inconsiderable an Argument is this our Kings cannot give away the Power of the Crown during their own times without an Act of Parliament the King and Parliament together cannot dispose of any thing inherent to the Crown of England without a Power of Resumption or to the prejudice of Succeeding Kings besides no King of England ever did not King John himself either with or without his Parliament by any Solemn Publick Act transfer the Government of this Church to the Bishop of Rome or so much as Recognize it to be in Him before Henry the Eighth and what John did Harpf. ad 5. Re. 14. c. 5. was protested against by the Three States then in Parliament And although Queen Mary since made a higher acknowledgment of his Holiness than ever we read was done here before yet 't is evident she gave him rather the Complement of the Title of that uncertain Word Supreme Head than any real Power as we observed before and yet her New Act to that purpose was endured to remain in force but a very short time about four or five years But although neither Constantine for the Justinian whole World nor King John for England did or could devise the Supremacy to the Pope 't is confessed the Emperor Justinian endeavoured somewhat that look'd like it Justinian was a great friend of the Roman Bishop he saith Properamus honorem authoritatem Cod. inter Claras crescere sedis vestrae we labour to subject and unite all the Eastern Priests to the See of your Holiness But this is a plain demonstration that the See of Rome did not extend to the East near six hundred years after Christ otherwise that would have been no addition of honour or Authority to it neither would Justinian have endeavoured what was done before as it doth not appear that he afterwards effected it Therefore the Title that he then gave the Pope of the Chief and Head of all the Churches must carry a qualified sence and was only a Title of honour befitting the Bishop of the Chief and most eminent Church as the Roman Church then was and indeed Justinian was a Courtier and stiles the Bishop of Constantinople universal Patriarch too or at most can only signifie that his intentions were to raise the Pope to the chief Power over the whole Church which as was said before he had not yet obtained This is all that can be inferred if these Epistles betwixt the Emperor and the Pope be not forged as Learned Papists suspect because in Greg. Holiand Azo the eldest and allowed Books they are not to be found However if Justinian did design any thing in favour of the Pope it was only the subjecting of the Clergy to him as an Ecclesiastical Ruler and yet that no farther than might well enough consist with the Supremacy of the Empire in causes Ecclesiastical as well as Civil which memento spoils all the argument For we find the same Justinian under this imperial stile We command the most holy Arch-Bishops and Patriarchs of Rome Constantinople Alexandria Antioch and Hierusalem Authent Colla 1. We find him making Laws upon Monks Priests Bishops and all kind of Churchmen to inforce them to their duty We find him putting forth his Power and Authority for the sanction of the Canons of Councils and making them to have the force of Laws We find him punishing the Clergy and the Popes themselves yea 't is well known and confessed by Romanists that he deprived two Popes Sylverius and Vigilius Indeed Mr. Harding saith that was done by Theodora the Empress but it is otherwise recorded in their own Pontifical the Emperor demanded of Belsarius what he had done with the Romans and how he had deposed Sylverius and placed Vigilius in his stead Upon Conc. To. 2. in â— Vigil his answer both the Emperor and Empress gave him thanks Now it is a Rule in Law Rati habito retrotrabitur mandato comparatur Zaberel declares it to be Law that the Pope De Schis Conci in any notorious crime may be accused before the Emperor and the Emperor may require of the Pope an account of his Faith And the Emperor ought to proceed saith Harvy against De Potes Pap. c. 13. the Pope upon the request of the Cardinals And it was the judgment of the same Justinian himself that there is no kind of thing but Con. Const 5. Act. 1. it may be thorowly examined by the Emperor For he hath a principality from God over all men the Clergy as well as Laity But his erecting of Justiniana prima and giving the Bishop Locum Apostolicae sedis to which all the Provinces should make their last Appeal Goâ—â—op Nov. 13. c. 3. Nov. 11. whereby as Nicephorus affirms the Emperor made it a free City a Head to it self with full power independant from all others And as it is in the imperial constitutions the Primate thereof should have all power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the Supreme Priesthood Supreme Honour and Dignity This is such an instance both of Justinian's Judgment and Power contrary to the Popes pretensions of Supremacy as granted or acknowledged by the Emperor Justinian that all other Arguments of it are ex abundanti and there is no great need of subjoyning that other great and like instance of his restoring Carthage to its primacy after the Vandals were driven out and annexing two new Provinces that were not so before to its jurisdiction without the proviso of submitting it self to Rome though before Carthage had ever refused to do it Phocas the Emperor and Pope Boniface no doubt understood one another and were well enough agreed upon the point But we shall never yield that these two did legally represent the Church and the World or that the grant of the one and the greedy acceptance on the other part could bind all Christians and all mankind in subjection to his Holiness's Chair for ever Valentinian said all Antiquity hath given the principality of Priesthood to the Bishop of Rome But no Antiquity ever gave him a principality of Power no doubt he as well as the other Emperors kept the Political Supremacy in his own hands Charles the Great might complement Adrian and call him universal Pope and say be gave St. Wilehade a Bishoprick at his command But he kept the power of convocating Synods every year and sate in them as a Judge himself Auditor arbiter adfui he made Ecclesiastical Decrees in his own Name to whom this very Pope acquitted all claim in the Election of succeeding Popes for ever A great deal more in answer to both these you have in Arch-Bishop Bramhall p. 235 236. and King James's defence p. 50. c. CHAP. XIX The Popes pretended Ecclesiastical Right Not by General Councils 8 First To which Sworn Justi Sanction Can. Apost allowed by C. Nice and Ephesus THough it seem below his Holiness's present grandeur to ground his Right upon the Civil Power
Ancient Possession is not to be stiled a Possessor but an Vsurper an Intruder an Invader Disobedient Rebellious and Schismatical Good Night S. W. Quod ab initio fuit invalidum tractu temporis non Convalescit is a Rule in the Civil Law Yea whatever Possession the Pope got afterwards was not only an illegal Vsurpation but a manifest Violation of the Canon of Ephesus and thereby Condemned as Schismatical CHAP. VII The Pope had not full Possession here before Hen. 8. I. Not in Augustine 's Time II. Nor After T Is boldly pleaded that the Pope had Possession of the Supremacy in England for nine hundred years together from Augustine till Hen. 8. And no King on Earth hath so long and so clear prescription for his Crown To which we answer 1. That he had not such Possession 2. If he had 't is no Argument of a jus Title SECT I. Not in Austin 's Time State of Supremacy questioned VVE shall consider the Popes Supremacy here as it stood in and near St. Augustine's time and in the Ages after him to Hen. 8. 1. We have not found hitherto that in or about the time of Augustine Arch-Bishop of Canterbury the Pope had any such power in England as is pretended Indeed he came from Rome but he brought no Mandate with him and when he was come he did nothing without the King's licence at his arrival he petitions the King the King commands him to stay in the Isle Thanet till his further pleasure was known he obeyed afterward the King gave him licence to preach to Bed l. 1. c. 25. his Subjects and when he was himself converted majorem pradicandi licentiam he enlarged his licence so to do 'T is true Saint Gregory presumed Iargly to subject all the Priests of Brittain under Augustine and to give him power to erect two Arch-Bishopricks and twelve Bishopricks under each of them but 't is one thing to claim another thing to possess for Ethelbert was then the only Christian King who had not the twentieth part of Brittain and it appears that after both Saint Gregory and Austine were dead there were but one Arch bishop and two Bishops throughout the Brittish Islands of the Roman Communion Indeed the Brittish and Scotch Bishops were Bed l. 2. c. 2 c. 4. many but they renounced all Communion with Rome as appeared before We thankfully acknowledge the Pope's sending over Preachers his commending sometimes Arch-Bishops when desired to us his directions to fill up vacant Sees all which and such like were Acts of Charity becoming so eminent a Prelate in the Catholick Church but sure these were not Marks of Supremacy 'T is possible Saint Milet as is urged might bring the Decrees of the Roman Synod hither to be observed and that they were worthy of our acceptance and were accepted accordingly but 't is certain and will afterwards appear to be so that such Decrees were never of force here further than they were allowed by the King and Kingdom 'T is not denied but that sometimes we admitted the Pope's Legates and Bulls too yet the Legantine Courts were not Anciently heard of neither were the Legates themselves or those Bulls of any Authority without the King's Consent Some would argue from the great and flattering Titles that were antiently given to the Pope but sure such Titles can never signifie Possession or Power which at the same time and perhaps by the very same Persons that gave the Titles was really and indeed denied him But the great Service the Bishop of Calcedon hath done his Cause by these little Instances before mentioned will best appear by a true state of the question touching the Supremacy betwixt Vid. Bramh. p. 189. c. the Pope and the King of England in which such things are not all concerned The plain question is who was then the Political Head of the Church of England the King or the Pope or more immediately whether the Pope then had possession of the Supremacy here in such things as was denied him by Hen. 8. at the beginning of our Reformation and the Pope still challengeth and they are such as these 1. A Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Causes 2. A Dispensative Power above and against the Laws of the Church 3. A liberty to send Legates and to hold Legantine Courts in England without Licence 4. The Right of receiving the last Appeals of the King's Subjects 5. The Patronage of the English Church and Investitures of Bishops with power to impose Oaths upon them contrary to their Oath of Allegiance 6. The First Fruits and Tenths of Ecclesiastical Livings and a power to impose upon them what Pensions or other Burthens he pleaseth 7. The Goods of Clergy-men dying Intestate These are the Flowers of that Supremacy which the Pope claimeth in England and our Kings and Laws and Customs deny him as will appear afterwards in due place for this place 't is enough to observe that we find no foot-steps of such possession of the Pope's Power in England in or about Augustine's time As for that one instance of Saint Wilfred's Appeal it hath appeared before that it being rejected by two Kings successively by the other Arch-Bishop and by the whole Body of the English Clergy sure 't is no full instance of the Pope's Possession of the Supremacy here at that time and needs no further answer SECT II. No clear or full possession in the Ages after Austine till Hen. 8. Eight Distinctions the Question stated IT may be thought that though the things mentioned were not in the Pope's possession so early yet for many Ages together they were sound in his Possession and so continued without interruption till Hen. 8. ejected the Pope and possest himself and his Successors of them Whether it were so or not we are now to examine and least we should be deceived with Colours and generalities we must distinguish carefully 1. Betwixt a Primacy of Order and Dignity and Unity and Supremacy of Power the only thing disputed 2. Betwixt a Judgment of direction resulting from the said Primacy and a Judgment of Jurisdiction depending upon Supremacy 3. Betwixt things claimed and things granted and possessed 4. Betwixt things possessed continually or for sometime only 5. Betwixt Possession partial and of some lesser Branches and plenary or of the main body of Jurisdiction 6. Betwixt things permitted of curtesie and things granted out of duty 7. Betwixt incroachment through craft or power or interest or the temporary Ossitancy of the People and Power grounded in the Laws enjoyed with the consent of the States of the Kingdom in times of peace 8. Lastly betwixt quiet possession and interrupted These Distinctions may receive a flout from some capricious Adversary but I find there is need of them all if we deal with a subtle one For the Question is not touching Primacy in the Bishop of Rome or an acknowledged Judgment of direction flowing from it or a claim of Jurisdiction which is no Possession
or a partial possession of power in some lesser things or a larger power in greater matters yielded out of curtesie ossitancy or fear or surprize and held only for a time while things were unsetled or by power craft or interest but soon after disclaimed and frequently interrupted for this is not such a Possession as our Adversaries plead for or indeed will stand them in stead But the Question in short is this whether the Pope had a quiet and uninterrupted possession of the Supreme Power over the Church of England in those great Branches of Supremacy denied him by Henry the Eighth for nine hundred years together or for many Ages together before that time This strictly must be the Question for the Complaint is that Hen. 8. disposessed the Pope of the Supremacy which he had enjoyed for so many Ages and made himself Head of the Church of England therefore those very things which that King then denied to the Pope or took from him must be those Flowers of the Supremacy which the Papists pretend the Pope had possession of for so many Ages together before his time Two things therefore and those only are needful to be sought here what those Branches of Power are which Henry the Eighth denied to the Pope and resumed to himself and his Successors and whether the Pope had quietly and without plain interruption possest the same for so many Ages before his time and in order thereunto when and how he got it CHAP. VIII What the Supremacy was which Henry the Eighth took from the Pope the Particulars of it with Notes 'T Is true Henry the Eighth resumed the Title of the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England and denied this Title to the Pope but 't is plain the Controversie was not so much about the Title as the Power the Honours Dignities Jurisdictions Authorities Profits c. belonging or appertaining to the said Dignity of Supreme Head of the Church of England as is evident by the Statute Hen. 8. 26. c. 1. The Particulars of that Power were such as these 1. Henry the Eighth prohibited all Appeals to the Pope An. 24. c. 12. and Legates from Rome 2. He also forbad all payments of money upon any pretence to the Pope An. 25. c. 12. 3. He denied the Pope and Nomination and Consecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops and Presentations An. 25. 20. 4. He prohibited all Suits for Bulls c. to be made to the Pope or the See of Rome 25. c. 21. 5. He prohibited any Canons to be executed here without the King's Licence An. 25. 19. I have perused the Statutes of King Henry the Eighth and I cannot find any thing which he took away from the Pope but it is reducible to these five Heads touching which by the way we note 1. The Controversie was not about a Primacy of Order or the beginning of Unity but a Supremacy of Power 2. All these things were then denied him not by the King alone but by all the States of the Kingdom in many Statutes 3. The denial of all these Branches of Supremacy to the Pope were grounded upon the Ancient Laws and Customs of the Realm as is usually noted in the Preamble of the said Statutes and if that one thing shall be made to appear we must conclude that the Pope might be guilty of an Vsurpation but could never have a Legal Possession of that Supremacy that is in the question 4. Note that the States of the Kingdom in the Reign of Queen Mary when by means of Cardinal Pool they recognized the Pope's Supremacy An. 1. 11. Mar. c. 8. it was with this careful and express Limitation that nothing therein should be understood to diminish any the Liberties of the Imperial Crown of this Realm which did belong unto it in the Twentieth year of Hen. 8. without deminution or enlargment of the Pope's Supremacy in England as it was in the Twentieth year of Hen. 8. So that Queen Mary and her Parliament added nothing to the Pope but only restored what he had before and when and how that was obtained is next to be examined CHAP. IX Whether the Pope's Supremacy here was in quiet Possession till Henry the Eighth WE have found what Branches of the Pope's Power were cut off by Hen. 8. The Question is whether the Pope had Possession of them without interruption before that time and that we may proceed dictinctly and clearly we shall consider each of the former Branches by themselves and first we begin with the Pope's Power of receiving Appeals from hence which carries a very considerable part of his pretended Jurisdiction SECT I. Of Appeals to Rome Three Notions of Appeal Appeals to Rome Locally or by Legates Wilfrid Anselm APpeals to Rome we have found among these things which were prohibited by Henry the Eighth Therefore no doubt the Pope claimed and in some sort possessed the power of receiving such Appeals before But what kind of Possession how free and how long is worthy to be enquired Appeal is a word taken several ways Sometimes it is only to accuse so we find it in the Statutes of the 11 and 21 Rich. 2. Sometimes 3 Senses Appeal to refer our selves for judgment to some worthy person so Francfort c. appealed to John Calvin 3. But now it is chiefly used for a removing a cause from an inferior to a Superior Court that hath power of disanulling what the other did In this last sense Historians tell us that Appeals to Rome were not in use with us till about five hundred years agon or a little more viz. the year 1140. These Appeals to Rome were received and judged either in the Popes Court at Rome or by his Legates in England A word or two of each For Appeals to the Pope at Rome the two famous instances of Wilfred and Anselm take up much of our History 1. Locally Wilfred But they both seem at least at first to have appealed to the Pope under the second notion of appeal Anselm Not to him as a proper or legal Judge but as a great and venerable Prelate But not to stick there 't is well known what effect they obtained As for Wilfred his account was of elder date and hath appeared before to the great prejudice of the Popes Possession in England at that time Anselm But Anselm is the great monument of Papal Obedience and as a learned man observes the first promoter of Papal Authority in England He began his Enterprise with a pretence that he ought not to be barr'd of visiting the Vicar of St. Peter causâ Regiminis Ecclesiae but he was not suffered to do that So far was the Pope then from having the power of receiving appeals that he might not receive the visit of a person of Anselm's quality without the Kings leave First he was told by the Bishops as well as Lay-Lords that it was a thing unheard of and altogether against the use
the Pope eleven hundred years after Christ got possession of the English Church and the Conscience of the Bishops by Investiture and Oaths who will shew us that he had it sooner who will maintain that he kept it quietly till Hen. 8 This last point will be clear by examining 2. Law our Laws the second Topick propounded at the beginning of this discourse For if his Possession were good it was setled in Law and if quiet the Laws were not made to oppose it by the great States of the Kingdom My Lord Bramhall hath produced three great Laws as sufficient to determine this Controversie 1. Clarendon whether the King or the Pope be Patron of the English Church the Assize of Clarendon Statute of Carlisle and of Provisors The first tells us plainly that the Election of an Arch-Bishop Bishop Abbot and Prior was to be made by the respective dignitaries upon the Kings calling them together to that purpose and with the Kings consent And then the Person elected was presently to do homage to the King as his Liege Lord. And that this method was exclusive of the In Ed. 1. Pope that of Carlisle is very distinct The King is the founder of all Bishopricks and ought to 2. Carlisle have the custody of them in the Vacances and the Right of Patronage to present to them and that the Bishop of Rome usurping the right of Patronage giveth them to Aliens That this tendeth to Annullation of the State of holy Church to the disinheriting of Kings and the destruction of the Realm This is an Oppression and shall not be Suffered The Statute of Provisors 15. Ed. 3. affirms that Elections were first granted by Kings Progenitors Provisors upon Condition to demand Licence of the King to Chuse and after the Election to have the Royal Assent Which Conditions not being kept the thing ought by reason to return to its first Nature And therefore they conclude that in Case Reservation Collation or Provision be made by the Court of Rome of any Arch-Bishoprick c. The King and his Heirs shall have the Collations for the same time such as his Progenitors had before the free Elections were granted And they tell the King plainly that the Right of the Crown is such and the Law of the Land too that the King is bound to make Remidies and Laws against such Mischiefs And acknowledg that he is Advower Paramont immediate of all Churches Prebends and other Benefices which are of the Advowrie of holy Church i. e. Soveraign patron of it My Lord Coke more abundantly adds the Wil. 1. Resolutions and Decrees of the Law to confirm us in the Point In the time of William the 7. Ed. 3. tit qu. i. e. p. 19. first it is agreed that no man only can make any Appropriation of any Church having cure of Souls but he that hath Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but William the first did make such Appropriations of himself without any other Edward the first presented his Clerke who was refused by the Arch-Bishop for that the Ed. 1. Pope by way of Provision had conferred it on another The King brought his quare non admisit the Arch-Bishop pleaded the Supremacy of the Pope and that he durst not nor had power to put him out which was by the Popes Bull in Possession for which by judgment of the Common Law the Lands of his whole Bishoprick were seized into the Kings hands and lost during his life And my Lord Coke's Note upon it is that this Judgment was before any Statute was made in that Case In the Reign of Edw. 3. it is often resolved Ed. 3. that all the Bishopricks within England were founded by the Kings Progenitors and therefore the Advowsons of them all belong to the King and at the first they were Donative And that if any Incumbent dye the Lapse comes to the Bishop then to the Arch-Bishop and lastly by the common Law to the King as to the Supreme within his own Kingdom and not to the Bishop of Rome This King presented to a Benefice his Presentee 21 Ed. 3. 40. f. 40. was disturbed by one that had obtained Bulls from Rome for which offence he was condemned to perpetual Imprisonment It is no small spice of the Kings Ecclesiastical Patronage that we find the King made Canons secular to be Regular and that he made the Prior and Covent of Westminster a distinct Corporation from the Abbot 38. li. Ass pl. 22. 49. Ed. 3. l. Ass pl. 8. But more full is the case of Abbot Moris who sent to Rome to be confirmed by the Pope who 46 Ed. 3. Tit. praem 6. by his Bull sleighted the Election of Moris but gave him the Abby of his spiritual Grace and at the request as he feigned of the King of England This Bull was read and considered of in Council that is before all the Judges of England and it was resolved by them all that this Bull was against the Laws of England and that the Abbot for obtaining the same was faln into the Kings mercy whereupon all his Possessions were seiz'd into the Kings hands In the Reign of Richard the Second one sued 12 Rich. 2. Tit. Juris 18. a provision in the Court of Rome against an Incumbent recovered the Church brought an action of account for Oblations c. but the whole Court was of opinion against the Plaintiff and thereupon he was non-suit Vid. Stat. 16. Rich. 2. c. 5. against all Papal Usurpations and this in particular the pain is a praemunire In Hen. 4 s Reign the Judges say that the Statutes which restrain the Popes Provisions to the Benefices 11 H. 4. f. 69 70. of the Advowsons of spiritual men were made for that the spiritualty durst not in their just cause say against the Popes Provisions so as those Statutes were made but in affirmance of the common Laws Now what remains to be pleaded in behalf of the Popes Patronage of our Church at least as to his possession of it against so many plain and great Evidences both of Law and Deed All pretences touching the Popes giving the Pall are more than anticipated For it is not to be denied but that was not held necessary either to the consceration confirmation or investiture of the very Arch-Bishop before Anselm's time Yea 't is manifest that Lanfrank Anselm and Raulf did dedicate Churches consecrate Bishops and Abbots and were called Arch-Bishops while they had no Pall as Twisden proves out of Eadmer P. 47. We never read that either Laurentius or Milletus received the Pall from Rome who no doubt were as lawful Arch-Bishops as Austin Girald and Hoveden both give us an account that Sampson of St. Davids had a Pall but do not say from Rome and though in the time of infection he carried it away with him After Paulinus there are five in the Catalogue of York expresly said to have wanted it and Wilfred was one of
especially when that fails him yet methinks the jus Ecclesiasticum is not at all unbecoming his pretences who is sworn to govern the Church according to the Canons as they say the Pope is If it be pleaded that the Canons of the Fathers do invest the Pope with plenary Power over all Churches And if it could be proved too yet one thing more remains to be proved to subject the Church of England to that his power viz. that the Canon Law is binding and of force in England as such or without our own consent or allowance And 't is impossible this should be proved while our Kings are Supreme and the constitution of the Kingdom stands as it hath always stood However we decline not the examination of the plea viz. that the Popes Supremacy over the whole Church is granted by the Canons of Councils viz. general But when this is said it is but reasonable to demand which or in what Canons It is said the Pope receives his Office with an Oath to observe the Canons of the eight first general Councils in which of these is the grant to be found Sure so great a conveyance should be very legible and Intelligible We find it very plain that in some of those Councils and those the most ancient this Power is expresly denyed him and that upon such reason as is eternal and might justly and effectually prevent any such grant or usurpation of such power for ever if future Grants were to be just and reasonable or future Popes were to be governed by Right or Equity by the Canons of the Fathers or fidelity to the Church to God or their own solemn Oaths at their Inaugurations But we are prepared for the examination of the Councils in this matter by a very strong presumption That seeing Justinian made the Canons to have the force of Laws and he had ever shewed himself so careful to maintain the Rights of the Empire in all causes as well as over all persons Ecclesiastical even Popes themselves 't is not credible that he would suffer any thing in those Canons to pass into the body of the Laws that should be agreeable to the pretended donation of Constantine or to the prejudice of the Emperor 's said Supremacy and consequently not much in favour of the Supremacy claimed by later Popes Justinian's Sanction extended to the four Justin Sanction of four first great Councils Nic. Constant Ephes 1. and Calcedon in these Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Sancimus Vicem Legum obtinere Sanctos Ecclesiasticos Canones qui à Sanctis quatuor Conciliis constituti sunt confirmati hoc est Niceno c. praedictorum enim Consdiorum dogmata sicut divinas Scripturas accipimus Canones sicut Leges observamus Perhaps it may be doubted why he did not Apostles Canons not mention reason confirm those Canons which were then well known by the Title of the Canons of the Apostles whether because their Authority was suspected especially many of them or because Vid. Bin. To. 1. p. 17. a. they were not made by a truly General Council or because they were Confirmed in and with the Council of Nice and Ephesus c. or lastly whether because the first fifty had before a greater Sanction from the general Reception of the whole Ibid. Church or the greater Authority of the Sacred Names of the Authors the Apostles or Apostolical men I venture not to declare my opinion But truly there seems something considerable for the later for that the Council of Nice do not pretend to confirm the Apostles Canons but their own by the Quotation of them taking Authority from them as Laws founded in the Church before to build their own and all future Canons and Decrees of Councils upon in such matters as were found there determined A great Instance of the probability of this Conjecture we have full to our present purpose given us by Binius Nicena Synodus Can. 6. c. the Nicene and Ephesine Synods followed those Bin. To. 1. p. 20. Canons of the Apostles appointing that every Bishop acknowledge suum primum their Chief and Metropolitane Can. Ap. allowed by C. Nice and Ephesus and do nothing without their own Diocess but rather the Bishop of Alexandria according to the Canons understand saith Binius those 35 36 of the Apostles must govern the Churches of Egypt the Bishop of the East the Eastern Churches the Ephesine Synod also saith it is besides the Canons of the Apostles that the Bishop of Antioch should ordain in the Provinces of Cyprus c. Hence it is plain that according to Apostles Canons interpreted and allowed as Authentick so far at least by the Synods of Nice and Ephesus the Metropolitan was Primate or Chief over the Churches within his Provinces and that he as such exclusive of all Forreign Superior Power was to govern and ordain within his own Provinces not consonant to but directly against the pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome But let us consult the Canons to which Binius refers and the matter is plainer SECT I. Can. Apostol THere is nothing in the Canons of the Apostles to our purpose but what we find in Can. 35 36. or in the Reddition as Binius gives it Can. 33 and 34. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. let the Bishops of 35 33. every Nation know or they ought to know who among them is accounted or is chief and esteem him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut caput and do nothing difficult aut magni momenti praeter ejus Conscientiam vel Sententiam but what if the matter were too hard for the Primate is no direction given to go to the Infallible Chair at Rome here was indeed a proper place for it but not a word of that In the 36 aliàs 34. it is added that a Bishop should not dare to ordain any beyond the bounds of his own Jurisdiction but neither of these Canons concern the Pope unless they signifie that the Pope is not Head of all Churches and hath not power in any place but within the Diocess of Rome or that Binius was not faithful in leaving out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Head in his Note upon these Canons SECT II. Concil Nicen. Gen. 1. Bellar. Evasion VVE find nothing in the true Canons of the Nicene Synod that looks our way except Can. 6. and 7. They are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Let ancient Custom be kept through Can. 6. Egypt Libia and Pentapolis so as the Bishop of Alexandria may have power over all these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because also the like Custom is for the Bishop of the City of Rome 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as likewise at Antioch and other Provinces let the Priviledges be kept in their own Churches but suppose differences arise is no Liberty or Remedy provided by going to Rome no more than if differences arise in the Roman Church they may have
Right or any right at all seeing they opposed it 2. That they did not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome 3. That they had no Tradition of either that Supremacy or Infallibility 4. That 't is vain to plead Antiquity in the Fathers or Councils or Primitive Church for either 5. That the Judgment of those 8 general Councils was at least the Judgment and Faith not only during their own times but till the contrary should be decreed by a following Council of as great Authority and how long that was after I leave to themselves to answer 6. That the Canons of those 8 first general Councils being the sence both of the ancient and the professed Faith of the present Church of Rome the Popes Authority stands condemned by the Catholick Church at this day by the ancient Church and the present Church of Rome her self as she holds Communion at least in profession with the Ancient 7. That this was the Faith of the Catholick Church in opposition to the pretended Supremacy of the Pope long after the eight first General Councils is evident by the plain Sence of it in the said Point declared by several Councils in the Ages following as appears both in the Greek and Latin Church a word of both SECT IX The Latin Church Constance Basil Councils c. THe Council of Constance in Germany long after of almost a thousand Fathers An. 1415 Say they were inspired by the Holy Ghost and a General Council representing the whole Church and having immediate power from Christ whereunto obedience is due from all Persons both for Faith and Reformation whether in the Head or Members this was expresly confirmed by Pope Martin to be held inviolable in Matters of Faith vid. Surium Concil Const 99. 4. Tom. 3. Conc. Their great Reason was the Pope is not Head of the Church by Divine Ordinance as the Council of Calcedon said a thousand years before Now where was necessary Union and Subjection to the Pope where was his Supremacy Jure divino where was Tradition Infallibility or the Faith of the present Church for the Pope's Authority Concil Basil Bin. To. 4. in Conc. Basil initio The Council of Basil An. 1431. decreed as the Council of Constance Pope Eugenius would dissolve them the Council commands the contrary and suspend the Pope concluding that who ever shall question their power therein is an Heretick the Pope pronounceth them Schismaticks in the end the Pope did yield and not dissolve the Council this was the Judgment of the Latine Church above 1400 years after Christ and indeed to this day of the true Church of France and in Henry the Eighth's time of England as Gardner said the Pope is not a Head by Dominion but Order his Authority is none with us we ought not to have to doe with Rome the Common Sence of all in England Bellarmine saith that the Pope's Subjection to De Conc. li. 2. c. 14. General Councils is inconsistent with the Supreme Pastorship 't is Repugnant to the Primacy of Saint Peter saith Gregory de Valentiâ yet nothing Anal. fid l. 8. c. 14. is more evident than that General Councils did exercise Authority over Popes deposing them and disposing of their Sees as the Council of Constance did three together and always made Canons in opposition to their Pretensions Yea 't is certain that a very great Number if not the greater of the Roman Church it self were ever of this Faith that General Vid. Dr. Hammond's dispute p. 102. Councils are Superior have Authority over give Laws unto and may justly censure the Bishop of Rome Pope Adrian the Sixth and very many other Learned Romanists declared this to be their Judgment just before or near upon the time that Henry the Eighth was declared Supreme in England So much for the Latine Church SECT X. The Greek Church African Can. Synod Carth. Concil Antiochen The Faith of the Greek Church since THat the Greek Church understood the first General Councils directly contrary to the Pope's Supremacy is written with a Sun-beam in several other Councils 1. By the Canons of the African Church Can. 27 The 27th Canon forbids all Transmarine Appeals threatens such as make them with Excommunication makes order that the last Appeal be to the proper Primate or a General Council to the same effect is the 137 Canon and the Notes of Voel upon these Canons put it beyond question that in the Transmarine Appeals Tom. 1. p. 425. they meant those to Rome as it is expressed the Church of Rome and the Priests of the Roman Church 2. Const Concil Antiochen This Council is more plain it saith if any Bishop in any Crime be judged by all the Bishops in the Province he shall be judged in no wise by any Other the Sentence given by the Provincial Bishops shall remain firm Thus the Pope is excluded even in the case of Bishops out of his own Province contrary to the great pretence of Bellarmine ibid. 3. Syn. Carthag Can. 4 This Synod confirmed the twenty Canons of Nice and the Canons of the African Councils and then in particular they decreed ab Vniversis Si Criminosus est non admittatur again if any one whether Bishop or Presbiter that is driven from the Church be received into Communion by another even he that receives him is held guilty of the like Crime Refugientes sui Episcopi regulare Judicium Again if a Bishop be guilty when there is no Synod let him be judged by twelve Bishops Secundum Statuta Veterum Conciliorum the Statutes of the Ancients knew no reserve for the Pope in that Case Further no Clergy-man might go beyond the Seas viz. to Rome without the Advice of his Metropolitan and taking his Formatam vel Commendationem The 28 Canon is positive that Priests and Deacons shall not Appeal ad Transmarina Judicia viz. to Rome but to the Primates of their own Provinces and they add Sicut de Episcopis saepè constitutum est and if any shall do so none in Africa shall receive them and Can. 125. 't is renewed adding the African Councils to which Appeals are allowed as well as to the Primates but still Rome is Barr'd The Sence of the Greek Church since Now when did that Church subject it self to Rome in any Case our Adversaries acknowledg the early contests betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches in the point of Supremacy where then is the Consent of Fathers or Vniversality of time and place they use to boast of Bellarmine confesseth that An. 381. to the time of the Council of Florence viz. 1140 years the Greek Church disclaimed subjection to the Pope and Church of Rome and he confesseth they did so in several general Councils And he doth but pretend that this Church submitted it self to Rome in the Council of Florence An. 1549. for the contrary is evident in that they would not yield that the Pope should choose them a Patriarch as Surius
in his contraction of Baronius relates it as his positive Ad an 325. n. 42. Opinion that he rejected all but twenty whether Arabick or other as spurious So that it will bear no further contest but we may safely conclude the Arabick Canons and consequently this of the Popes Authority is a mere Forgery of later times there being no evidence at all that they were known to the Church in all the time of the four first general Councils Vid. c. 20. SECT VI. Practice interpreted the Canons to the same Sence against the Pope Disposing of Patriarchs Cyprian Aug. VVE have found nothing in the Canons of the ancient Councils that might give occasion to the belief of the Popes Jurisdiction in England in the Primitive Ages of the Church but indeed very much to the contrary But the Romanist affirms against my Lord of Canterbury that the Practice of the Church is always the best Expositor and Assertor of the Canons We are now to examine whether the ancient practice of the Church was sufficient to persuade a belief of the Popes Jurisdiction as is pretended In the mean time not doubting but that it is a thing most evident that the Pope hath practised contrary to the Canons and the Canons have declared and indeed been practised against the Pope But what Catholick Practice is found on Record that can be supposed a sufficient ground of this Faith either in England or any part of Christendom Certainly not of Ordinations or Appeals or Visitations Yea can it be imagined that our English Ancestors had not heard of the practice of the Brittains in maintaining their liberty when it was assaulted by Austin and rejecting his demands of Subjection to the See of Rome No doubt they had heard of the Cyprian Priviledge and how it was insisted on in barr of the universal Pastorship by their friends the Eastern Church from whom they in likelihood received the Faith and with whom they were found at first in Communion about the observation of Easter and Baptism and in practice divers from the Church of Rome Obj. But one great point of practice is here pitcht upon by Baronius and after him by T. C. It is the Popes Confirmation of the Election deposing and restoring of Patriarchs which they say he did as Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs and consequently of the whole Church Sol. But where hath he done these strange feats Certainly not in England And we shall find the instances not many nor very early any where else But to each Branch 1. 'T is urged that the Popes Confirmation Confirm Patriarchs is required to all new elected Patriarchs Admit it but the Arch-Bishop of Paris Petrus Dr. Still de Marca fully answers Baronius and indeed every body else that this was no token of Jurisdiction but only of receiving into Communion De conc l. 6. c. 5. s. 2. and as a Testimony of Consent to the Consecration If any force be in this Argument then the Bishop of Carthage had power Cypr. Ep. 52. p. 75. over the Bishop of Rome because he and other African Bishops Confirm'd the Bishop of Rome's Ordination Baronius insists much upon the Confirmation of Anatolius by Leo I. which very instance answers it self Leo himself tells us that it was Ep. 38. to manifest that there was but one entire Communion among them throughout the World Yet it is not to be omitted that the practice of the Church supposeth that the Validity of the Patriarchs Consecration depended not upon Consec depends not on Confirmation the Confirmation or indeed Consent of the Pope of Rome Yea though he did deny his Comunicatory letters that did not hinder them from the Execution of their Office Therefore Flavianus the Patriarch of Antioch though opposed by three Roman Bishops successively who used all importunity with the Emperor that he might be displaced yet because the Churches of the Orient did approve of him and Communicate with him he was allowed and their consent stood against the Bishops of Rome At last the Bishop of Rome severely rebuked for his Pride by the Emperor yielded and his Consent was given only by renewing Communion with him But where was the Popes power either to make or make void a Patriarch while this was in Practice 2. Doth Practice better prove the Popes Deposing Patriarchs power to depose unworthy Patriarchs The contrary is evident for both before and after the Council of Nice according to that Council the practice of the Church placed the power of deposing Patriarchs in Provincial Councils and the Pope had it not till the Council of Sardica decreed in the case of Athanasius as P. de Marca abundantly proves Vid. de Concord l. 7. c. 1. Sect. 6. Also that the Council of Sardica it self did not as is commonly said decree Appeals to Rome but only gave the Bishop of Rome power to review their Actions but still reserving to Provincial Councils that Authority which the Nicene Council had established them in Obj. But T. C. urgeth that we read of no less than eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome Sol. Where doth he read it In an Epistle of Pope Nicolaus to the Emperor Michael Well chosen saith Doctor Still a Popes Testimony in his own Cause And such a one as was then in Controversie with the Patriarch of Constantinople and so late too as the Ninth Century is when his power was much grown from the Infancy of it Yet for all this this Pope on such an occasion and at that time did not say that the Patriarchs mention'd by him were depos'd by the Popes sole Authority but not Ejected Sine Consensu Romani Pontificis without his Consent and his design was only to shew that Ignatius the Patriarch ought not to have been deposed without his Consent v. Nic. 1. 8. Mich. Imp. Tom. 6. Con. p. 506. Obj. Did not Sixtus the third depose Policronius Bishop of Jerusalem Sol. No. He only sent eight Persons from a Synod at Rome to Jerusalem who offered not by the Popes Authority to depose him as should have have been proved but by their means seventy Neighbour Bishops were Called by whom he was deposed besides Binius himself Tom. 2. Con. p. 685. Condemns those very acts that report this story for Spurious 3. But have we any better proof of the Popes power to restore such as were deposed Restoring Patriarchs The only Instance in this Case brought by T. C. is of Athanasius and Paulus restored by Julius and indeed to little purpose T is true Athanasius Cndemned by two Synods goes to Rome where he and Paulus are received into Communion by Julius not liking the decree of the Eastern Bishops Julius never pleads his Power to depose Patriarchs but that his consent for the sake of Vnity should also have been first desired and that so great a Matter in the Church required a Council both of the Eastern and
Apostle too blame to say there must be Heresics or Divisions among you and not to tell them there must be an Infallible Judge among you and no Heresies but now men are wiser and of another mind To conclude whether we regard the Truth or Vnity of the Church both Reason and Sence assures us that this Infallibility signifies nothing for as to Truth 't is impossible men should give up their Faith and Conscience and inward apprehension of things to the Sentence of any one man or all the men in the World against their own Reason and for Vnity there is no colour or shadow of pretence against it but that the Authority of Ecclesiastical Government can preserve it as well without as with Infallibility But if there be any Sence in the Argument methinks 't is better thus the Head and Governour of the Christian Church must of necessity be Infallible but the Pope is not Infallible ' either by Scripture Tradition or Reason therefore the Pope is not the Head and Governour of the Christian Church CHAP. XVIII Of the Pope's Universal Pastorship its Right divine or humane this Civil or Ecclesiastical all examined Constantine King John Justinian Phocas WE have found some flaws in the pretended Title of the Pope as our Converter Patriarch Possessor and as the Subject of Infallibility his last and greatest Argument is his Vniversal Pastorship and indeed if it be proved that he is the Pastor of the whole Church of Christ on Earth he is ours also and we cannot withdraw our obedience from him without the guilt of that which is charged upon us viz. Schism if his Commands be justifiable but if the proof of this fail also we are acquitted This Right of the Pope's Universal Pastorship is divine or humane if at all both are pretended and are to be examined The Bishop of Calcedon is very indifferent and reasonable as to the Original if the Right be granted 't is not de fide to believe whether it come from God or no. If the Pope be Universal Pastor Jure humano only his Title is either from Civil or from Ecclesiastical Power and least we should err Fundamentally we shall consider the pretenses from both If it be said that the Civil Power hath conferred this honour upon the Pope may it not be questioned whether the Civil Powers of the World extend so far as either to dispose of the Government of the Church or to subject all the Churches under one Pastor However de facto when was this done when did the Kings of England in Conjunction with the Rulers of the whole World make such a Grant to the Pope I think the World hath been ashamed of the Const donat Donation of Constantine long agon yet that no shadow may remain unscattered we shall briefly take an account of it They say Constantine the third day after he was baptized left all the West part of the Empire to Pope Sylvester and went himself to dwell at Constantinople and gave the whole Imperial and Civil Dominion of Rome and all the Western Kingdoms to the Pope and his Successors for ever A large Boon indeed this looks as if it was intended that the Pope should be an Emperor but who makes him Vniversal Pastor and who ever since hath bequeathed the Eastern World to him either as Pastor or Emperor for it should seem that part Constantine then kept for himself But Mr. Harding throws off all these little Cavils and with sufficient Evidence out of Math. Hieromonachus a Greek Author shews the very Words of the Decree which carry it for the Pope as well in Ecclesiastical as Civil Advantages they are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. We decree and give in charge to all Lords and to the Senate of our Empire that the Bishop of Rome and Successor of Saint Peter chief of the Apostles have Authority and Power in all the World greater than that of the Empire that he have more honour than the Emperor and that he be Head of the four Patriarchal Seats and that matters of Faith be by him determined this is the Charter whereby some think the Pope hath Power saith De potest Pap. c. 19. Harveus as Lord of the whole World to set up and pull down Kings 'T is confessed this Grant is not pleaded lately with any Confidence Indeed Bishop Jewel did check it early when he shewed Harding the wisest and best among the Papists have openly disproved it such as Platina Cusanus Petavius Laurent Valla Antoninus Florentinus and a great many more Cardinal Cusanus hath these words Donationem Constantini dilligenter expendens c. Carefully weighing this Grant of Constantine even Conc. Cath. lib. 3. c. 2. in the very penning thereof I find manifest Arguments of Forgery and Falshood 'T is not found in the Register of Gratian that is in the allowed Original Text though it be indeed in the Palea of some Books yet that Palea is not read in the Schools and of it Pope Pius himself said dicta Palea Constantinus Pius 2. dial falsa est and inveighs against the Canonists that dispute an valuâ—rit id quod nunquam fuit and those that speak most favourably of it confess that it is as true that Vox Angelorum Audita est that at the same time the voice of Angels was heard in the Air saying hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam Much more to the discountenance of this vain Story you have in Bishop Jewel's Defence P. 537 538. 539. which to my observation was never since answered to him therefore I refer my Reader But alas if Constantine had made such a Grant Pope Pipus tells us it was a question among the very Canonists an valuerit and the whole World besides must judge the Grant void in it self especially after Constantine's time Had Satan's Grant been good to our Saviour if he had faln down and worshipped him no more had Constantine's pardon the comparison for in other things he shewed great and worthy zeal for the flourishing Grandeur of the Church of Christ though by this he had as was said given nothing but poyson to it for the Empire of the World and the Vniversal Pastorship of the Church was not Constantine's to give to the Pope and his Successors for ever Arg. 2 King John But it is urged nearer home that King John delivered up his Crown to the Pope and received it again as his Gift 'T is true but this Act of present fear could not be construed a Grant of Right to the Pope if King John gave away any thing it was neither the Power of making Laws for England nor the exercise of any Jurisdiction in England that he had not before for he only acknowledged unworthily the Pope's Power but pretended not to give him such Power to confer the Crown for ever much less to make him Supreme Disposer of our English Church But if our Constitution be considered how