignity and authority of Metropolitanes over Bishops themselves which what it is will be fit to be examined a while § 11. The original of Metropolitans In Titus And the first rise may be taken from Scripture it self where the Commission which is given to Titus by S. Paul to ordain Elders Tit. 1.5 that is Bishops v. 7. in every city of Crete demonstrates him to have had Metropolitical authority bestowed on him so saith S. Chrysostome on Tit. 1. Hom. 1. of Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If he had not been an approved person
or Mother cities the chief in every Province had done the Bishop being answerable to the Defensor civitatis and the Archbishop to the Praesident in every Province from thence it came that every such Metropolis which was the seat of any Vicarius or Lieutenant General was over and above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Bishop thereof Primas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patriarcha a Primate Exarch or Patriarch and all that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is larger then a Province the joynt administration of many Provinces with the several Metropoles and Metroplitanes contained in it was subjected to him Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus S. Irenaeus being Bishop of Lyons is by Eusebius affirm'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have the over sight or Government of the Provinces of France either those only that were under that Primate or perhaps of all France Ibid. c. d. of which Lyons was then in the Ecclesiastical account the first Exarchate for so saith the same Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyons and Vienna but first Lyons were famously known to be beyond all others in those parts the principal Metropoles of France And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these were the most splendid illustrious Churches there To which first times I conceive belongs that verse of Guilielmus Brito in Philippeide Et Lugdunensis quo Gallia tota solebat Vt fama est Primate regi placing all France under the Primate of Lyons or affirming it from tradition ut fama est that it was wont antiently to be so placed which was not well understood or taken notice of by the learned Jos Scaliger In Notit Galliae p. 8â—2 when he affirms it nuperum novitium ex beneficio Romani Pontificis indultum a privilege lately granted to the Bishop of Lyons by the Pope quod Primatem sese vocari gaudeat that he calls himself Primate which privilege if not title did so long since belong to Irenaeus the Bishop of that Diocese § 22. I shall not need inlarge on this subject or set down the several Primates and Dioceses belonging to them It is known in the ancient notitiae of the Church that beside the three Patriarchs of Rome Alexandria and Antioch to which title afterward Constantinople and Jerusalem were advanced there were eleven Primates more there being fourteen Dioceses or joynt administrations of many Provinces for so the word anciently signified not in the modern sense of it one city and the territory The Primates power equal to that of the Patriarch the jurisdiction of an ordinary Bishop for which they then used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven in the East and the Praefecture of the city of Rome and six more in the West into which the whole Empire was divided And though the Patriarchs had in Councels the praecedence or deference in respect of place either because these three cities had the honour to disperse Christianity in a most eminent manner to other cities and nations or from the great dignity of the cities themselves * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Chalced. Can penult Rome being the seat and first city of the Empire and thereupon thus dignified saith the Councel of Chalcedon and Alexandria by †Or. 32. ad Alexandrin see Aristid Or. de Rom. Laud. Dio Chrysostome and others affirmed to be the second and Antioch the third saith Josephus yet it is certain that the power and jurisdiction of Primates was as great as of Patriarchs and the Office the same see Anacleâ—us Epist ad Episc Ital. and Gratian Dist 99. and many times in Authors the very titles confounded as appears by Justinian who commonly gives Primates the names of Patriarchs of the Dioceses And if it be now demanded whether there were not anciently some Summum Genus some one Supreme either of or over these Patriarchs I answer that if we respect order or priority of place again then the Bishop of Rome had it among the Patriarchs as the Patriarchs among the Primates that city of Rome being Lady of the World and the seat of the Empire But if we respect power And no power but of the Prince above them or authority there was none anciently in the Church over that of Primates and Patriarchs but only that of the Emperour in the whole Christian World as of every Soveraign Prince in his Dominions as may appear by the ancient power and practice of congregating or convoking of Councels Provincial by the Metropolitan Patriarchal by the Patriarch or Primate National by the Prince for the first 1000 years through the whole West and General by the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. l. 5. Prooem Ex Superioribus habetur Imperatores Sanctos congregationes Synodales Universalium Conciliorum totius Ecclesiae semper â—â—cisse Ita ego perlustrans gesta omnium Universalium usque ad octavum inclusivè Basiliitempore celebratum verum esse râ—peri Cusan de concord Cathol l. 3. c. 16. and c. 13. See S. Hierom in Apol. ad Ruffin l. 2. where speaking of a pretended Synod he adds Quis Imperator hanc Synodum jusserit congregari Emperor when for the conserving the unity or taking care for the necessities of the Church those last remedies appeared seasonable But this of General Councels being extraordinary and such as the Church was without them for the first three hundred yeers and are now morally impossible to be had we need not farther to ascend to these but content our selves with those standing powers in the Church the uppermost of which are Archbishops Primates and Patriarchs to whom the Bishops themselves are in many things appointed to be subject and this power and subjection defined and asserted by the Ancient Canons The Primitive Power of Primates c. and the most ancient even immemorial Apostolical tradition and Custome avouched for it as may appear Concil Nicen. 1. Can. 4.6 Concil Antioch c. 9.20 Concil Chalced. C. 19. In the Sixt Nicene Canon where the jurisdiction of all Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis is affirmed to belong to the Patriarch of Alexandria and order is taken that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or privileges of eminency which belong to the Bishop of Rome of Antioch and Metropolitanes of all other Provinces shall be conserved intire to them the Introduction is made in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Ancient customes be in force The very form which S. Ignatius useth concerning Apostolical customes which were to be solicitously retained in the Church and seems there particularly to refer to those orders which S. Mark had left in Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis subjecting all the Bishops there to the Patriarch by him constituted in Alexandria § 23. So in the 9 th Canon of the Councel of Antioch where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop presiding in the Metropolis is appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to undertake the
and the dignity of place before all others in Christ's life time even before S. Peter himself which is the plain meaning of his style of the beloved Disciple and of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaning on his breast at supper Joh. 21.20 his having the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the first place next to Christ as being in Abrahams bosome plainly signifies being in dignity of place next to the father of the faithful 't is evident that he is one of those that by agreement went to the Circumcision was assigned the Jewes Not the Jewes of Asia for his Province as well as S. Peter and consequently he had the converting and then governing of all the converted Jewes of that Lydian Asia and placing Bishops over them as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap Euseb l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clemens Alexandrinus and b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. Eusebius and c Joannes apud Ephesum Ecclesiā sacravit De Prom. Praed impl c. 5. Prosper and others tell us and the d Phot. Bib. num 254. Author of the Martyrdome of Timothy saith of him that being returned from his banishment by Nerva's decree 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he placed his seat of residence in Ephesus and having seven Bishops with him he undertook the care of that Metropolis that is in effect or by interpretation of all Asia which was under that prime Metropolis as far as extended to the Jewish Christians there As neither the Gentiles there § 15. But then as before was said of the several Churches and Bishops in the same place one of the dispersed Jewes the other of Gentiles so it is evident that through all this Asia the Lydian or Proconsular the faith was by S. Paul planted among the Gentile part and by him S. Timothy constituted Bishop there and so saith S. Chrysostome Hom. 5. in 1 Tim. 5.19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a whole intire nation that of Asia was intrusted to him § 16. Where I shall demand of any man of the Romish pretensions or perswasion what can be said in any degree probably for S. Peters Vniversal Pastorship whilst he lived over this Asia whose seven Metropoles and sure there were inferior Churches or Episcopal Sees under them are so early famous being honoured with Christs-Epistle to them in the Revelation was S. Peter the supreme Pastor of these Churches had he any or did he ever exercise or pretend any Jurisdiction over them was not all the Jewish part of that Province ultimately under S. John and the Gentile part under S. Paul and S. Timothy constituted and commissionated by him Doth not S. Paul give him full instructions and such as no other Apostle could countermand or interpose in them leaving no other appeal or place of application for farther directions save only to himself when he shall come to him 1 Tim. 3.14 15. Did not S. Paul by his own single power delegate that Province to him and seat him there as appears by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I exhorted or appointed thee when I went to Macedonia 1 Tim. 1.3 and may it not as reasonably be said that S. Peter was with him in his journey to Macedonia as that he joyned with him in giving that Commission to Timothy § 17. Nor in Crete And so likewise of Titus in Crete was he not by S. Paul peculiarly left in Crete and constituted Primate there Is it imaginable that under Christ there could be any head of that Church of that whole Island save only S. Paul § 18. Nor in Britannie The same may certainly be said of all the Gentile Churches in all other Islands and parts of the world and consequently in this of Britannie wherein our present debate is terminated And therefore if that of * de Petr Paul ad diem 29. Junii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Simeon Metaphrastes should be thought to have truth in it that S. Peter was in Britannie some time and baptized many into the faith of Christ and constituted Churches ordaining Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons in the 12. of Nero in all reason it must be extended no farther then S. Peters line as he was the Apostle of the Circumcision i. e. to the Jewes that might at that time be dispersed here and so not prejudge the other more authentick relations of Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes having planted the faith in this Island § 19. This I suppose is one competent proof of the Negative as it respects the person of S. Peter that he was not could not be as things stood with him Vniversal Pastor of the whole Church constituted by Christ And accordingly we see in Prosper disputing against hereticks which divide from the Church he expresses it by relictâ pace communionis Prospers testimony to this matter panis unius Dei Apostolorum that they leave the Communion of Christ and his Apostles in the plural and adds cum in ipsâ Hierusalem Jacobus Joannes apud Ephesum Andreas caeteri per totam Asiam Petrus Paulus Apostoli in urbe Româ Gentium Ecclesiam pacatam unámque posteris tradentes ex Dominicâ pactione sacrarunt that James in Jerusalem John at Ephesus Andrew and the rest through all Asia Peter and Paul at Rome consecrated the Church of the nations Whereas the Church had the several Apostles for the founders and those independent one from the other So the unity from which hereticks and schismaticks depart is said to have been founded equally in each of them in John and James and Andrew and others as well as in S. Peter nay at Rome not in S. Peter alone but in him and S. Paul together § 20. A second evidence against S. Peters supremacy from the donation of the keyes In the next place another evidence we may have of this in reference again to S. Peters person from that which is visible in the donation of the power of the Keyes set down in Scripture This power Mat. 16.19 is promised to S. Peter I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven But to him that from hence pretends this Donative and consequent power as a peculiarity and inclosure of S. Peters these considerations will be of force to supersede his conclusion 1. That these words here set down by S. Matthew c. 16. are not the Instrument of Christs conveyance the words of his commission but those other Joh. 20.21 As my Father hath sent me Power of the keyes given to all and each so send I you upon which words it is added he breathed on them and said Receive the holy Ghost Whose sins you remit they are remitted And these as also those Mat. 28.19 which are a repetition much to the same purpose are delivered in common and equally to all and every of the eleven Apostles as is evident by the plural style throughout that Commission § 21. Secondly
Patriarchate and the attendants and pompes of that So it proceeds on a concession that all that Constantinople wanted or in which this New came short of the Old Rome was only the dignity of a Patriarchate without any ordinary jurisdiction over other Churches Which again shewes us what was the nature of the preeminence of the Roman See at that time no supreme authoritative power over other Primates The dignity of Patriarchs reconcileable with the independency of Primates but only a precedence or priority of place in Councels an eminence in respect of dignity which is perfectly reconcileable with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and independence the no-subordination or subjection of other Primates § 6. The Canon of Ephesus against encroaching on any others Province This hath formerly been manifested when we discoursed of the original and power and dignity of Primates and Patriarchs and is put beyond all controll by that Canon of the Councel of Ephesus in the cause of the Archbishop of Cyprus over whom the Patriarch of Antioch though Patriarch of all the Orient was adjudged to have no manner of power And this independency of Cyprus not only from the Patriarch of Antioch but from all others whomsoever was contested then as from the Apostles times and asserted and vindicated by that Councel and order given indefinitely against all invasions for time to come in whatever Diocese that no Bishop shall encroach upon anothers Province or usurp a power where from the Apostles times he had not enjoyed it which how directly it is applicable to and prejudgeth the pretensions of Rome as well as of Antioch is so manifest that it cannot need farther demonstrating § 7. Instances of Independent power in Archbishops Of the same kind two farther instances I shall here adde first of the Archbishop of Carthage who being the chief Primate or Metropolitan for these two words in the African style different from the usage of other Churches are observeable to signifie the same thing in Africk i. e. in one of the thirteen Dioceses of the Empire appears to have been independent from all other power an absolute Primate subject to no superiour or Patriarch whether of Alexandria or Rome This is evident by Justinian in the 131 Novel where the Emperour gives the same privileges to the Archbishop of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Carthage which he had formerly given to the Bishop of Justiniana prima which being the second example I meant to mention I shall briefly shew what that Prerogative was which equally belonged to these two § 8. Justiniana Prima was the head of a Caetera Provinciae sub ejus sint authoritate i. e. tam ipsa mediterranea Dacia quà m Dacia Ripensis nec non Mysia Secunda Dardania Praevalitana Provincia secunda Macedonia pars secunda etiam Pannoniae quae in Bacenâ—i est civitate Justin de Privileg Archiep Just Prim ed à Gothofred Dacia the new a Diocese as that signifies more then a Province a b Volumus ut Primae Justinianae patriae nostrae pro tempore sacrosanctus Antistes non solùm Metroplitanus sed etiam Archiepiscopus fiat Ibid. Primat's a Patriarch's dominion erected by Justinian the Emperour and that city thus dignified as the c Multis variis modis nostram patriam augere cupientes in qua Deus praestitit nobis ad hunc modum So Gothofred reads but certainly it should be ad or in hunc mundum quem ipse condidit venire Ibid. Necessarium duximus ipsam gloriosissimam Praefecturam quae in Pannoniâ erat in nostrâ foelicissimâ patriâcollocare Ib. place where he had been born and the Archbishop thereof made Primate of all that Diocese This is thus expressed in the Imperial Constitutions Nov. 11. that he shall have omnem censuram Ecclesiasticam summum Sacerdotium summum fastigium summam dignitatem all power of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction the supreme Priesthood supreme honour and dignity And in the Constitutions set out by Gothofred out of an old MS. Copy Tu omnes Justinianae primae Antistites quicquid oriatur inter eos discrimen ipsi hoc dirimant finem eis imponant nec ad alium quendam eatur sed suum agnoscant Archiepiscopum omnes praedictae Provinciae that all the Provinces shall in the last resort make their appeal to him for all controversies And Nov. 131. c. 3. that in all that Diocese he shall have locum Apostolicae sedis the place or dignity of an Apostolical seat which gave Nicephorus occasion in his relation of this matter to affirme that the Emperour made it a free city and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an head unto itself with full power independent from all others And though the first Bishop thereof was consecrated by Vigilius Bishop of Rome as by some Bishop it is certain he must yet that is of no force against the conclusion to which I designe this instance it being evident that being consecrated he was absolute and depended not on any and his * Quando autem te ab â—âc luce decedere contigerit pro tempore Archiepiscopum ejus à venerabili suo Concilio Metropolitanorum ordinari sancimus quem ad modum decet Archiepiscopum omnibus honoratum Ecclesiis provehi Ibid. successors were to be ordained by his Councel of Metropolitanes and not by the Pope § 9. Which as it makes a second instance of the point in hand so when it is remembred that all this independent absolute power was conferred upon this city the Emperors favorite only by his making it a Primate's or chief Metropolitane's See and that Carthage's being the Prime Metropolis of Africk is expressed by having the same privileges that Justiniana Prima had It will follow what is most certain and might otherwise be testified by innumerable evidences that every Primate or chief Metropolitane was absolute within his own circuit neither subject nor subordinate to any forein Superiour whether Pope or Patriarch And that was all which was useful much more then was necessary to be here demonstrated And being so there remains to the See of Rome no farther claim to the subjection of this Island nor appearance of proof of the charge of schisme in casting off that yoke upon this first score of S. Peter's or his successors right to the Vniversal Pastorship § 10. The unreasonablenesse of confining the Catholick Church to the number of those that live in the Roman subjection Upon this head of discourse depends also all that is or can be said for the confining the Catholick Church to the number of those who live in obedience to the Roman Church or Bishop For if there have been from the Apostles times an independent power vested in each Primate or chief Metropolitane as hath been evidently shown then how can it be necessary to the being of a member of the Catholick Church to be subject to that one Primate 'T is certainly sufficient to the conservation of the unity of the whole Church that every
we are all subject and obedient to the Church of God and the Pope of Rome but so as we are also to every pious and good Christian viz to love every one in his degree and place in perfect charity and to help every one by word and deed to attain to be the sons of God †Concil Anglic p. 188. Et aliam obedientiam quà m istam non scio debitam ei quem vos nominatis esse Papam nec esse Patrem Patrum vendicari postulari And for any other obedience I know none due to him whom you call the Pope and as little doe I know by what right he can challenge to be father of fathers Bishop of Bishops or Vniversal Bishop Praeterea nos sumus sub gubernatione Episcopi Caerlegionensis super Oscâ As for us we are under the rule of the Bishop of Caerlegion upon Vsk who is to overlook and govern us under God § 6. The invalidity of the argument from conversion when the Britains were certainly not converted by Augustine From hence the result is clear that whatever is pretended from Augustine the Monk or supposed to have been then pressed by him for the advancing of the Popes interest in this Island and concluding us guilty of Schisme in casting off that yoke yet the British Bishops still holding out against this pretension and that with all reason on their side if the title of conversion which the Romanist pleads for our subjection may be of any validity with him it must needs follow that the whole Island cannot upon this score of Augustine's conversion be now deemed schismatical it being certain that the whole Island particularly the Dominion of Wales was not thus converted by Augustine nor formerly by any sent from Rome or that observed the Roman Order as appears by the observation of Easter contrary to the usage received at Rome but either by Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes as our Annals tell us most probably And this in the first place must needs be yeilded to by those that expect to receive any advantage to their cause by this argument And if they will still extend their title equally to those parts of Britannie which Augustine did not as to those which he did convert to Wales as well as to Kent it is evident they must doe it upon some other score whatsoever the pretense be and not upon this of conversion § 7. But then 2 dly for as much of this Island as was really converted to the Faith by the coming of Augustine No title from conversion for subjection there is no title for their subjection and the perpetual subjection of their posterity from this § 8. To examine this a while by other known practises of the Christian world S. Paul by himself or his Apostles or Procurators was the great Converter of the Gentiles Concerning him I shall demand whether all those nations converted by him and his ministers are to all ages obliged to be subject to that chair where S. Paul sat whether in the Church at Antioch or Rome or the like at the time of his sending out or going himself to convert them If so then 1. there cannot be a greater prejudice imaginable to S. Peter's Vniversal Pastorship And 2. it will in the story of the fact appear to have no degree of truth in it Timothie that was placed over Asia in Ephesus and Titus over Crete being as hath formerly appeared supreme in those Provinces and independent from any other See And generally that is the nature of Primates or Patriarchs to have no superior either to ordain or exercise jurisdiction over them but themselves to be absolute within their Province and their successors to be ordained by the suffragan Bishops under them which could not be if every such Church where such a Primate was placed were subject to that Church from which they received the Faith § 9. The power of Kings to erect Patriarchates To put this whole matter out of controversie It is and hath alwaies been in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchates or to translate them from one city to another and therefore whatever title is supposeable to be acquired by the Pope in this Island upon the first planting of the Gospel here this cannot so oblige the Kings of England ever since but that they may freely remove that power from Rome to Canterbury and subject all the Christians of this Island to the spiritual power of that Archbishop or Primate independently from any forein Bishop § 10. For the erection of Primacies or Patriarchates that of Justiniana Prima †Examples in Justiniana Prima c. 5. §. 8. forementioned and set down at large is an evident proof Justinian erecting that long after the rest of the Primates seats in the Empire to be an Archiepiscopal See absolute and independent and subjecting all Dacia the new to it And though the Pope Vigilius was by the Emperour appointed to ordain the first Bishop there yet were his successors to be ordained by his own Metropolitanes and the Bishops under him not to appeal to any others as hath in each particular formerly been evidenced § 11. Carthage The same also hath in like manner been shewn of Carthage which was by the same Justinian not originally dignified but †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 131. after the rescuing it out of the Vandales hands restored to a state of Primacie after the pattern or image of Justiniana Prima and two Provinces more annexed then had antiently belonged to that Bishops jurisdiction § 12. Ravenna Before either of these the Emperour Valentinian the 3 d Anno Christi 432. by his Rescript constituted Ravenna a Patriarchal seat And from his time that held the Patriarchate without any dependence on the Bishop of Rome to the time of Constantinus Pogonatus And though at that time the Greek Emperors Vicarii or Exarchs being not able to support the Bishop of Ravenna against the Longobards he was fain to flie for support to the Bishop of Rome and so submitted himself unto him and after Reparatus the next Bishop Theodorus did the like to Pope Agatho whether upon the score of great friendship with him or in despite to his own Clergie with whom he had variance saith Sabellicus yet the people of Ravenna thought themselves injured hereby and joyned with their next Bishop Foelix to maintain their privilege though Pope Constantine stirring up Justinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against them they were worsted and defeated in their attempt § 13. Other examples there are of this kinde * de privileg Patriar Balsamon points at some which from the †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Emperours charter had this privilege not to be subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which were Archbishops independent So under Phocas the Patriarchate of Grado in Italie was erected saith * l. 4. c. 34. Grado Warnefridus de gestis Longobard Others as
and communicate it to another And therefore may as freely bestow the power of Primate and chief Metropolitan of England or which is all one of a Patriarch on the Bishop of Canterbury having formerly thought fit to grant it to the Bishop of Rome as he or any of his Ancestors can be deemed to have granted it to the Bishop of Rome And then as this being by this means evidenced to be no more then an act of regal power which the King might lawfully exercise takes off all obligation of obedience in the Bishops to the Pope at the first minute that he is by the King divested of that power or declared not to have had it de jure but only to have assumed it formerly which freedome from that obedience immediately clears the whole businesse of schisme The reasonablenesse of revoking it as that is a departure from the obedience of the lawful superiour so will there not want many weighty reasons deducible from the antient Canons as well as the maximes of civil government why the King who may freely place the Primacy where he please should choose to place it in a Bishop and subject of his own nation rather then in a forein Bishop farre removed and him not only independent from that King but himself enjoying a Principality or territorie which it is too apparent how willing he is to enlarge unlimitedly and to improve the concessions which are either acknowledged or pretended to be made him to that purpose § 11. And here it is not amisse to observe in the reign of Queen Mary Title power of Supreme head of the Church retained by Queen Mary who was no way favourable to the Reformation in points of doctrine and Liturgie and made all speed to repeal what had been done in King Edward's time in that matter yet 1. that she left not the title of Supreme head till the third Parliament of her reigne and 2. that in the second Parliament authority is granted her to make and prescribe to all such Cathedral and Collegiate Churches as were erected by Henry the VIII such statutes and orders as should seem good to her and that statute never repealed but expired 3. that in her third Parliament it was with much difficulty obtained that the supremacie of the Pope should be acknowledged the matter being urged by her as that which concerned the establishing the Matrimonie of her Mother and her legitimation which depended upon the absolute power of the Pope 4. that in the 4 th year of her reigne when the Pope sent Cardinal Petow to be his Legate in England and to be Bishop of Sarisbury she would not permit him to come into the Land neither could he have that Bishoprick which as it was some check to the Pope's absolute supremacy and an assertion and vindication of the Regal power so being added to the former it will be lesse strange that this Supreme power of the Popes should be by the Bishops in the reigne of Henry VIII disclaimed and ejected § 12. Upon this bottome the foundation of Reformation being laid in England the superstructure was accordingly erected by the King and Bishops and Clergie in Convocation but this not all at once but by distinct steps and degrees Somewhat in the reigne of this Henry the VIII as in the number of the Sacraments the use of the Lords Prayer c. in the English tongue and the translation of the Bible all resolved on in Synod the King which duly assembled it presiding in it by his Vicar General § 13. This was much farther advanced in the time of his son Edward the VI. who being a childe The advance of the Reformation in K ng Edward's daies and the Laws and Constitution of this Realm committing the exercise of the Supreme power in that case into the hands of a Protector what was thus regularly done by that Protector cannot be doubted to be of the same force and validity as if the King had been of age and done it himself Or if it should it would be an unanswerable objection against all hereditary successive Monarchy a maim in that form of Government which could no way be repaired there being no amulet in the Crown which secures the life of each King till his successor be of age nor promise from heaven that the children of such Princes shall by succeeding to the Crown advance by miracle to the years and abilities of their Parents So irrational is the scoffe and exception of some that what was done in King Edward's daies being the Acts of a childe is as such to be vilified and despised § 14. In the Reign of this Prince many Changes were made in the Church and Recessions from the Doctrines and practises of Rome Beside that of Images the lawfulnesse of the marriage of the Clergie was asserted a body of an English Liturgie formed and setled for publick use the Eucharist appointed to be administred to the people in both kindes c. and though Bishop Gardner of Winchester and Bishop Bonner of London made opposition against these changes and for some misbehaviours herein were imprison'd and two more moderate learned men Bishop Tunstal of Durham and Bishop Day of Chichester upon another score yet Archbishop Cranmer and the rest of the Bishops making up the farre greater number joyned with the Supreme power in the Reformation And as it is no great marvell that there should be some so few dissenters so the punishment inflicted on them will not be deemed excessive by any that shall compare it with the farre severer executions the fire and fagot which were soon after in Queen Mary's daies inflicted on Archbishop Cranmer Bishop Ridley and Bishop Latimer as the reward of their disputing in the Synod against Transubstantiation and the like cruelties on multitudes more and the Exiles and deprivations which befell so many others in her Reigne However this can be no prejudice to the regularity of the Reformation in the reigne of King Edward wrought as hath been said by the Supreme power with the consent of the major part of Bishops § 15. In Queen Elizabeth's That which afterward followed in the beginning of Qu. Elizabeth's reigne may be thought more distant and lesse reconcileable to our pretensions not that of her sex her being a woman for so was Qu. Mary before which acted so vigorously for the contrary way and the constitution of our Monarchy invests equally either sex in the plenitude of Regal power in sacred as well as civil affairs and it was but to raise envie against the Reformation that Queen Elizabeth's sex as before King Edward's non-age hath by some been thought fit to be mention'd and cannot by any sober judgment be admitted to have any force in it but because as it is from our histories more pertinently objected most of the Bishops were by her divested of their dignities and new created in their stead To this therefore in the last place I must apply my self to give satisfaction And
1. § 16. In this matter as much as concerns the Ordination of those new Bishops that it was performed regularly according to the Antient Canons each by the Imposition of the hands of three Bishops hath been evidently set down out of the Records and vindicated by M r Mason in his Booke de Minist Anglic and may there be view'd at large if the Reader want satisfaction in that point § 17. The Creation of new Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time vindicated As for the second remaining part of the objection which alone is pertinent to this place it will receive answer by these degrees First that the death of Cardinal Pool Archbishop of Canterbury falling neer upon the death of her Predecessor Queen Mary it was very regular for Queen Elizabeth to assigne a successor to that See then vacant Archbishop Parker 2 dly that those Bishops which in Queen Mary's daies had been exiled and deprived and had survived that calamity were with all justice restored to their dignities 3 dly that the Bishops by her deprived and divested of their dignities were so dealt with for refusing to take the oath of Supremacy formed and enjoyned in the daies of Henry the VIII and in the first Parliament of this Queen revived and the statutes concerning it restored to full force before it was thus imposed on them So that for the justice of the cause of their deprivation it depends Immediatly upon the Right and power of the Supreme Magistrate to make laws to impose oathes for the securing his Government and to inflict the punishments prescribed by those laws on the disobedient but Originally upon the truth of that decision of the Bishops and Clergie and Vniversities in the reigne of Henry the VIII that no authority belonged in this Kingdome of England to the Bishop of Rome more then to any other forein Bishop The former of these I shall be confident to look on as an undoubted truth in the maintenance of which all Government is concerned and hath nothing peculiar to our pretensions which should suggest a vindication of it in this place And the second hath I suppose been sufficiently cleared in the former chapters of this discourse which have examined all the Bishop of Romes claims to this Supremacy And both these grounds being acknowledged or till they be invalidated or disproved supposed to have truth and force in them the conclusion will be sufficiently induced that there was no injustice in that Act of the Queens which divested those Bishops which thus refused to secure her Government or to approve their fidelity to their lawful Soveraign § 18. Fourthly that those Bishops being thus deprived it was most Regular and Necessary and that against which no objection is imaginable that of their due Ordination being formerly cleared that other Bishops should be nominated and advanced to those vacant Sees and that what should be for the future acted by those new Bishops in Convocation was regular Synodical and valid beyond all exception in respect of the formality of it § 19. Fiftly that as by the Vniform and joynt consent of these Bishops thus constituted a Declaration of certain Principal Articles of Religion was agreed on and set out by Order of both Archbishops Metropolitans and the rest of the Bishops for the Vnity of doctrine to be taught and holden of all Parsons Vicars and Curates c. and this not before the third year of that Queens reigne So before this time there had not been as farre as appears any debate in any former Convocation of that Queens reigne concerning Religion only an offer of a disputation betwixt eight Clergie-men on each side which came to nothing but all done by the Parliaments restoring what had been debated and concluded by former Synods in the reigns of King Henry the eight and Edward the sixt without any new deliberation in any present Synod By this means were revived the Statutes for the Regal Supremacy as also of the book of Common-prayer as it was in the time of Edward the sixt with few alterations which included the abolition of the Romish Missalls And so all this again as farre as it concerned Queen Elizabeth's part in the Reformation is regularly superstructed on the forementioned foundation of Regal Supremacy with the concurrence and advise of Synods which hath been in the former part of this discourse I hope sufficiently vindicated § 20. And that being granted it cannot be here necessary or pertinent to descend to the consideration of each several matter of the Change thus wrought in this Church either as branches of the Reformation or under the name or title of it For our present enquirie being no farther extended then this whether the true Church of England as it stands by Laws established have in Reforming been guilty of Schisme as that signifies in the first place a recession and departure from the obedience of our lawful Superiours and this being cleared in the Negative by this one evidence that all was done by those to whom and to whom only the rightful power legally pertained viz the King and Bishops of this Nation supposing as now regularly we may having competently proved it and answered all the colours that have been offered against it that the Pope had no right to our obedience and consequently that our departure from him is not a departure from our obedience to our superiours it is presently visible that all other matters will belong to some other heads of Discourse and consequently must be debated upon other principles All variation from the Church of Rome in point of Doctrine if it should as I believe it will never be proved to be unjust falling under the head of Heresie not of schisme and for acts of sacrilege and the like impieties as certainly Henry the eighth and some others cannot be freed from such they are by us as freely charged upon the actors as by any Romanist they can be But yet sacrilege is no more schisme then it is adulterie and the Church on which one sin hath been committed cannot be from thence proved to be guilty of every other CHAP. VIII Of the Second sort of Schisme as that is an Offence against mutual Charity This divided into three species and the first here examined § 1. BUT beside that first species of schisme as it is an offence against the subordination which Christ hath by himself and his Apostles setled in the Church from the guilt of which I have hitherto indevoured to vindicate our Church another was taken notice of as it signifies an offence against the mutual unity and peace and charity which Christ left among his Disciples And to that I must now proceed as farre as the Accusations of the Romanist give us occasion to vindicate our innocence § 2. Three branches of the second sort of Schisme And for method's sake this branch of Schisme may be subdivided into three species The first is a breach in the doctrines or Traditions a departure from the