\) \\ cjQfmoria!}; "b q . . (\ '\\> / PI] S MARY'S CATHEDRAL '?! . EDI N BURGH. - ( --...àJ..;' : t i : \J ___ 9) D. J ) T ,/ÍM J J. ;?dr: Ifd;H. ..... -- ....... -. ... . ROlJlA RUIT. THE PILLARS OF ROME BROKEN: W HEREI N ALL THE SEYERAL PLEAS FOR THE POPE'S AUTHORITY IN EXGLAND, WITH ALL TIlE l\IATERIAL DEFEXCES OF THEM, AS THEY HA YE BEEN URGED BY RO:\IAXISTS FROM THE BEGINXING OF OeR REFORl\lATIO TO THIS DAY, ARE REYISED AND ANSWERED. TO WHICH IS SUBJOINED A SEASONABLE ALARM TO ALL SORTP- OF ENGLISHl\IEN, AGAINST POPERY, BOTH FROì\I THEIR OATHS A::\D THEIR INTERESTS. By FR. FULL \VOOD, D.D., ARCHDEACON OF TOTNES IN DEVON. A NEW EDITION REVISED BY CHARLES HARDWICK, 1. A., FELLOW OF ST. CATHARINE'S HALL, CAMBRIDGE. CA 1:BRIDG E : J. AND. J. J. DEIGHTON. JOHN" 'V. }>ARKER, 'VEST STRAND, LONDON. M.DCCC.XL VII. [TOVTO yàp Kal cþOpTLKÒV Kal OV 1TÓpPW Tijf> 'Io1J8atKijf> TU1TH- VÓT1JTOf> 1T pLypá<þHV TfJ 'Pwp-n T V ltcte"X1Juíav. Nilu!>, archiep. Thel'!'a1. c1e Primatu Papro Romani. Lib. n. p. 3-1; cd. Salmas. ] QI:,ambribge : 18rlntrtJ at tflr {l]tnlbrrsftp \llress. THE object of the following reprint is to supply on the subject of the papal jurisdiction a well-digested text-book. 1\Iany persons who take an interest in that question, are wholly precluded from historical investigation through their want of the necessary leisure; while others by studying the con- troversy under one single aspect, or for the satisfac- tion of particular doubts, have frequently arrived at very partial conclusions. To both these classes a careful synopsis of the whole body of testimony will not fail to be of service; and such a synopsis has been already provided in this Treatise of Arch- deacon Full wood I. He would have 'the difference clearly stated, and the argunlents stripped of their cUluber, and the controversy so reduced, that the world nlay perceive where we are; and that doubt- ful inquirers after tt'uth and the safest religion luay satisfy their consciencE's and fix their practice 2 .' 1 The name is written indifferently Fullwood and Fulwood. 2 ce Introtluction and Epi5t1c Dedicatory. 0'2 IY On the three qualities of comprehension, per- spicuity, and arrangenlent, are rested his chief claiuls to consideration; nor can anyone, in ques- tions like the present, possess qualitie nIore likely to obtain it. Should it appear, therefore, that the elaborate Treatises of Jewel, Rainolds, Laud, l\Iorton, Brmn- hall, Twysden, HaIUnlOnd, anù Stillingfleet, have been faithfully reduced and nlethodizeù, the Church of England will have cause to welcome the reap- pearance of this portion of Fullwood's writings, and to cherish anew the remelubrance of one who can still, as in his lifetinle, serye among the number of her champions. Very few part.iculars have COllle down to u respecting the private history of FRA CIS FULL\vOUl>. His own testinlony assures us that he was educated at the Charter-house 1. From thence he was in all probability renloved to the University of Calll- hridge. His nanIe occurs in the Admission-book of Enllllanuel College, with the further information that he becanIe B. A. in 1()47 . Of his ('onnexion ] In the Dedication of his 'Discourse of the Visible Church,' "here he speaks of himself as 'formerly a plaut in that excellcnt nursery.' 2 Obliging-ly communicated hy the 1\la8tl'." of Emmanuel ('nUl'go. v with this society he himsplf nlakes mention in the dedication of the' Homa Ruit.' induced Blost 1'1'0- hahly by the circumstance that Archhishop Sancroft whonl he addresses was also of Emnlanuel College. The increase of tllf' revolutionary trouhles would prevent his graduating in the usual cour8(': accord- ingly we find no trace of hin1 in the Fniversity till the period of tlw Restoration. 16GO, when hp was created D. D. by rOJal mandate. On the 31 st of August in the saIne year he was installed as Arch- deacon of Totton or Totnes I.-During the interval of thirteen Jf:\ars, which had elapsed since his B. A. degree, Fullwood was lahouring for the cause of truth and order in the south-western dioceses. His first puhlication appears to have been 'Yindiciæ Iediorunl et l\Iediatoris.' The date is 1 G:> 1, and he describes himself as ':Minister of the Gospel at Staple Fitz-pane in the county of Son1erset,' (8vo, J..ond. 1 ô51 ). In this Treatise as in others, Full- wood is refuting the extravagancies of the age respecting the i1i17JlerliatfJ comnllmication of spi- ritual influences. Prefixed is a kind of pastoral letter which he ad(lressed to the 'pious flock at Totnes,' warning them, through their clergyman, 1 Le Neve, Fasti, p. 9i. Th(' a1"chdca('onry har) remain('ll val'ant since the death of E!lwanl Cotton in 16-lì. Aft('r 0111' intl'rval FulIwoo(l wm; 8u('('('('(I('ll hy Fl'an('i Atterbury. n against the errors then prevalent. This Clrcunl- stance indicates a nlore than ordinary interest in the town, which afterwards gave the nalne to his archdeaconry I._In the following year he published 'The Churches and :Ministry of England true Churches and true Aiinistry, proved in a Sermon at Wiviliscombe,' (4to, Lond. ] 652).- In ] 656, ap- peared 'A true Relation of a Dispute between hinl and one Thomas Salthouse,' (4to, Lond.) He is at this time described as ' :Minister of West Alvington, in the county of Devon.' His antagonist was a very unlearned Quaker.- The next publication of our Author was 'A Discourse of the Visible Church, in a large Debate of this famous Question, viz. Whether the Visible Church Iuay be considered to be truly a Church of Christ, without respect to saving grace?' (4to, Lond. 1658.) In this Treatise (which contains 296 pages, besides an Appendix on Confirmation) Fullwood is still rlescribed as iin- 1 About the same time Fullwood appears to have published an Examination of' Want of Church Government no warrant for omis- sion of the LOl"d's Supper.' The author of this treatise was Henry Jeanes (the antagonist of Bp. Taylor); it bears the ùate 1650, but no copy of Fullwood's' Examination' has bee l met with. Wooù (Athen. Oxon. Vol. II. p. 299) in mentioning this controvm"sy gives a few particulars respecting Fullwood. See also Blisse's Edition, V 01. III. p. 591. Two slight notices occur in Wood's Fasti, cd. Blisse, but both are unimportant. The same may be said of passing references to Fullwood in Sylvester's 'Life of Baxter,' and other contemporary writer8. YII Ístf'}" of 'Vest Ahington in ] )eyon.-Ilis elevation to tllP archdeaconry of Totncs in ] 6GO did not ahatf' his fonner activity, nor lessen the usefulness of his lahours. In 16G1, he put forth 'Some necessary and seasonable Cases of Conscience about things indifferent in lnatters of Religion, briefly yet faith- fully stated and resolved 1,' (8vo, Lond.); in 1667, 'The General Assembly, or the Necessity of receiv- ing- the COlnmunion in our public Cong-regations, a serlnon on Heb. xii. 23;' in 1672, 'The N ecessitJ of I{eeping our Parish Churches, argued from the Sin and Danger of t.he Schis111s in the Church of Corinth, and of the present Separation. in a Sennon before the Judges at the Assizes at Exeter.'-In 1679 appeared the 'Roma Ruit'1,' at a time when Churchmen were beginning to look forward with apprehension to the reign of a Romish proselyte. Its character and ohject are clearly described in the 'Epistle Dedicatory' and the 'Preface to the Reader.'-In 168 was puhlished 'Leges Angliæ; the Lawfulness of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Church of England, asserted and vindicated.' The 1 This treatise was published anonymously, and is assigned to Fullwood on the authority of the Bodleian Catalogue. Ín the same Catalogue mention is made of two pamphlets on ' Toleration not to be abused,' (Lond. 1672), both anonymous, but there classed among Fullwood's writings. 2 Th(' title was perhaps suggeAted by Fea.tley's 'Roma Ruens.' VIlI maID Treati e het'e assailed hy Fullwood bears the title 'Naked Truth, the 2nd Part:' it was onfinc thc contron r y. as ncar THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. xv H,:-i I can, within the bounds of our own concern, i. e our own Church. .And when this is done, the plain and naked truth is, that the meanest of our other adversaries (I had almost said the silly Quaker himself) seems to me to have better grounds, and nlore like Christian, than the glorious cause of the papacy. But to draw a little nearer to our point, your lordship cannot but observe, that one end of the Roman compass is ever fixed upon the same centre, and the Slun of their clamour is, our disobedience to the See of Honle. Our defence stands upon a two- fold exception, (1) Against the Authority. (2) A- g'ainst the Laws of Rome; and if either be justified, we are innocent. The first exception (and the defence of our Church against the authority of that See) is the mat- ter of this Treatise; the second is reserved. I have determined that all the arguments for the pope's authority in England are reducible to a five- fold plea, the right of conversion as our apostle, the right of a patriarch, the right of infallibility, the right of prescription, and the right of universal pas- torship: the examination of them carries us through our work. Verily, to my knowledge, I have omitted nothing argumentative of anyone of these pIcas; yea, I have considered all those little inconsiderable things, which I find any Romanists seem to make much of. But, indeed, their pretended right of possession in Eng- land, and the universal pastorship (to which thc.) adhere as thcir surest holds,) ha\ e Ill} mOt't intended XVI THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. and greatest strength. and care and diligence; that nothing material, or seemingly so, might escape either unobserved, or not fully answered ;-let not the con- trary be said, but shewn. I have further laboured to contract the contro- versy two ways. (1) By a very earefhl, as well as large, and I hope, a clear state of the question, in my definition and discourse of sehisnl, at the beginning; whereby mis- takes may be prevented, and much of lllatter disputed by others excluded. (2) By waving the dispute of such things as have no influence into the conclusion; and (according to my use) giving as many and as large concessions to the adversary, as our cause will suffer. N ow my end being favourably understood, I hope, there is no need to ask your lordship's, or any other's, pardon, for that I have chosen not to dispute two great things: (1) That in the words' Tu es Pet1'us, et super !lane Pet'J"am,' there is intended some respect, peculiar to St Peter's person. It is generally acknowledged by the most learned defenders of our Church, that St Peter had a primacy of order, and your lordship well knows, that many of the ancient fathers have expressed as much; and I intend no more. (2) That tradition lllay be infallible, or inde- fectible, in the delivery of the essentials of religion, for aught we know. By the essentials, we mean no more, hut the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Deca- logue, and the two Sacraments. In this I have my J->ccoml, and 111)'" reason too for then Hu lnvortIÙ: THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. XVII Dialogues, and the new methodð of Roman opposition, need not trouble us. Iy good Lord, it is high time to beg your pardon, that I have reason to. conclude with an excuse for a long epistle: the truth is, I thought myself account- able to your lordship for a brief of the book, that took its being from your lordship's encouragement; and the rather, because it seems unmannerly to expect that your good old age should perplex itself with controversy, which the good God continue long and happy, to the honour of His Church on earth, and then crown with the glory of heaven. It is the hearty prayer of, l\ly Lord, Your Lordship's most obliged and devoted servant, FR. FULLWOOD. b A PREFACE TO THE READER. GOOD READER, O UR Roman adversaries dainI the subjection of the Church of England by several arguments, but insist chiefly upon that of Possession, anel the Universal Pastorship. If any shall deign to answer me, I think it reasonable to expect they should attack me there, where they suppose their greatest strength lies; otherwise, though they may seem to have the advantage by catching shadows, if I alll left unan- swered in those two nIain points, the substance of their cause is lost. 1. For if it renIain unproved that the Pope had quiet possession here, and the contrary proof continue unshaken, the argunIent of possession is on our side. I doubt not but you will find that the Pope had not possession here before; that he took not posses- sion by Austin the l\Ionk; and that he had no such possession here afterwards, sufficient to create or evince a title. It is confessed, that Austin took his arch- bishopric of Canterbury as the gift of Saint Gregory, and having recalled many of the people to Christi- anity, both the converts and the converter gave great submission and respect to Saint Gregory, then bishop of Rome; and how far the people were bound to obey their parent that had begotten them, or he his mas- b2 xx A PREFACE tel', that sent him anù gave him the prnnacy, I need not dispute. But these things to our purpose are very certain. (1) That conversion was anciently conceived to be the ground of their obedience to Saint Gregory, which plea is now deserted, and that Saint Gregory himself abhorred the very title of universal bishop, the only thing now insisted on. (2) It is also certain that the addition of autlIo- rity, which the K.ing's silence, permission, or conni- vance gave to Austin, was more than Saint Gregory's grant, and yet that connivance of the new-converted I{ing, in the circumstances of so great obligation and surprise, (who might not know, or consider, or be willing to exercise his royal power then in the point) could never give away the supremacy, inherent in his crown, from his successors for ever. (3) It is likewise certain, tilat neither Saint Gregory's grant, nor that l{ing's permission, did or could obtain possession for the Pope, by Austin, as the Primate of Canterbury, over all the British Churches and Bishops; which were then many, and had not the same reason from their conversion by hinl to own his jurisdiction, but did stiffly reject all his arguments and pretences for it. IGng .1Ethelbert, the only Christian king at that time in England, had not above the twentieth part of Britain within his jurisdiction; how then can it be imagined that all the king of England's dominions, in England, and 'Yales, and Scotland, and Ireland, should be con- cluded withiIi the primacy of Canterbury, by Saint Augustine s possession of so mall a part? TO THE READER. XXI (4) It is one thing to claim, another to poôôeôs. Saint Augustine's commission was, to subject all Bri- tain; to erect two archbishoprics anel twelve bishop- pries, under eaeh of then1; but what possession he got for his nlaster, appears in that, after the death of that Gregory and Austin, there were left but one archbishop and two bishops, of the Roman commu- nion, in all Britain. (5) l\Ioreover, the 'succeeding archbishops of Canterbury :o;oon after discontinued that small pos- session of England which Augustine haù gotten; acknowledging they held of the crown, and not of the Pope, resuming the ancient liberties of the English Church, which before had been, and ought always to be, independent on any other; and whieh of right returned, upon the return of their Christianity: and accordingly our succeeding kings, with their nobles, and comn10ns, and clergy, upon all occasions, denied the papal jurisdiction here, as contrary to the IGng's natural supremacy, and the customs, liberties, and la ws of this kingdom. And as Augustine could not give the nlitre, so neither could l{ing John give the crown of England to the bishop of Rome. For (as 1\Iatth. Paris rclateô) , Philip Augustus answered the Pope's legate, no king, no prince, can alienate or give away his king-dom, but by conôent of his barons (who, we know, protested against King John'!::! endeavour of that kinù) bound by knight's service to defend the said kingdom; and in case the Pope shall stand for the contrary error, his holiness shall give to kingdom!::! a most pernicious example :' -so far is one unwarrantable act of a fear- xxn A PREFACE ful prince, under great temptations, from la 'ing a firm ground for the Pope's prescription. And it is well known, that both the preceding and succeeding kings of England defended the lights of the crown, and disturbed the Pope's possession, upon stronger grounds of nature, custom, and plain statutes, and the very constitution of the kingdom, from time to time, in all the main branches of supremacy, as, I doubt not, but is 111ade to appear by full and authentic testimony beyond dispute. II. The other great plea for the Pope's authority in England is that of Universal Pastorsllip. Now if this cannot be claimed by any right, either Divine, civil, or ecclesiastical, but the contrary be evident,- and both the Scriptures, Enlperors, Fathers, and Councils did not only not grant, but deny and reject, the Pope's Supremacy as an usurpation,-what reason hath this, or any other Church, to give away their liberty upon bold and groundless claims? The pretence of civil right, by the grant of Em- perm's, they are now ashamed of, for three reasons; it is too scant, and too mean, and apparently ground- less; and our discourse of thc Councils hath beaten out an unanswerable argument against the claim by any other right, whether ecclesiastical or Divine: for all the general Councils are found, first, not to 11lake any such grant to the Pope, whereby thc claim by ccclesiastical right is to be maintained; but, secondly, they are all found making strict proyisions against his pretcnded authority, whereby they and the Ca- tholic Church in them deny his Divine right. lt is plainly acknowledged by Stapleton himself, TO THE READER. xxiii that, before the Council of Constance, Non Divino sed humano jure, et positÜ,is Ecclesiæ decretis, prÙnatum Romani Pontificis niti senserunt, speaking of the Fa- thers; that is, the Fathers before that Council thought the primacy of the Pope was not of Divine right, and that it stood only upon the positive decrees of the Church; and yet he further confesseth in the same place, that the power of the Pope now contended for (nullo sane decreto publico definita est) 'is not defined by any public Decree,' tacito tamen doctorwn consen,su. N ow what can remain, but tbat which we find him inllnediately driven to, viz. to reject the pretence of human right by positive Decrees of the Church, and to acThere only (as he himself affirmeth they generally now do) to the Divine right: Nunc (inquit) autent nenlÏni amplius Catholico dubiwn est, prorsus Divino jure, et quidem illustribus Evangelii testimoniis lLunc P1'imatwrn niti. Thus, how have they entangled themselves I If they pretend a human right, he acknowledgeth they cannot find it, where it ought to be found, in the public decrees of the Church: if a Divine right, he confesseth the Fathers denied it, before the Council of Constance; and he knows that Council condemned it. Stapleton at length affirms, that now no Catholic doubts but the Pope's primacy is of Divine right; whence the heart of the Roman cause is stabbed, by these clear and sharp conclusions,- 1st Conclusion: That all Catholics of the present Roman Church do now hold a new article, touching the Pope's primacy, not known to the Fathers before I ( I XXIV A PREFACE TO THE READER. the Council of Constance, A. D. 1415, and condemned by that Council as an error. 2nd Conclusion: That therein the faith of the present Roman Church stand counter to the faith, decrees, and practices of all the first general Councils, consisting of Fathers that flourished therein, long before the Council of Constance, i. e. in their own sense, the ancient Catholic Church. You will find that the evidence hereof ariseth, not only fronl the words of Stapleton, but frOln the decrees of all the first eight general Councils, every one of theIll, one way or other, expressly disclaiming that supremacy which the Pope and his present Church would arrogate; and in those Councils all the Fathers and the Catholic Church are confessedly con- cluded; and consequently, antiquity, infallibility, and tradition are not to be found at Rome. The sum is, the Church of England,-that holds the true, ancient, Catholic faith, and the first four general Councils, and hath the evidence of four more on the point,-cannot be blamed for rejecting, or not readmitting, a novel and groundless usurpation, con- trary to them all, and contrary also to the profession of the present Roman Church, that pretends to be- lieve that the 'faith of the first eight general Councils is the Catholic faith.' Imprimatur, GUlL. JANE, R. P. D. HEN. Episc. LOND., à Sacl'is Dornest. JflIl. 24, 1678. THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS. PAGS THE INTRODUCTION. THE DESIGN. THE CONTROVERSY CON- TRACTED INTO 0$ POINT, VIZ. SCHISM 1 CHAPTER I. TIlE DEFINITION OF SCHISM. Sect. ]. Of the Act of it 3 Sect. 2. The Subject of Schism 4 Sect. 3. The Object of Schism 7 (1) Faith 7 (2) VVorship 9 (3) Government 12 Sect. 4. The Conditions. Causeless. Voluntary 14 Sect. 5. The Application of Schism; it is not applicable to us. 17 In the Act. 17 Or Cause 19 Sect. 6. The Application of it to the Romanists 20 Sect. 7. The Charge retorted upon them 22 The Controversy broken into two Points. The Autho- rity. The Cause 24 CHAPTER II. AN EXAMINATION OF TIlE PAPAL AUTHORITY IN ENGLAND. FIVE ARGUMENTS PROPOSED AND ßRIE 'LY ltEFLECTED ON 25 1. Conversion. 2. Prescription. 3. Western Patriarchate. 4. Infallibility. 5. Succession 26 xxvi TIlE CONTENTS. CHAPTER III. I'AGE OF THE POPE'S CLAIM FROM OUR CONVERSION, BY ELEUTHERl(;"S, GREGORY 29 CHAPTER IV. Ills CLAIM AS PATRIARCH. FOUR PROrOSITIONS LAID DOWN (I) The Pope was Patriarch of the 'Vest (2) He had then a limited Jurisdiction (3) His Patriarchate did not include Britain (4) A Patriarch and Universal Bishop inconsistent 3-1 35 38 40 CHAPTER V. THE THIRD PAPAL CLAIM, PRESCRIPTION. THE CASE STATED 43 Their Plea. Our Answer in three Propositions, viz. (I) The Pope nevor had possession absolutely 4{ (2) That which he had could never create a Title ib. (3) However his Title extinguished with his possession ib. CHAPTER VI. THE PAPACY OF NO rOWER HERE FOR THE FIRST 600 YEARS (AUGUSTINE, DIOXOTH) IN FACT, OR FAITH, &c. 45 Sect. I. No one part of Papal Jurisdiction was exercised here for 600 hundred years; not Ordination till BOO years after Christ, &c. nor any other 50 Sect 2. No possession of belief of his Jurisdiction then, in England or Scotland 58 Sect. 3. This belief could have no ground in the Ancient Canons. Apostolic, Niccne, Milevitan, &c. 60 Sect. 4. Of Councils. Sardica, Chalcedon, Constantinople. 62 Sect. 5. Arabic Canons forged; not of Nice 68 Sect. 6. Ancient practice interpreted the Canons against the Pope: Disposing of Patriarchs: S. Cyprian, S. Augus- tine's sense, in practice . 7I Sect. 7. The sayings of Ancient Popes, Agatho, Pc1agius, Gregory, Victor, against the pretence of Supremacy 78 Sect. 8. The words of the Imperial Law against him 104 Sect. 9. The Conclusion, touching possession in the first Ages, viz. 600 years from Christ 112 THE CONTENTS. XXVll CHAPTER VII. FAG.!:: THE POPE HAD NOT FULL POSSESSIO:S HERE BEFORE HENRY VIII. 115 Scct. 1. Not in St. Augustine's time ib. A true state of the question betwixt the Pope and the King of England in seven particulars . 118 Sect. 2. No clear or full possession in the Ages after Austin, till Henry VIII. II!) In eight distinctions of Supremacy ib. The question stated by them 120 CHAPTER VIII. WHAT SUPRmIACY HE:SRY VIII. TOOK FR01I THE POPE; THE PARTICVLARS OF IT; WITH NOTES V-PO:S TIlEr-I, &c. 122 CHAPTER IX. 'VIIETHER TIlE POPE'S POSSESSION HERE WAS A QUIET POSSES- SION TILL HE RY VIII. AS TO THE POI:ST OF SUPREMACY 124 Sect. 1. Of Appeals to Rome. Three Notions of Appcal. Appeals to Rome locally, or by Legates. 'Vilfrid. An- sclm . ib. Scct. 2. Of the Possession by Legates; the occasion of thcm here; their entertainment . 134 CHAPTER x. OF THE POPE'S LEGISLATIVE POWER IIERE, BEFORE HENRY VIII. CANONS OBLIGE V-S NOT WITHOGT OUR CONSENT. OUR KIxGS, SAXOX, DA:\'ìSII, NORMAN, MADE ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS 144 CHAPTER XI. OF TIlE POWER OJ<' PAPAL LICENCES, &c. IN EDW AIm I., III.; RICHARD II., HENUY IV., HENUY V., HENRY VI., HL;XRY YIIo's TIME 152 CHAPTER XII. TIII P ATIWNAGE OF 'I'lIIS CnPRCU; ETER IN OUR OWN KIXGS; TIY HISTORY; ßY LAW 160 xxviii THE CONTENTS. CHAPTER XIII. PAU& OF PETER-PENCE, AND OTHER PAYMENTS TO THE POPE First-fruits Payments Extraordinary Casual 170 172 175 178 CHAPTEl XIV. THE COKCLUSIOX OF TilE ARGUMENT OF PRESCRIPTION; IT IS OX OUR SIDE 180 On their side, of no force 181 CHAPTER XV. THE PLEA FROl\I IXFALLIBILITY cO SIDERED; IN ITS CONSE- QUENCE ItETORTED 183 Sect. 1. Scripture Examples for IIûallibility 185 High Priest not Infallible; nothing to tho Pope 186 Apostles 188 Sect. 2. Scripture-promises of Infallibility 189 CHAPTER X VI. SECOND ARGUMENT FOR INFALLIBILITY, VIZ. TRADITION; FOUR COKCESSIONS; THREE PROPOSITIONS ABOUT TRADITION. ARGUl\fENTS, OBJECTIONS, &c. . 19-1 CHAPTER XVII. THE THIRD WAY OF ARGUMENT FOR INPALLIBIJ.ITY, YIZ. BY REA- SON; THRE)< REASONS ANSWERED; THE POINT ARGUE]); RETORTED . 201 CHAPTER XVIII. TIlE UNIVERSAL PASTOHSIIlP; ITS RIGHT, DIVINE OR HU1UAN; THIS, CIVIL OR ECCI,ESIASTICAL; ALL EXAl\IlNED. COi\STAN- 'l'INt<;, KING JOlIN, JUSTINIAN, PnOCAS, &c. AS TO Cl\'IL RIGH'!' .206 THE CO TENTS. XXIX CHAPTER XIX. P,\GE III!' ECCLESIASTICAL RIGHT BY GENERAL COl'NCILS; THE EIGHT FIRST, TO WHICH HE IS SWORN. JUSTINIAN'S SANCTION" OF TIlE)!. CANOXS Ap05TOLICAL ALLOWED BY THE COUNCIL OF NICE AND EPHESUS . 21(; Sect. 1. Sect. 2. Canons of the Apostles 219 First General Council of Nice. Bellarmine's Eva- sion . 220 Sect. 3. Concil. (third General) Constantinop., A. D. 381 222 Sect. 4. Concil. Ephesin. (third General,) A. D. 431 223 Sect. 5. Concil. Calced. (fourth General,) A. D. 451 225 Sect. 6. Concil. Constantin. 2, (tho fifth General Council,) A.D. 553 228 Sect. 7. Concil. Constant. (sixth General,) A. D. 681, v. 685. Nicene. (seventh General,) A. D. 781 229 Sect. 8. COllcil. Constant. (eighth General) A. D. 869 230 Seven Conclusions from Councils . 231 Sect. 9. Of the Latin Church. The Councils of Constance, Basil, &c. A. D. 1415, 1431 . 233 Sect. 10. The Greek Church. African Canons. Synod. Carthag. ConcH. Antiochen. The Faith of the Greek Church since in the Point 235 Sect. 11. The Sardican Canons. No Grant from their mat- ter, manner, or authority. No Appendix to the Council of Nice. Zosimus his forgery; they were never rati- fied, nor received, as Universal; and were contradicted by after Councils 239 CHAPTER XX. THE POPE'S TITLE BY DIVINE RIGHT. THE QUESTION, WHY N"OT SOONER? I T IS THEIR LAST REFUGE . 245 Sect. 1. Whether the Government of the Church be Mo- narchical, Jure Divino? Bellm'mine. Reason. Scrip- ture 246 Promises, Metaphors, and Example of the High Priest in Scripture. 249 Sect. 2. Of St. Peter's Monarchy. Tu es Petru8 252 Fathers' Expressions of it 258 Fathers corrupted, and Council of Chalcedon, by Thomas. 260 xxx THE CONTENTS. CHAPTER XXI. PAIn: OF TIlE POPE'S SUCCESSION Sect. 1. Whcthcr thc Primacy dcscendcd to the Bishop of Romc as such, by Succession from St. Peter. Neg.- Bellarmine's Twcnty-eight Prerogatives of St. Peter; personal or false 270 Application of this Section. 274 By threc grcat Inferences: the Pope's ancient Primacy not that of St. Petcr: not Jltre Divino: not to dcscend to succeeding Popes ib. Sect. 2. Whether the Pope have Supremacy as Successor to St. Peter. N ego not Primate as such; Petcr himsclf not Supreme; the Pope did not succeed him at all . 276 Sect. 3. Argument I. Pcter assigned it to thc Pope: an- swered 277 Sect. 4. Argumcnt II. The Bishop of Rome succeedcd Peter, because Antioch did not: answered 278 Sect. 5. Argument III. St. Peter dicd at Rome: answcrcd; qucstion de facto, not de fide 279 Sect. 6. Argument IV. From Councils, Popcs, Fathers . 281 Sect. 7. Argumcnt V. For prevention of Schism. St. Je- l'ome 282 Sect. 8. Argument VI. Thc Church committed to his care. St. Chrysostom . 283 Sect. 9. Argumcnt VII. 'One Chair.' Optatus, Cyprian, Ambrosc, Acacius 284 Sect. 10. The Conclusion touching thc Fathcrs. Reasons why we are not more particular about thcm. A Chal- lenge touching them. Thcre cannot be a consent of thc Fathers for the Papacy, as is evident from the General Councils. Reasons for it. Rome's Contradiction of Faith. The Pope's Schism, PCljury, &c. 2:;:) The Sum of the whole matter. A Touch of another Treatisc. The material Cause of S('paration 29-1 2Gt! THE COXTENTS. xxxi THE POSTSCRIPT: OBJECTIONS TOUCHING- THE FIRST GENERAl. COU - CILS; AND OUR ARGU1\IENTS FRO 1 THEM ANSWERED l\IORE }'ULLY. SECTION I. fUE ARGUMENT FRû'1 COUNCILS DRAWN rp. IT IS CONCLlTSIV" OF THE FATHERS, AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 29(; SECTION II. OBJECTIONS TOUCHING THE COUNCIL OF NICE ANSWERED 299 SECTION III. OB.Jf;CTIONS TOUCHING THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE. SECO....D GENERAL 30 J SECTION IV. THE THIRD GENERAL COUNCIL, VIZ. THE EPHESINE 305 SECTION v. OF THE FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH GENERAL COUNCILS. BINWS HIS QrOTATIONS OF ANCIENT POPES CON- SIDERED 307 Conclusion 313 LApPENDL'C. ON ENGLISH ROMANISTS 314] A SERIOUS ALARM TO ALL SORTS OF ENGLISHMEN AGAINST Po- PERY; FROM SENSE AND CONSCIENCE, THEIR OATHS AND THEIR INTEREST 319 The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy 326 '('HE INTJI0DUC'rION. THE DESIGN.-THE CONTROVERSY CONTRACTED INTO ONE POINT, VIZ. SCHISM. T HE Church of England hath been long possessed both of herself anù the true religion, and counts it no necessary part of that religion to molest or censure any other Church. Yet she cannot be quiet, but is still vexed and clamoured with unwearied outcries of Heresy and Schislll from the Church of Rome, provoking her defence. The ball hath been tossed as well by cunning as learned hands, ever since the Reformation; and it is cOlnplained, that by weak and impertinent allegat.ions, tedious altercations, unnecessary excursions, and much sophistry, needlessly lengthening and obscuring the controversy, it is in danger to be lost. After so great and so long exercises of the best champions on both sides, it is not to be expected, that any great advance ::,hould be made on eit.her: yet how desirable is it, that at length the true dif- ference were clearly stated, and the arguments stripped of their said cumber, and presented to us in thcir proper evidence, and the controversy so reduced, that the world might perceive where we are; and doubtful inquirers after truth and the bafest religion, might satisfy their consciences and fix their practice. This is in some Ineasure the ambition of the present Essay. In order to it. we have observed that 1 2 INTRODUCTION. the shop out of w]1Ïch all the arms, both oftensiye and defensive, on both sides are fetclled, is Schism; and the whole controversy is truly contracted into that one point, which will appear by two things- 1. By the State of the allowed nature of Schism. 2 J By the Application of it so explained. CHAPTER I. THE DEFINITION 0:11"' SCTII:-\)I. SECTIO 1. OF THE ACT OF SCHISl\L T HAT we may lie open to their full charge, we lay thB- notion in as great a latitude, as, I think, our adversaries themselves would have it. Schism i8 a voluntary division qf a Christian Ckll'l'ch, in its exte'ì"nal COllununion, Wit/lOut sufficient cause. (1) It is a Division- l LxoCTTaCT:at, divisions or Act. rents among you. This division of the Church is made either in the Church or from it. In it, as it is a particular Church, which the Apostle blan1es in the Division in . the Church Church 2 of CorInth; though they came together, and particular. did not separate from the external Comn1union, but divided in it and about it. (2) Division is made also in the Church as Catholic Catholic. or universal; and some charge the Church or court of Rome (as we shall observe hereafter) herewith, as the cause of many deplorable rents and convulsions in the bowels of it: and indeed in a true sense, all that are guilty of dividing either in, or from a particular Church (without just cause) are guilty of Schisn1 in the Catholic, as the agfJ1'egatum of all particular Churches. There is division as well from, as in the Church; 1 [I Cor. iii. 3.] 2 [I Cor. xi. 20, 33.] 1- Subject. 4 DEFI ITIO i\. [CHAP. I. and this is either such as is improperly called sepa- ration, or properly, or more perfectly so. (1) Separation improperly so called, we may term negative; which is rather a recusancy or a denial of Communion, .where it is either due, or only clain1ed and not due, but was never actually given. (2) It is properly so, where an actual separation is Inade, and Communion broken or denied, ,,,,here it has wont to be paid. (3) Or yet more perfectly, when those that thus separate and withdraw their Communion from a Church, join then1selves in an opposite body, and erect altar against altar. SECTION II. SUBJECT OF SCHISM. T HUS of the Act of Schism, Division. Let us briefly consider the Subject of this division, which is not a civil or an infidel ::iociety, but a Christian Church. I do not express it a true Church (for that is supposed): for if it be a Christian Church it must be true, otherwise it is not at all. Some learned of our own !'ide distinguish here of the truth of the Church physically or metaphy- sically considered, or morally; and acknowledge the ROlnan Church to be a true Church, or truly a Church, (as some would rather have it), but deny it to be such n10rallJT: and plead for separation from it only in a n10ral sense, or as it is not a true Church, i. e. as it is a false and corrupt Church, not as it is a Church. CRAP. 1.] DEFINITION. . But finding this distinction to give offence, and perhap:s ðome advantage to our adversaries,-at least for the amusing and disturbing the method of dispu- tation,-and being willing to reduce the differcnce as much as I am able, I shall not insist upon these dis- tinctions. I confebs, pace tanto'rwn, I see no danger in, but rather a necessity of, granting the Church of Ronle to be a true Church even in a moral sense, largely speaking-as moral is distinguished fronl physical or metaphysical: and the necessity of this concession ariseth fronl the granting or allowing her to be a true Church in any sense, or a Church of Christ. For to say, that a Christian Church is not a true Church morally, yet is so really (i. e. physically or me- taphysically), seems to imply that it is a Christian Church, and it is not a Christian Church; seeing all thc being of a Christian Church depends upon its truth in a moral sense, as I conceive is not questioned by either side. And when we grant that the Church of Rome or any other is a true Christian Church in any sense, we do mcan that she retains so much of Christian truth in a moral sense, as is requisite to the truth and being of a Christian Church. Indeed the very essence of a Christian Church beems to be of a nloral nature, as is evident in all its causes. Its efficient, the preaching of the gospel under divine influence, is a moral cause; the fornl, living in true faith and religion, is moral; its end and all its fornlal actions, in profession and communion, are of a moral nature; and though Christian as they 1. Cdtholic. 2. PartIcu- lar. 6 DEFINITION. [CHAP. 1. are nlen, are indeed natural beings, yet as they are Christians and the Inatter of the Christian Church, and lTIore, as they are in a society, they fall properly under a lTIoral consideration. But how can a Church be true and not true, and both in a llloral sense? How can we own the Church of Rome as a true Church, and yet leave her as a false Church, and true and :f:'llse be both taken nlorally? ,... ery well: and our learned men intend no other, though they speak it not in these terlTIS. For to be true and false, in the same (moral) sense, cloth not imply the being so, in the same respects. Thus the Church of Ronle lTIay be granted to be a true Christian Church, with respect to those funda- mentals retained in her faith and profession, wherein the being and truth of such a Church consisteth ; and yet be very false, and justly to be deserted for her gross errors, in nlany other points, believed also and professed by her :-as a bill in chancery may be a true bill for the substance of it and so admitted; and yet in many things :f:'lh;ely suggested, it may be very false, and as to them be rejected. (1) The Church as the subject of Schbm may be further considered as Catholic; that is, absolute, formal, essential, and as it lies spread oyer all the world, but united in one common faith. From this Church the Donatists, and other ancient heretics, are said to have öeparated. (2) As Partic1,llar, in a greater or lesser number or part of the Catholic. Thus the modern separatists forsaking the Church of England arc said to be Schisma tics. CHAP. 1.] DEFINITION. 7 (3) In a complex and mixed sense; as the parti- 3. Mixed. cular Roman Church, pretending also to be the Catholic Church, calls herself Roman Catholic, and her particular bishop the Universal Pastor. In which sense, the Church of England is charged with separation from the Catholic Church, for denying conullunion with the particular Church of Rome. SECTIO III. FIRST OBJECT OF SCHISl\I.-F AITH. T I-IE third point is the object, about and in which, External . . ('ommu- separatIOn IS made-namely, external commu- nion. nion; in those three great means or bonds of it, Faith, 'V orship, and Government-undcr that notion. as they are bonds of Coml11union. The first is Faith or doctrine: and it must be Faith. acknowledged, that to renounce the Church's Faith, is a ycry great Schisn1: yet, here, we must aùmit two exceptions. It 111Ust be the Church's Faith; that is, such doctrine as the Church hath defineù as nece::;sary to be believed, if we speak of a particular Church: for in other points, both authorities allow liberty. Again, though the Faith be broken, there is not Schism presently or necessarily, except the external Communion be also, or thereby disturbed. Heretical principles not declared, are Schism in principle, but not in act-('Hast thou faith? have it to thysclf"). It is farthcr agreed, that we may and sOllletimes n1ust differ with a particular Church in doctrine, whercin she 1 [Rom. xiv. :!.] 8 DEFl.NlTIOK [CHA!'. 1. departs fr01u the Catholic Faith: but herC' we luust take care, not only of Schism, but damnation itself, as 1 Athanasius warns us. Everyone should therefore endeavour to satisfy himself in this great question, ''''hat is Truth? or the true Catholic Faith? To say presently, that it is the doctrine of the ROluan Church, is to beg a very great question, that cannot easily be given. I should think Athanasius is more in the right; when he saith, 'This is the Catholic Faith,' &c. In my opinion they must stretch mightily that can believe, that the Catholic :Faith, without which no man can be saved-and therefore, which every man ought to understand- takes in all the doctrines of the council of Trent. Till the contrary be made evident, I shall affirm after nlany 2 great and learned men, that he that believes the Scriptures in general, and as they are interpreted by the Fathers of the primitive Church; the three known Creeds; and the four first general councils, and knows and declares himself prepared to 1 [" Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith." Athanasian Creed.] 2 [e.g. Bishop Taylor, 'Letter I. to one seduced to the Church of Rome': "For its doctrine, it is certain it (the Church of Eng- land) professes the belief of all that is written in the Old and New Testament, all that which is in the three Creeds, the Apostolical, the Nicene, and that of Athanasius, and whatsoever was decreed in tho four general councils, or in any other truly such; and whatsoever was condemned in these, our Church hath legally declared it to be heresy. And upon these accounts, above four whole ages of the Church went to heaven; they baptized all their catechumens into this faith, their hopes of heaven were upon this and a good life, their saints and martyrs lived and died in these alone, they denied communion to none that professed this faith." Works, Vol. XI. p. 184, ed. 1822.] CUAt'. I.] DEFINITION. 9 receive any further truth that he yet knows not, when made appcar to be so, from Reason, Scripture, or just Tradition, cannot justly be charged with Schisnl from the Catholic Faith. l\Iethinks, those that glory in the old religion should be of this mind; and indeed, in all reason, they ought to be so, unle:-,s they can ;:;hew an older and better means of knowing the Catholic Faith than this. 'Vhat is controverted about it, we shall find hereafter in its due place. In the mean time, give nlC leave to note, that our more learned and llloderate adversaries do acquit such a man or Church, both fr0111 Heresy and Schisnl; and indeed conle a great deal nearer to us, in putting the issue of the controversy very fairly upon this unquestionable point: "They who first separated themselves fr0111 the prin1Ïtive pure Church, and brought in corruptions. in faith, practice, liturgy, and us(' of Sacraments, n1ay truly be said to have been heretics, by departing from the pure faith; and schismatics, by dividing then1selves from the external communion of the true ullcorrupted Church 1." SECOND OBJECT OF SCHISM.- WORSHIP. A second band of external communion is Public 2. "7orship. ,y orship; in which, lSeparation froll1 the Church is notorious. But here 'Public 'V orship' must be understood, only so far, as it is a bond of communion, and no farther; otherwise, there is no breach of comnumion, I Mr Knott, Infidelity Unmasked, c. vii, 112, p. 534. 10 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I. though there be difference in worship, and conse- quently no schisnl. This will appear more plainly, if we distinguish of \V orship in its essentials or substantials, and its nlodes, circunIstances, rites and cerenlonies. It is well argued by the bishop of Chalcedon I, that none nlay separate from the Catholic Church, (or indeed from any particular) in the essentials or sub- stantial parts of "T orship : for these are God's ordinary means of conveying his grace for our salvation; and by these, the whole Church Ï::; knit together, as Chri t's visible Body for Divine "r orship. But what are these essentials of 'Y orship? Surely nothing el:se but the Divine ordinances, whether nloral or positive, as abstracted from all particular modes, not determined in the 'V ord of God. Such as Prayer, the reading the holy Canon, interpreting the same, and the Sacraments: therefore, that Church that worships God in these eSbentiab of 'Y orship, cannot be charged, in this particular, with Schism, or dividing from the Catholic Church. And as for the modes and particular rites of ""'"01'- ship, until one public Liturgy and Rubric be produced, and proved to be the rule of the Catholic Church, if not imposed by it, there is no such bond of union in the circum tantial \V or:ship in the Catholic Church; and consequently, no Schism in this respect. lUuch less may one particular Church elaim from another-pm' in pm"em non habet imperium-exact 1 [Cr. Archhp. Bramhall's Replication: Works, Vol. II. p. 37, Eel. 18-12.] CUAr. I.] DEFINITION. 11 communion In all rites and ceremonies, or for want thereof, to cry out presentlJ-, Schism, Schisnl! Indeed, our Roman adversaries do directly and plainly assert, that about rites and cerenlonies the guilt of Schisnl is not concerned; and that particular Churches nlay differ from one another therein, with- out breach of conlmunion. Though, for a menlber of a particular Church to forsake the communion of his own Church, in the essentials of ""1" orship, nlercly out of dislike of sonle particular innocent rites, seems to deserve a greater censure. But the Ronlan recusants in England, have a greater difficulty upon thenl, to excuse their total I separation from us, in the substantials of our worship -at which they can pretend to take no offence; and wherein they held actual comnumion with us nlany years together, at the beginning of queen Elizabeth's reign-against the law of cohabitation, observed in the Scripture, where a city and a Church wcre com- mensurate; contrary to the order (as one well ob- serves) which the ancient Church took for preserving unity, and excluding Schism; by no nleans suffering uch disobedience or division of the members of any national Church, where that Church did not divide itself from the Catholic. And lastly, contrarJ' to the common right of government, both of our civil and ecclesiastical rulers, ancl the con cicnce of laws, both of Church and State. But thcir pretence is, obedience to the Pope; which leads us to consider the third great hond of communion-Goyernment. [1 Sec Appcndix A.] Huvern_ UlCIH. l DEl<'INITION. [CRAI>. I. THIRD OBJECT [OF SCIIISM].-GOVERNMENT. 'rhirdly, the last bond of ecclesiastical external communion is that of Government; that is, so far as it is lawful in itself, and exerted in its Public Laws. This governnIent can have no influence from one national Church to another, as such; because so far they are equal-par in parem-but must be ;yielded by all nIenIbers of particular Churches, whether national, provincial, or truly patriarchal, to their proper governors in all lawful t.hings, juridically re- quired; otherwise, the guilt of Schism is contracted. But for the goverlllllent of the Catholic, we cannot find it wholly in anyone particular Church, without gross usurpation; as is the plain sense of the ancient Church. Indeed, it is partly found in every Church: it was at first diffused by our Universal Pastor and comnlon Lord into the hands of all the Apostles]; and, for ought hath yet appeared, still lies abroad among all the pastors and bishops of particular Churches, under the power, protection, and assistance of civil authority-except when they are collected by just powel' and legal rules into s;ynods or councils, whether provincial, national, or general. Here, in- deed, rests the weight of the controversy; but, I doubt not, it will at last be found to Inake its way against all contradiction fronl our adversaries. In the nlean time we do conclude, while we pro- fess and yield all due obedience to our proper pastors, I [See our Lord's language addressed to all the apostles, collect- ively anù individually, John xiv. 16; xvii. 13; xx. 21-23; Matt. xxviii. 18-20.] t'n \I'. L] OEFIXITION. I :J bishops and governors, when there' are no councils sitting; and to all free councils, wherein we are con- cerned, lawfully convened; we cannot bejustIJT charged with Schism from the government of the Catholic Church: though we stiffly deny obedience to a foreign jurisdiction, and will not rebel against the government that God hath placed immediately over us. This fair respect the Church of England holds to the Communion both of the Catholic and all particular Churches, both in Doctrine, 'Y orship and Govern- ment: and the main exception against her is, that she denies obedience to a pretended power in the see of ROlne; a power not known, as no-w claimed, to the ancient Church; a power, when once foreseen, warned against as antichristian by a pope 1 himself; and when usurped, condeluned by a General Council 2 : and lastly, such a power as those that claim it, are not agreed about among themselves 3. But the charge of Schism falls after another sort, upon our ROlnan adversaries; who have disturbed the Universal, and all particular Churches by ma- nifest violation of all the three bonds of external Communion :- The Doctrine and Faith-by adding to the Canon of the Scripture, Apocryphal books; by adding to the revealed will of God, groundless Traditions; by 1 [Infra, c. vi. 7.] 2 [Infra, c. xix. 7.] 3 [AU their theologians maintain that {'ommunion with the papal see is necessary, in order to union with the Church: yet the Galli- can or Cisalpine party deny the pope's infallibility, and the whole of that pow('r which th('y call temporal] 1+ DEFIKITION. [CHAP. I. making new Creeds without the eon:-ient of the present, and against the doctrine and practice of tht;' ancient Churches. And as for "\V orship-how have they not cor- rupted it? by subtraction, taking away one essential part of a divine ordinance, the Cup frOln the Laity, &c.; by additions infinite to the Inaterial and cere- monial parts of \V orship; and by horrid alterations of the pure and prÏ1nitive 'V orship, to childish super- stitions, and sonle say, dangerous idolatry. Lastly, as to Government-they have plainly sepa- rated themselves both from the ancient and present Catholic Church, and all other particular Churches; by usurping a dominion, condemned by the ancient, and that cannot be owned, without betraying the liberty of the present Church; by exerting this usur- pation in unlawful and unreasonable conditions of comulunion; and as it is said, by exconlIDunicating for non-obedience to these impositions, not only the Church of England, but three parts of the Christian world. The proof, 011 both sides, we arc to expect in due place. SECTION IV. THE CONDITIONS OF SCHISM.-CAUSELESS- VOLUNTARY. <';ol1dÌtÌOI1. T HE fourth and last thing considerable in the definition, is the condition, which adùs the guilt and formality of Schislll to separation-which is two- fold; it must be causeless and voluntary. Cn.\P. I.] ])EFIXITIOX. 1.3 (1) It must be voluntm'J' Hepal'ation, or denial of Voluntary. communion. But of this, I I;hall say nothing; a greater 111a11 received a check from his Romish adver- saries for the proof of it, saying, ,"Tho knows not that every sin is voluntary? I ' (2) It nUlst be causeless, or as it is usually ex- Causeless. pressed, without sufficient cause. It is a rule generallJ" allowed, that the cause makes the Schisn1-i. e. if the Church give cause of separation, there is the Schism; if not, the cause of Schisn1 is in the separatist; and consequently, 'where the cause is found, there the charge of schism resteth. I know, it is said, that there cannot be sufficient cause of separation from the true Church; and there- fore this condition i needless: but they ever mean by the true Church, the Catholic Church. It is granted, the Catholic Church cannot be ðUP- posed to give such cause; she being the ordinarJ' 2 p illar of Truth, wherein th 3means of salvation can be only found; therefore we rarelJ' n1eet with any' "uch condition, in the definitions of Schism, given by the Fathers of the ancient Church; because they hacl to deal with Schisms of that kind, that separated from the whole Church. But hence to infer that we cannot have just cause to separate from the Church of Rome. will he found bad logic. 1 S. "T. [i. e. William Sergeant, whosf' exceptions to Bram- hall's '.Just Vindication' arc answered by the archbishop in an Appendix to his' Replication to the TIishop of Chalcedon.' He also assailc(l Dr Hammond, who rf'plif'd in 'An Answer to Schism Dis- armed '.] 2 [1 Tim. iii. 15.] 3 [Acts ii. 47.] 16 I >EI"INITION. [<.'11 \r'_ I. Howevel', if we could grant this conùition to be needless, it cannot be denied to be true; and the law- fulness of separation for just cause is an eternal verity; and if the cause be supposed just cannot be said to be unjust, seeing there cannot be supposed a sufficient cause of sin; the act is justified while it i condeu1l1ed. Besides it i not questioned by our adversaries, but there nmy be sufficient cause of separation from a particular Church: then if at last we find, that the Church of Rome is no more, there is more than reason to admit this condition in the present con- troversy. But the cause must not be pretended to effect, be)"ond its influence or sufficiency; therefore none may be allowed to deny communion with a Church farther than he hath cause; for beyond its activity, that which is said to be a eau e is no cause. Hence we admit the distinction of partial and total separation, and that known rule, that we may not totally separate from a true Church, and only so far as we cannot communicate without sin. The reason is evident, because the truth and very being of a Christian Church il11plieth something wherein every Chri!,tian Church, in the very foundation and being of it. hath a.n agreement both of union and communion. Far be it from us, therefore, to deny all kind of communion with any Christian Church; :rea we frankly and openly declare, that we still retain communion, out of fraternal charity, with the Church of Rome, so far as s11c is a. true Church; only protesting against CH.\P. I.] DEFIXITION. 17 her usurpation:-;, and rcforming our:-;clvc;oo from thðse corruption of Faith and "T orship, of which Rome i too fond, and consequently the more guilty. SECTIOX v. THE APPLICA TIOX OF SCHISl\J.-XOT TO OL"R CHCRen I ] ' this definition of Schism be not applicable to the Chur('h of England, :-.he is unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism. If the Church of England doth not voluntarily divide in or from the Catholic Church, or any particular Church. either h,r separation from, or denJing communion with it, much less by setting another altar again t it without sufficient cause, then the definition of Schism is not applicable to the Church of England. But she hath not thus divided, whether we respect the act or the caW?e. 'Vith respect to the act. vi7-. Divi ion-we argue, I. In the Act. if the Chur('h of England be the same for substance since the Reformation, thai it was before, then by the Reformation we han made no such division: for we have divided from no other Church further than .we have from our own, as it was before the Reformation, (as our adversaries grant); and therefore if we are now the same Church as to substance that we were before, we hold the same communiun, for substance or e sential . with every other Church now, that we did before. But. for :-;ubstanee, we have the same Faith, the 2 1S DEFINITION. [CHAr. I. same 'V orship, the same Government now, that we had before the Reforn1ation, and indeed fro111 our first conversion to Christianity. Indeed, the modern Romanists have Inade new essentials in the Christian lleligion, and determinp their additions to be such :-but 80 weeds are of the essence of a garden, and botches of the essence of a man. \Ve have the same Creed to a word, alul in the same sense, by which all the primitive -Fathers were saved; which they held to be so sufficient, that in a General 1 Council, they did forbid all persons (under pain of deposition to bishops and clerks, mul anathe- matization to lay-men) to compose or obtrude upon any persons converted fronl Paganism or Judaism [another confession of Faith). \Ve retain the same Sacraments and discipline; we derive our holy Orders by lineal succession from them. "It is not we who have forsaken the essence of the modern Roman Church by subtraction (or rather reformation), but they of the Church of Rome who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Roman Church by additions," as a learned man observes 2. The plain truth is this, the Church of Rome hath had long and much reverence in the Church of Eng- land; and thereby we were by little and little drawn 1 Concil. Erhes. Act. vi. [apud Labb. Concil. Tom. m. 689, A: Tov!> 8i TO"-p,WVTa!> UVVTLBÉvaL 1TíUTLV ÉTÉpav, yovv 1TpOICOp,í(ELV, 1TpOUcþÉp LV Toîi' ÈBÉ"-OVULV 11TLUTpÉcþELV ì!> È1TíYVWULV Tij!> à"-1JB ía!>, l ^"-'lVLUp,oÎ1, l lov8atUfWV, q l alpÉu w!> oIau81J1ToTovv. TOVTOV'i: i p.ÈIJ l v 11TíUK01TOL IC"-'lPLKOl, å,,-,^OTpíov!> lvaL TOV!> 11TLuKó1Tov!> T !> È1TLUKO- 1Tij!>, Kuì TOV!> K"-'lpLKOV!> TOV K"- pOV. ì 8È "-atKol l v, àvaB p,uTí( uBaL.] 2 [BramhalJ, Replication to the Bp. of Chalcedon, Vol. II. p. 39.] Cn.\P. I.] DEFIXITIOK. 19 along with her into man.} gross errors and superstitions both in Faith and 'Y orship, and at last had almost lost our liberty in point of Government. But that Church refusing to reform, and proceeding still fur- ther to usurp upon us, we threw off the usurpation first, and afterwards very deliberately reformed our- selves from all the corruptions that had been growing upon us, and had alnlost overgrown both our Faith and ,y orship. If this be to dh-ide the Church, we are indeed guilty-not else. But we had 'no power' to reform ourselves: here indeed is the main hinge of the controversy. But we have sonle I concessions fronI our worst and fiercest a(lYersaries, that a national Church hath power of herself to reform abuses in lesser nlatters, provided she alter nothing in the Faith and Sacraments without the Pope: and we have declared before, that we have Illade no alteration in the essentials of Religion. But ' we brake ourselves off frOll1 the papal autho.. rity, and divided ourselves from our lawful governor::,.' It is confessed the papal authority we do renounce, but not as a lawful power, but a t,yrannical usurpa- tion: and if that be proved, where is our Schism? But this renlinds us of the second thing in the Th II. e cause. definition of Schisnl, the Cause: for what interpreta- tion soever be put upon the action, whether reforma- tion or division and separation, it is not material, if it be found we had sufficient cause; and no doubt we had, if we had reason fronl the lapsed state and nature of our corruptions to reform; and if we had 1 [Cf. Bossuct, Defensio Dee1. CIeri. Ga11ican, Lib. lll. c. 2.] 2-Q :W DKFL lTIO . [CHAP. I. sufficient. authorit,) without the Pope to reform our- selves. But we had both, as will be eyident at last. Both these we undertake for satisfaction to the Catholic Church; but in defence of our own Church against the charge of Schism by and fron1 the Church of Rome, one of them, yea, either of them is sufficient. For if the pretended authority of the Church of Ron1e oyer the Church of England be ill grounded, how can our actions fall under their censure? Espe- cially seeing the great and almost only matter of their censure is plainly Ollr disobedience to that ill ground- ed authoritJ'P. Again, howcver their claim and title stand or fall. if we have or had camòiC to dcnJ that communion which the Church of Rome requires, though the,}' have power to accuse us, our cause being good will acquit us from the guilt, and con equent1y the charge, of Schism. Herc then we must join issue: -we denJ'" the pre- tended power of the Church of Ron1e in England, and plead the jmäness of our own Reformation in all the particular of it. SECTION VI. THE CHARGE AS LAID BY THE ROMANISTS. r J " HIS will the better appear by th indictment of - Schisn1 drawn up against us by our adversaries. I shall receive it as it is expressed by one of the sharpest pens, and in the fullest and closest manner .... CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 21 1 have met with, viz. Cardinal Pcrron again:st Arch- bi hop Laud, thu:s 1_ "Protestants have made this rent or schism by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneous doctrines, contrary to the faith of Roman or Catholic Church; by their rejecting the authority of their lawful ecclesiastical superiors, both imn1ediate and mediate; by aggregating t.hemseh'es into a separate body vI' company of pretended Chri:stians, indepen- dent of any pastors at all, that were in lawful and quiet possession of jurisdiction over them; by making- thcnu;elves pastors and teachers of others, and admi- nistering Sacraments without authority given them b)' any that were lawfully impowered to give it; by instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of theiI' own in matters of Religion, contrary to those anciently re- ceivcd throughout all Christendom; by violently ex- cluding and dispo:ssessing other prelates of and from their respective sees, cures, and benefices; and in- truding themselves into their places, in every nation whcre they could get footing." .A foul charge indeed, and the fouler because in many things false. How- è\cr, at present we have rcason only to observe the foundation of all lie:s in our disobediencc and denying communion with the Church of Ron1e; all the rest eit.her concerns the grounds, or manncr, or conse- quences of that. Therefore, if it appear at last that t.he Church of 1 [The Editor has not been ahle to find allY treatis(' corresponrl- iug to this description. The Rejoindcr of Du Perron to King .lamcs's Reply (ffiuvrcs (In Carrlinal du Perron, Tome II. à Paris, 1622) ahounr18 in clml'gcs sunslt.wti(tl1!/ thl! sanH'.] 22 DEFI ITIOX . [CHAP. I. England is independent on the Church of Ronle, RIul owcth her no such obedience as bhe reqtùres, the charge of Schism relnoves from us and recoils upon the Church or court of Rome, from her unjust usur- pations and impositions; and that with the aggrava- tion of sedition too in all such, whether prelates or priests, as then refused to acknowledge and obey the just power and law of this land, or that continue in the same disobedience at this day. SECTION YII. THE CHARGE OF SCHISM RETORTED UPüX THE ROMANISTS. THE CONTROVERSY TO TWO POINTS. I T i::; well noted by a learned luan, that while the papal authority is under contest, "the question is not barely this, 'Vhether the Church of England be schismatical or no? - for a Romanist llUty cheaply debate that and keep hinlself safe, whatsoever be- COlnes of the umpirage-but indifferently and equally, whether we, or the Romanist be thus guilty, or which is the schisnuttic that lies under all those severe cen- sures of the Scriptures and Fathers 1," the Church of England, or her revolters and the court of Rome. Till they have better answered to the indictment than yet they have done, we do and shall lay the lllost horrid Schism at the door of the Church or court of Rome; for that they have voluntarily dividccl the Catholic Church, both in Faith, 'V orship, and Go- 1 Dr Hammond [Answer to Schism Disarmcd, chap. iii. s. I.: W OI"ks, Vol. II. p. 67]. CHAP. I.] DEFIXITION. 23 vernment, by their innovations; and excomnlunicated anù damned not only the Church of England, but (as some account) three parts of the Christian Church, most uncharitably and without. all authority or just cause, to the scandal of the whole worlù. But we shall lay the charge more particularly, as it is drawn up by Archbishop llramhalP. "The Church of Rome," saith he, "or rather the Pope and the court of Rome, are causally guilty, both of this Schism, and almost all other Schisms in the Church. First, by seeking to a higher place and power in the body ecclesiastical than of right is due unto theine Secondly, by separating, both by their doctrines and censures, three parts of the Christian world from their Conullunion, and as much as in then1 lies, from the COlnmunion of Christ. Thirdly, by rebelling against General Councils. Lastly, by breaking or taking away ull the lines of apostolical succession except their own;" and appropriating all original jurisdiction to then1- selves. And that which draws sedition and rebellion, as the great ag'gravation of their Schisn1, they chal- lenge a ten1poral power over princes, either directly or indirectly. Thus their charge against us is disobedience; our charge against them. is usurpation and abuse of power. If we owe no such obedience, or if we have cause not to obey, we are acquitted. If the Pope have both power and reason of his side, we are guilty. If he fail in either, the whole weight of Schism, with all its dreadful consequences, remains upon him or the court of Rome. :! [.Just Vindication, chap. viii. ; Works, Vol. I. p. -1ß; cd. HH2.] 2+ I>EFI ITIO . [CHAP I THE COXCLPSIO . r r HUS we ::;ee the controversy is broken into two great points: (1) Touching the Papal Authorit.y in Eng'land. (2) Touching t.he cau:sc of our denJing- Commu- nion, in ::;ome thing:s, wit.h the Church of Rome, re- quired by that authority 1. Each of these I de:sign to bc the matter of a dis- tinct treatise. T f he l um fi This first. book therefore is to tr y the title betwixt o t llS rst treatise. the Pope and the Church of England: wherein we shall endeavour impartially to examine all the pleas and evidences, produced and urged by Romanists on their master's behalf, and shew how they are answereù. And where there appears greatest weight and streðð of argument, we :shall be sure to give the greatest diligence; omitting nothing but unconcluding imper- tinencies, and handling nothing lightly but colour:s and Hhadows that will bear no other. ow to our work. 1 [This second design of the author docs not appear to have heen executed. See the list of his works in the 'Introductory Notice.'] CHAPTER II. AX EXAl\IINATIOX OF TIlE PAPAL AUTHuHITY IN ENGLAXD. .FIVE ARGUMENTS PROPOSED, AND BIUEFL Y RE.FLECTED UN. 1 "'HIS is their Goliah, and indeed their whole army: if we rout them here, the da;y is our own; and we shall find nothing more to oppo c us, but :5kir- mi:she of wit, or (when they are at their wits' end) fraud and force,-as I am troubled to observe, their u::;e hath been. For if the see of Rome hath no just claim or title to govern us, we cannot be obliged to obey it: and consequently these two thing' tanù evident in the light of the whole world. \Ve are no schismatic , though we deny obedience to the see of Home, see- ing it cannot justly challenge it. Secondly, though we were ðO, yet the see of Home hath no power to censure us, that hath no pm\er to govern us. Ånd hereafter we hall have occasion further to conclude, that the papal authority-that hath nothing to do with the English Church, and yet rig'orously exa( ts our obedience, and censures us for our disobedience-i::; highly guilty, both of ambition in its unjust claim, and of tyranny in unjust execution of an usurped power, as well in her commands as cemmrcs: which is cer- tainly Schism, and aliquid amplius. They of the Church of Home do therefore mig-IItil,' bestir them clvcs to make good their claim; without I. Con- version. 2. Patri- arch. :1. Pre- scription. -I. Infalli- bility. å. Succes- :o;ion. 26 PAPAL AUTHOIUTY. [CHAP. II. which they know, they can neyer hope either to gain us, or :,ecure themselves. I finù five several tit1e pretended, though me- thinks the power of that Church should be built but upon one Rock. 1. The Pope being th(' means of our first con- version (as they say) did thereby acquire a right for himself and ucce ors, to goyern this Church. II. Eng-land belongs to the 'Yestern Patriarchate; and the Pope is the Patriarch of the 'Yest (as they would have it). Ill. Others found his right in Prescription and long continued po:,session before the Reformation. IV. Others flee much higher, and derive this power of Government from the infallibility of the Governor; and indeed who would not be led by an unerring g>uide? v. But their strong hold, to which at last resort is still made, is the Pope's universal Pastorship, as successor to St Peter and supreme Governor not of Home and England only, but of the whole Christian worlù. Before we enter upon trial uf thc e severally, we shall briefly note, that where there are many titles pretended, right is justly suspected, especially if the pretences be inconsistent. (1) N ow, how can the Pope. as the 'Vestern Pa- triarch, or as our first Converter, pretend to be our Governor; and yet at the SaIne time pretend himself to be universal Bishop? These 80111(' of our subtlest adversaries know to imply a contradiction. aud to de- stroy one another. CHAP. II.] PAPAL AUTHORITY. 27 (2) At first sight therefore, there IS a necessity on those that assert the universal Pastorship, to waive the arguments, either from th(' right of conversion. or the "T estern Patriarchate: or if any of them will be o bold as to insist on these, he may not think the chair of 8t Peter shall be his sanctuary at a dead lift. (3) Also for Possession, what need that be pleaded. if the right be evident? Possession of a part if the right be universal ;-unless by England the Pope took liver) and seizin for the whole world. Besides, if this be a good plea, it is as good for uS,-we have it and have had it tinle out of mind; if ours have not been quiet, so neither was theirs before the Reformation. (4) For Infallibility-that is but a qualification, no commission: fitnesH !sure give no authority; nor desert a title, and that by their own law. Otherwise they must acknowledge the Bishops of our Church, that are known to be as learned and holy as theirs, are as g"ood and lawful Bishops. as any the Church of ROlne hath. Thus we see where the burthen will re:-;t at last; and that the Romanists are forced into one only hold. One great thing' concerns thcm to make sure, or all is lost. The whole controversy is tied to St Peter's chair; the supremacy of the Pope must be maintained, or the Roman and Catholic are severed, as much as the Church of England and the Church of Rome; and a great breach is made indeed, but we are not found the schislnatics. But this is bcside my task. Lest we should secm to endeavour an e!-jcape at any breach, all the said 2b P.APAL Al.;THORITY. [CHA1'. n. five plea of the Homani ts shall be particularly exa- mincd, and the main arguments and answers on both sides faithfully, and exactly a I can, produced; and whcre the controversy sticks, and how it stands at this daJ, noted; a before we promised. CHAPTEH IrT. OF THE rOPE'S CLAIM TO EXGI"AN'D :FROl\I OUR CONYER I ON-ELEUTH ERIUR-G REGOR Y. T Ins argument is not presbed with much confidence in print, though with vel'y ll1ueh in discourse, to my own knowledge. Perhaps it is rather popular and plausible than invincible. Besides, it taIuls in bar against the right of St Peter, which they !o-a;y was good, near six hundred years before; and extends to very many Churehe , that received grace neither by the means of St Peter or his pretender successor :-except they plead a right to the whole Church first, and to a part afterwards; or one kind of right to the whole, and another to a part. The truth is, if any learned Romanist shall insist on this argument in earnest, he is strongl;y suspected, either to deny or question the right of St Peter's successor, as universal Pastor l . But we leave these advantages, to give the argu- ment its fulllibert T; and we shall soon see either it arms or its heels. The argument must run thus: If the Bishop of Rome was tllp meO'n. of the English Chw'ch's cont'e'r.' i()n. I [The plea of conve;sion has been revived in our own time by writers in the' Dublin Review.' For a refutation of their argu- ments see 1\11' Palmer's' Apostolical Jurisdiction and Succession of th(' Episcopacy in the British Churches,' S('<,t. xiii.] : o COXVERRION. [CHAI>. III. then tlte English Cltll'J'clt O'lJ'etlt obe(Hence tn ltÙn and lâs successors. 'Ve den:y both propositions-the minor, that the Pope was the means of our first conversion; and the consequence of the major, that if he had been so. it would not follow that we now owe obedience to that see. For the mmor, Bishop Jewel knocked it down so perfectly at first, it was never able to stand since: he saith, "It is certain the Church 1 of Britain now called England, received not first the faith from ROllie 2." The Romanist's proof is his bare assertion, 'that Eleutherius the Pope was the first Apostle of the Britains, and preached the Faith here by Damianus and Fugatius within little more than one hundred years after Christ's death.' ßishop Jewel answers 3 , 'that king 1 [In a side-note, Fullwood makes the following addition: "'Ve were cOlwerted nine years before Rome. Baron. ad an. 35, n. 5 et marge et ad an. 39, n. 23: et Suarez, adv. Angl. Sect. Error. Lib. I. C. i." -Both these writers ascribe the foundåtion of the British Church to Joseph of Arimathæa; and Raronius places the event in th(' year 35. The Church of Rome, according to the same authority, was founded A. D. 45. A passage in the History of Gildas (c. vi. apud Scriptores xv.) asserts that the Gospel was introdu('('(l into Britain " tempore SUnll110 Tiberii Cæsaris."] 2 [Defence of the Apology, p. 12: ed. 1570.] 3 [Ibid. The various accounts respecting the conversion of Britain may be seen in Spelman, ConcH. Tom. I. 'Apparatus.' Parker, Camden, Usshcr, Stillingflcet, Cave, and Godwin ascribe the foundation of the British Church to St Paul, in t11f' interval between his first and second imprisonment. Mr Williams (' Eccle- siastical Antiquities of the Cymry,' pp. 51, et seqq.) has recently ad- vocated the view that Christianity was introduced, about A. D. 58, by Bran, father ofCaraùog (or Caractacus), who was detained at ROHlf' seven Yf'ars as hostage fOJ" his son] CHAP. IlL] C()XYER IO . :3] Lucius waa baptized well near one hundred and fift,y years before the Emperor Constantine; and the same Constantine, the first christened emperor, was born in this island: and the Faith had been planted lwre long' before, either by Joseph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes, or the Greeks, or some others;' which is plain, because the king, being Christian before, re- quested Pope Eleutherius to send hither those per- sons, Damianus and Fugatius, to reform the bishops and clerg'y which were here before; and to put things into better order I . They also urged, that 'as Pope Eleutherius in Britain. so Saint Gregory, in England, first planted the Faith by Austin.' But Bishop Jewel at first dashed this argument A.D. 210. A.D. 212. out of countenance; plainly proving out of Tertullian, A.D. 33-1. · A.D. 360. Origen, Athanasius, Constantinus the emperor, Chry- A.D. 40. . A.D. 3(',. sostOI11, Theodoret, that the Faith was planted in England long before Austin's coming hither 2 . Some would reply, that 'tlw Faith was utterly rooted out agaIn upon the invasion of heathen English.' It was not 80, saith he, "for Reda saith the queen of England was then christened; and that I [There is now extant no copy of the letter which king Lucius is said to have sent to Eleutherius. Bede's mention of the circum- stance is as follows: "Misit ad eum Lucius Brittaniarum rex cpi- stolam, obsecrans ut per ejus mandatum Christian us efficeretur." lIist. Eccl. Lill. I. c. IV. According to Bp Pearson (Minor Theolo- gical works, Vol. II. p. 409) this notice is transcribed from the , Libel' Pontificalis.' The whole transaction is much amplified by Matthew of Westminster, ad an. 185.-0n the reply attributed to Eleutherius, see the' Animadversiones' in Spelman, CoU('i1. Tom. I. pp. 35, 36.] 2 See his Defence of his Apology, p. 13. The Con- se,]uence. :3:! CONVERHfOX. [ClL\P. Ill. there were then in thi:-, realm seven bishop:.;. and one archbi hop, with other more great learned Christian men 1." .And Galfridw; saith, "There were then in England even bishoprics, and one archbishopric, possessed with very many godly prelates, and many abbeys in which the Lord's flock held the right religion 2." Yet we gratefully acknowledge that aint Gre- gory was a special instrument of God for the further spreading- and establishing- tlw Gospel in England; and that both Eleutherius and this Gregory eem to have been very good men. and great examples both of piety and charit) to all their successors in that see; and indeed of a truly apostolical spirit and care, though not of authority:-but if all history deceive us not, that Au tin the monk was far enough from being Saint Augustine. But what if it had been otherwise, and we were indeed first converted by the means of thest' popes; will it therefore follow, that we ought ever to be sub- ject to the papacy? This i certainly a llon-scr}ltÏtur, only fit to be imposed npon easy and prepared ullder- "itandings: it can never bear the stress and brunt of a evere disputation; and indeed the Roman adver- saries do more than seem to acknowledge as much. Howevcr, the great Archbishop and Primate of Annagh hath slurred that silly consequence with such arguments as find no answer. I refer the reader, if need be, to his Just Vindication 3 , pp. 13], 132. \Vlwre I [Defencc of the Apology, p. 14.] 2 [Lib. VIII. c. 4, quotprl hy Bp .Tpw('1. uhi supra.] :J [Vol. T. p. 266: ('rl. IR-1-2.] CHAP. Ill] COKYEHSIOX. 3ð he hath provcù beyond di pute that Cun' er:;iun gives no title of jurisdiction; anù Inure e peciall'y tu the prejudice of a former owner dispos essed b,y yiolencc, or to the subjccting of a free nation to a foreign prelate without or beyond thcir own consent. Beside , in more probability, the Britains were first convcrted by the Eastern 1 Church (as appeared by our ancient custOll1S); yet never were subject to any Eastcrn patriarch. And sundry of our English and British ßishops have conycrted 2 foreign nations, yet never pretended thence to any jurisdiction over them. Lastly, whatever title Saint Gregory might ac- quire by his deserts frOln us, [it] was merely personal, and could not descend to his succes ors. But no more of this, for fear of the scoffing rebukes of such as S. 'V., who together with the 'Catholic Gentlcman,' do plainly renounce this plea: asking Doctor Hamnlond 3 with some shew of Rcorn, "Vhat Catholic author ever affirmed it'? There is no doubt-though some othcr Romanists have insi:-;tcd upon this argument of Conversion-some reason wh) these should think fit to lay it aside; and we have no reason to keep it up, haying otherwise work enough upon our hands. An end thercfore of this first plea. 1 [Cr. Twysdcn's Historical Vindication, p. D.] 2 [See Dr Grant's' Missions to the Heathen,' pp. lo!)-lll.] 3 [Hammond's Answcr to 'Schism Disarmcd,' ch<'lp. v. sect. i. ; Works, Vol. II. p.I02; cd. lG84.] 3 P011e a Patriarch. CHAPTER IV. OF THE POPE'S SUPPOSED CLAIM AS PATRIARCH. T HI S point admits likewise of a quick dispatch, by four propositions; and the rather, for a reason you will find in the close of our discourse upon the last of them. ruop. I. The Pope was anciently rreputed the lJ? este'rn PatJ'iæJ'ch. To this dignity he proceeded by degrees. The Apostles left no rule for a foreign jurisdiction fron1 one nation to another: but, according to the 331'<.1 Canon of the Apostles (if they were indeed theirs), , it behoved the Bishops of every nation to know hilu, who is their first (or primate), and to esteem him as their head I.' The adventitious grandeur which the ancient Patriarchs afterwards obtained, is judged to arise three ways; by the Canons of the Fathers. the edicts of Princes, or ancient Custom. Upon the last ground (viz. of Custom,) the Council of Nice 2 settled the privileges of those three famous 1 [AI. Can. xxxv. Tovs Imul<ó1TotiS' ;KáUTOti ;BVOti!> U)iVUL xP TÒV Iv aVTClis 1TpWTOV, Kal ì' îuBUL aVTÒV cJ!> K cþaX v, K. T. x. Apud Coteler. Patrcs Apost. Tom. I. p. 442, cd. Antverp lGDS.] 2 [Can. VI. Tà àpxaîa EB1J KpauíTW. Tà Iv AlYÚ1TT'f K((l ^>.L{:JÚn Kal CUAP. IV.] WESTEUN P.A TIUARCH. 5 patriarchal sees, Honle, Alexandria, and Antioch, saying, "Let ancient Custonls prevail"; which cus- tonlS proceeded from the honour such Churches had, as being founded by the Apostles, if not rathcr from the elninency of the cities: therefore the Council of Chalecdon 1 gives this as a rea on of the greatness of the sees of Rome and Constantinople, 'becaube the.y wcre the seats of the Emperors.' PROP. II. The Pope, a.'oJ l'at1'im.ch, !tad lmt a limited Juris- diction. Limited jl!ri dic- tioll. (1) A Patriarchate, as such, is limitcd; especially, if the title rcstrain it to the 'Vest: for East, North, and South, are not the 'Vest, in the same rcspect. (2) It is furthcr evident, from the first numbcr of Patriarchs; for, if there were nlore than one of the smne dignity and jurisdiction, they must be thercfore limited: for a Patriarch, as !::iuch, could have no juris- diction ovcr a Patriarch, as such; for so they were equal; et par in pm'em non habet imperium. (3) But indeed, the first tinle we hear of three, and then of five Patriarchs at once, viz. of Rome, }'i e Patri- é J)S. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioeh, and Jerusalem; an<.l that these had all their jurisdictions limitcd to n VTa1TÓXEL, cZUTE TÒV 'AX av8pEÍa!> i1TíUK01Tov 1TávTWV TOVTWV Êxnv T11v i ovuíav. i1TEL8q Kal Tcf iv T9 'Pwp.n i1TLUKÓ1TCf TOVTO uvv1JBi!> ÈUTLY, K. T. x. See Routh's Opuscula, Vol. I. p. 3;4, and note, p. -104.] 1 [Can. XXVIII. Kal yàp Tcf BpóvCf Tij!> 1Tp ußvTipa!> 'PWJL1J!>. 8Là TI" ßauLX {,ELV v 1TóXLV ÈK í.V1JV 0;' 1TaTip !> ìKÓTW!> à1T08 8wKauL Tà 1Tp U- ßÚa. Kal Tcf aVTcf UK01Tcf KLVOVP. VOL 0;' ;KaTòv 1T VTlíKovTa BW!þLXiuTU- TOL È1TíUK01rOL, Tà lua 1Tp UßÚU å1TivELp.uv Tf> T !> via!> 'pwJL1J!> áYLW- TáTCf Bp(ívCf, K. T. . .i\pud Routh. Opuscula, Vol. 11. p. G9.] 2--'! :3{) W.E:--:TEH I'.\THI.\HCH. [CHAP. IV. them, and nu unc uf them had any thing likc a. uniyersalmonarchy,-is evidcnt hoth from canons and history, and also by this undeniable obscrvation; that several parts of the world had their own primates independent, and exen1pt from all these, in the height of their power: as Africk at Carthage; the rest of Italy at Milan; France at ArIes, or l..yons; Germany at Vienna; and Britain also had the san1e privilege I. e 4) The sixth Canon of the Council of Nice aith thus expressly: "Let ancient Customs prevail; according to which. let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over thC111 of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis; because this wa" likewise the Custon1 for the Bishop of ROll1e; and accordingly, in Antioch, and other provinces, let the privilegeR be preserved to the Churches 2." The occasion of this Canon is 8a.id to be this 3 : :\Ieletius, a Bishop of Egypt, ordained Bishops and others in Egypt, without the consent of the Bishop of Alexandria. The case heard in the Council, they pronounce such ordinations null. depose l\[eletius, and by this Canon-the lllore venerable because the first in such cases-confirm tll(' ancicnt Customs of that, and all other Churches. Objection. The Romanists ol ject., 'the Council did not assign any limits to those jurisdictiom-i.' 1 [Before the institution of Patriarchs all Metropolitans were aVTOKicþaXOL. Some retained this independence for a long time, admitting no earthly superiors except a General Council. That the British Archbishop of Caerleon was in this numb(>r, is shf'wn hy Bingham, Antiquities, Book 11. c. xviii. s 2.] 2 [Vid. supra. p. 3-1, note 2.] 3 [See the parti<>ulars in Fleury, HiRtoire E<>c\f>f:. I.iv. XI. R. fT..] CHAt'. 1\".] \VESTER PATIUARCH 37 Rut it is fully answered, that the Council suppu cll Answer. such limits. and proceed upon that supposition, to allow of them, and to enjoin the observation of them; and that is so nUlCh the 1110re than a present limita- tion, as it is a proof of the greater antiquity of such limitation. Sure Bellarmine was hard put to it, when the Objection. words 'because the Roman Bishop hath so accus- tomed,' must be forced to speak against all sense uf words, and scope of the matter: thus, .. that is," saith he, "the ROlllan Bishop hath so accustomed to let the Alexandrian Bishop govern theln I." The occasion of the Canon we had before; the Answer. words theillsclves are these, 'E'7T"EL Ka: TW Év Ti7 · poJJ..t)] É7r LUKÓ.mp TOÛTO (JI; vrjfJé ç ÉUTLv. 'Vho bt:t ncliarlnin seeth not that TOÛTO UUVrjfJÈs- imports a like Custom in the Church of Rome, as the excellent and learned Doctor Stillingfleet 2 observes? The Bishop of Rome had such jurisdiction over the Churches under him; and therefore ought the Bishop of Alexandria over the Churches under him: upon this consideration the Council concludes. that o it should be 3 . 1 [De Romano Puntifice, Lib. II. c. xiii.; in Disputat. Tom. I. p. 165, G; cd. Colon. 1628.] 2 [Stillingflcct's Rational Account, Vol. II. p. 168; ed. Oxf. I RH. ] 3 [The following extract wi1lshew the view taken of this Canon hy Nilus, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in the fourteenth century: El 8i TL!> KaTixwII Tlz aVTov Kal Tà!> iTipwII 1TapoLKía!> à8íKOL!> òcþ()a""p.oí!> ópg, TOVTOII OVK ffUTL p. KamXVELII Tà ùpxaía TWII 1TaTipwII ff{)1J. ù",,",,' Ó Kallroll ov TOVTO ßOV",, TaL, ù""",,lz Tà àpxaía, cþ1JUìll, Ê{)1J KpaníTw. oi, P.ÈII à",, à, ; P.ÈII Tà KXíp.aTU T !> y !> iKáuTCf TWII Ka()o""lKwII lmuKó1TwII 8LQII II p.1Jp.illa, cJpLup.iIlW<; ov8ÈII V1TÒ rÒII Tij!> 'pwp.1J!> ()pÓIIOIl KaTiuT1J, ù""Xù P.ÓIIOII aVTòll T II ùpxrìll ;""rlrþillm ÛI. Y II Ó Kallroll, ;KÒ!> II 8 1TOV Britain eXTlm\cd. 38 WESTERN PATRIARCH. [CUAI>. IV. If it be replied. 'The Pope had limits as a l\letro- politan, but not as Head of the Church'; this grants the thing ill present question; that, as a Patriarch, the Pope's jurisdiction was limited. 'Vhat power he had as Head of the Church, shall be examined in its due place. 'Vhat power the Pope had ancientl.}' in confirm- ing, deposing and restoring Patriarchs, will hardly be found so ancient as the Council of Ephesus; and indeed was challenged by him, not as a private Patriarch, but as Head of the Church: and there- fore is to be considered under tha.t head also. I:>ROP. III. Tile ancient Pat1'iarcltate of Rf.J/JW did not include B1'itain. But, according to Ruffinus 1, (a Roman, who lived not long after the Council of Nice) it was limited to the 'suburbicary' Cities; i.e. a part of Italy, and their islands, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica: much less did it ever pretend to Britain, either by custon1, canon, or edict of any of our Princes. ""Oì'í( U()aL 1TâuUII T II oìteovp.{II1JII inr' UVTÒIl lllaL, Kul TO(,!> KU()O).,LKO(,!> È1TLUKÓ1TOV!> TàK íIlOV 8LOLteÚII cZU1T p nì TOV KWIIUTaIlTLIIOV1TO^ W!> oi 1m' aVTòll ÍÆpápxaL. EÌ 8' ÈteÚIIO P.(II à1T KX11pW()1J Tcf 'prop.1J!>, ÈKÚIIO 8È Tcf , A",, aIl8pEÍa!>, TOVTO 8È Tij!> KWIIUTaIlTíIlOV, OV p.â""XóII 'Y Ó 'pwp.1J!> Inr' ÈK íIlOV!>, l/( îIlOL V1TÒ rij!> 'pwp.1J!>, ôua y Eì!> TOVTO n",,{uovuLJI. Dc Primatu Papæ Rom. Lib. II. p. 38, ed. Salmas. Heidelberg. HìOR.] 1 [Rist. Eeel. Lib. I. e. 6. His version of the Nicene Canon is as follows: "Apud Alexamlriam ct in urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo serv<,tur, ut ilIe Ægypti, hie suhurbicariarum ceclcsiarum sollicitu- dinem gerat." That the suhurbicary churches are correctly deter- mined in the text is proved by Bingham, Antiquities, Book XI. chap. i. s. 9. Cf. also Fleury, lIist. Eccles. Liv. xxxv. s. 19.J CHAP. IV.] WESTERN PATRIARCH. 39 Consequently, we say, the papal power over us was an after-encroachn1ent and usurpation, and a plain violation of the General Council of Ephesus. Our argument is this: The General Council of Ephesus declare, 'that no Bish.Jp should occupy any province, which before that Couilcil, anù frOl11 the beginning had not been under ttc jurisdiction of him or his predecessors; and that if any Patriarch usurped any jurisdiction over a free province, he should quit it; for so it pleased the holy Synod, that every province should enjoy its ancient rites, pure and inviolate 1'. Eut it is evident, the Bishop of Rome had no power in Britain from the beginning; nor yet before that General Council; nor for the first six hundred years after Christ (as will appear when we speak of the next claim, viz. possession). Now, if the Pope had no patriarchal power in Pope Britain before the six hundredth year of Christ, he I;O:li..Lll'. could not well have any since; for Pope Boniface 2, three years after Saint Gregory's death, disclaimed 1 [Concil. Ephes. Act. VII. This decree was made at the petition of Regius, bishop of Constantia, in Cyprus, who complained of en- croachments on his own rights made by the patriarch of Antioch. Vide ConcH. ed. Labb. Tom. III. 802.] 2 [i. e. Boniface III., who was ordained Bishop of Rome, A.D. 606. He assumed the title of' Universal Bishop,' claiming theroby universal jurisdiction. In this sense the title had been condemned by Gregory the Great, as blasphemous and antichristian. Vid Grcgor. Magni Epist. Lib. VI. ep. xxx. J ib. IV. Imlict. xiii. ep. xxxii. ; ('<<'1. Antverp. IGl5. However, in the sense of a Bishop of the Uni- vf'rsal Ch'ltrch, the title' <:Ecumenical' was in use long before thc time of John of Constantinople. For instances of its application to the Patriarch of that rlioccRP, soe Bingham, Book n. c. xvii. s. 21.] 40 'VESTEHX P\THL\RCII. [Cn.u'. [Yo this power, by assuring an higher title: so that had we been willing to admit him our Patriarch, contrary to what Augustine found, time had been wanting to settlc his power, as such, in England. FrOIll the whole, we concludc, either the Popc is none of our Patriarch; or if such, hc stands guilty of contempt of a Gcneral Council, and hath ùone so many hundred years; i. e. he is no Patriarch at all, or a schisma tical one. PROP. IV. Incon- To be a Pat1'1.a7'ch and Unive1'sal Bishop, in the sense of sistent with Headofthe the Romanist, is inconsiste/ t. Church. Therefore the Pope must let fall his claim as fI Patriarch, if he pretend tu be Universal Bishop. Thus the great Archbishop Bramhall rcasons wiE,cly and strongly; but S. 'V. giyes no answer to it, only that he argues "weakly and sillilJ I." The Lord Primate proves the inconsistency by arguments not yet answered. The Patriarch (saith he) "professeth human", the Universal Pastor "chal- lcngeth Divine institution: the one hath a limited juri diction over a certain province; the other pre- tendeth to an universal jurisdiction oyer the whole world: the one is subject to the canons of the Fathers, and a luere executor of them, and ean du nothing either against, or besides thcn1; the other challengeth an absolute sovereig-nty abovc thc canons, [besides the canons, again t the canons] to make them, to abro- 1 [A Reply to S. W. (i. e. William Sergeant's) Refutation: Workf;, Vol. II. pro ={ , :{ ={.l CHAP. IV.] WESTERS PATRIAUCII. n gate them, to suspend their influence by a non-ob- stante, at his own pleasure, when he will, where he will, to whom he will I." Therefore the claim of this absolute power dis- clainlcth the IÏ1nited; and the donation and accept- ance of a limited power convinceth that there was no such absolute power before: had the Pope been un- limited before, by Divine donation, who can imagine that he would ever have taken gradum Simeonis in this sense, by stooping o low to receive fr0111 the hand of man the narrower dignity of a Patriarch? Besides, it is fullJT proved by Doctor Hammond, in Patriarchs I . b k f S I . 2 b I 11 I 1 . 1 . subject to lIS 00 Foe 11sm, eyol1(. a t Ie ltt e exceptIOns Civil of the Romanists (as more at large hereafter), that Power. the bee of a Patriarch is disposable by the eivil power: and therefore, whateyer power the Pope nlay be thought to have had heretofore in Britain, is now lawfully otherwise disposed of by the kings of Eng- land; as well as evidently rejected by the usurpation of an higher, and an higher kind of title, inconsi8tent with it; and justly forfeited many other ways, as will appear hereafter. But though our adversaries would seenl to saJ something in favour of this title, they dare not stand to it; as indeed it is not convenient theý hould, if they would save their head whole. Therefore, after much ado to very little purpose, S. 'V.3 concludes against Doctor Hammond thus. " Resides," aith he, 1 [A Reply to s. w. (i. P. William S('r.:!cant's) R l'Íut at ion : Works, Vol. II. p. 333.] 2 ['V orks, Vol. I. Pl'. 520, .'521, cd. lûR-1. ] 3 Schism nisarmc(l, p. 151, [cd. Paris. 1(j;,.'5.] 42 WESTERN P.A TRIARCH. [CHAP. IV. " were all this granted, what is it to your or our pur- pose? Sinee we accuse you not of Schism, for break- ing frOll1 the Pope's subjection, as a private Patri- arch, but as the chief Pastor and the Head of thc Church." So there is an end of their Second Plea. CHAPTEll V. TIlE THIRD PAPAL CLAIM, VIZ. PRESCRIPTION, OR LOXG POSSESSION. CASE STATED- THEIR PLEA-OUR ANS'YER IN THREE PROPOSITIONS. T HE true state of the ease here is this: It cannot Case stated. be denied but the Church of England was heed- lesslyand gradually drawn into communion with the ROlnan Church in her additions, superinduced upon the ancient faith and worship; and likewise into some degrees of subjection to Papal jurisdiction. And in this condition we had continued for son1e considerable tin1e, before king Henry the Eighth; and that boltl king (upon what n10tives is not here material) with the consent of his three estates in Parliament, both Houses of the Convocation, and both the Univer:-;ities of the land, threw off the Roman yoke, as a n1anifest usurpation, and a ,'ery grievous oppression; and re- covered the people and Church of England to their ancient liberties of being governed by their own do- mestic rulers. Afterwards, in the reigns of Edward the Sixth, and queen Elizabeth, and by their proper authority, we reformed ourselves by throwing off the Roman additions to our faith and wor hip. Had \ve gone a bout. a Reformation while we ac- knowledged :;;ubjectiun t.o the see of nome, or indeed before we had renounced it, there had been more co- lour to charge us with Sehi:-im and disobedience: but. now the proper question is. first whether the state of 44 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. V. Eng-Iand did then justly reject the jurisdiction of the Pope in England; and only consequently, whether we did afterwards lawfully reform without him. The cause of our Reformation belongs to another argu- lucnt, which we shall n1eet hereafter 1. Plea. The Papal plea here is :-the Pope's authority was established here by long possession, and therefore if nothing else could be pleaded for it, Prescription was a good title: and therefore it was injurious and schismatical, first to dispos8ess hÏ1n, and then to go about to reform without him. Our answer is home and plain, In these three Proposi tions. Am.weT. (1) The Church of England was neva actually un- dCl' the Pope's Jurisdict1"on, so absolutely as is [wetended. (2) The pos8ession, which 1 t had obtained lw 'e, was not sufficient to create the Po'pc a good title. (3) 01' if it WC'l'e, yet that title ceased when he lost his pussessiu/L. I [See above, p. 2-1, note 1.] CIIAPTER VI. PROP. I. T/te Papacy /tad un poweJ' here, fm. tlte first l?ix Iwml1.ed yea1"s.-St Allglt.': tine-Dionoth. T HE first Proposition is this, That the Church of England was not actually un dcI' the Papal jurisdic- tion so absolutely as is pretended; that is, neither primarily nor plenarily. First, not prinmrily, in that we were free from the I.. Not. prllnarJl y. Papal powcr for the fir t six hundred years. This is confirmed beyond all exception. by the entcrtainment Augustine found among the sturdy Britains, when he CaIne to obtrude that jurisdiction upon theill. 'Vhence it is evident, that at that timc, which was ncar six hundred yearb after Christ, the Pope had neithcr actual possession of government In Fact, 01' f h b I . f f h B .. 1 Belief: over, nor 0 tee Ie 0 t e ntmns, t lat he ought to have it. The good Abbot of Bangor, when presl:5ed to l:5ub- mit to the Roman Bishop, answered 1 in the name of the Britains: 'That he knew no obedience due to him, whom they called the Pope, but the obedience of love;' and adds those full pcremptory exclusive words, that 'under God, they" ere to be govcrned by the Bishop of Caerlcon.' 'Vhich the Lord Primate Bramhall saith 2, is 'a full demonstrative convincing I Yill. Spo1mall, Concil. A. D. 601, [Tom. I. pp. 108, 109]. 2 .Just Vinflication, p. R-J. [Vol. T. pr. 162, 16 ; now f'dit.] 46 PRESURIPTIOX. [CHAP. VI. proof,' for the whole time, yiz. the fir:;t :six hundred years. But it is added, "That which follows strikes the question dead,-Augustine, St Gregory's legate, pro- posing three things to the Britains: First, That the,}' should submit to the Roman Bishop. Secondly, that the,}' sholùd conform to t.he custonlS of the Roman province. And lastI,}', that they should join with him in preaching to the Saxons 1"- Hereupon, the British elerg,}' assembled themselyes together, Bishops and Priests, in hvo several s,}'nods one after another; and upon nutture deliberation, they rejected all his propositions synodicall,y, and re- fused flatl,}' and unanimously to have an,}' thing to do with hilll on those terms: insOllluch as Augustine was necessitated to return over sea to obtain his own consecration; and after his return hither, to con:se- crate the Saxon Bishops alone, without the as istance of any other Bishop. They refused indeed to their own cost: twelve hundred innocent 1110nks of Bangor shortly after lost their lives for it. The foundation of the Papacy here was thus laid in blood:.!. Objectiun. It is objected, that the story of the Abbot of Ban- gor is taken by Sir H. Spelman out of an old 'Vebh author of suspected credit; but all objections to that 1 [Bramhall, ubi supra; cf. Bcd. Hist. Ecc1. Lib. II. c. 2.] 2 [Vide Bcd. lEst. Eccl. Lib. II. c. 2; where he relates the cir- cumstances connected with the massacre. A clause is added to the effect that Augustine was not then living: but from its omission in the Anglo-Saxon version some have supposed it an interpolation. Turner (Hist. of the Anglo-Saxons, Vol. I. p. 330) places the mas- sacre in A.D. 607 01' 612, and tho death of Augustine in 6U5. Cf. Soames's Anglo-Saxon Church, pp. 58, ð9.] CHAP. VI.] PRESCIUPTIOl\ 47 purpose are removeù by my Lord PriInate, and Dr Hammond I. Besides, we have other authority suffi- cient for it, and beyond contradiction. The story in Bede 2 himself, as vouched by H. T, himself against Dr Hammond, puts it beyond all doubt, that the Abbot and l\tlonks opposed Austin, and would not subject thenlselvcs to the Pope of Rome, but referred themselves only to their own governors,-which is also the general result of other authors' account of this matter; and if the matter of f?-ct be established, it is enough to disprove the Pope's possession at that time: whether they did well or ill is not now considered. Balæus, speaking of that convention 3 , saith, , Dio- noth disputed against the authority of Rome; and defended stoutly (fortiter) the jurisdiction of St David's in the affairs of his own Churches.' The same is observed by Geoffrey of Monlllouth, and Sigebert and others 4, for which Dr Hammond refers us to the Collection of the Anglican Councils!>, and l\fr \Vheloe's Notes on the Saxon Bede 6 . And indeed the author of the Appendix 7 written on purpose to weaken this great instance, confesseth I [Bramhall's 'Reply to S. 'Vo's Refutation,' 'Yorks, Vol. II. pp. 302, et seqq. 'Schism Guarded,' Vol. II. pp. 504, et seqq. Hammond's' Account of H. T. lie e. Henry Turbervill] his Appendix to his Manual of Controversies, concerning the Abbot of Bangor's Answer to Augustine;' Works, Vol. II. pp. 55-60.] 2 Hist. Eccl. Lib. II. C. 2. 3 In Dinoth. [Cent. I. 70]. 4 [See Hammond's' Account of H. To's Appendix,' &c.: 'Yorks, Vol. IT. p. 58.] ô [Cf. Spo1man, Tom. 1. p. 92.] 6 p. 115. 7 [Ill Hammond's Account, uhi supra.] Objection J. Answer. Objection 2. Answers. 48 [CUAP. VI. PUE CHIl)TIO.x. as much. when he concludes Austin in the right from the luiracles and Divine vengeance upon thc ref users. continuing still refractory to his proposals. Of the right of the cause we now dispute not: and he acknowledgcth, that Augustine had not pos- session.-the thing' we contend for. Howcver this instance bcing of great momcnt in the whole contro- vcrsy, let us briefly examine what H. T. hath said against it. II. T. questions the authority of thc 'Velsh 1\18.1 But thc account there is so perfectly agreeable t the genera] account givcn by others (most compctcnt witnesses), and even TIede himself, that as we have no necessity to insist much upon it, so they hm'e no rcason at all to question it. Besides, if the reader would nlore fully satisfy himsclf, he may see all the exceptions against this 1\iS. at large answered by Dr I-Ianll11ond and thc Archbishop nranlhall 2 . nut ncde concludes, that the Britains ought to have yielded in the points specified, from the miracle wrought by Augustine upon the blind man; and from that Divine vengeance prophetically foretold by Au- gustine. (1) "T e now know what tricks are used to coun- terfeit miracles ill the sight of simple pcoplc. (2) 'Ve know not but that miracle nlight be said, but nevcr done, as many in the Lcgcnds are: and Bcde might rcport, from vcr;)' slight tradition. a thing tending to the confirming his O"wn causc. 1 [Hammond's Account, uhi supra.; where may be also R('('11 th{' ohjections which follow.] 2 [S('c refcrenc{'s. p. 47, Ilotp 1.] CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTIOX. 4!) (3) B,y Bedes own confession, the mirade did prevail with the Britains to acknowledge, that the way of righteousness Augustine preached was the true; 'yet they added, that they could not renounce their ancient customs without the consent and licence of their own superiors: i. e. they thought the miracle confirmed his doctrine, but not the Pope's authorit} oyer them: and therefore, lastly, at their seeond meeting, they deemed his pride a :,tronger argument against him than his miracle for him. A nd for that latter argument from the slaughter, \lIswer. first threatened and then fulfilleù,- Sure it was no strange thing, that a proud man (as Augustine appeared to be) should threaten re- venge; and a bloody minded man, to endeavour to execute it, as is evident he did. Neither is it like a great miracle, that a vast arm) should first overcome unarmed monks; and then pro- ceed victoriousl,y against other opposers. Yet the latter part of the story quite spoils the miracle, or the arglul1ent from it: for when Ethelfred, in the heat of his rage and victory, proceeded to destroy the remainder of those monks, the avenger of blood mct him I: the British forces routed his army, and killed ten thousand and sixty of them. But the conclusion for m,y present turn stands firm however; that, notwithstanding thelSe preten- sions of miracles, the British rejected the papacy, and adhered to their proper governors.-i. e. the Pope then had not the possession of them. I [He was defeated hy R('dwalrl, king of E:lst AlIglia, A. n. Gli. Turn('r's IJist. of tht> Anglo-S:lxons. Vol. I. p. 49.] -I- Not ple- nari1 y. 50 [CRAP. VI. PRESCRIPTION, I shall conclude here with that sn1art reply of Archbishop Bramhall to S. W. "To demonstrate evidently to him how vain all his trifling is against the testimony of Dionothus, why doth he not answer the corroboratory proof, which I brought out of Venerable Bede and others, of two British Synods, held at the same time,-wherein all the British clergy did renounce all obedience to the Bishop of Rome, of which all our historiographers do bear witness? 'Vh,} doth he not answer this, but pass it by in so great silence? He might as well accuse this of forgery as the other; bince it is so well attested, that Dionothus was a great actor and disputer in that business 1." SECTION 1. THAT NO ONE PART OF PAPAL JURISDICTION 'VAS EXERCISED HERE, FOR THE FIRST SIX HUNDRED YEARS-NOT ORDINATION-ST TELAUS, &c. -TILL 1100 YEARS AFTER CHRIST- NOR ANY OTHER. I F we consider the Pope's jurisdiction in its par- ticular acts, we find not so much as anyone exer- cised or acknowledged here, during the space of the first six hundred years; but, as far as history gives us any account thereof, all acts of jurisdiction were performed by our own governors. First, had the Pope had any jurisdiction here at all, it would doubtless have appeared in the Ordination or Consecration of our Bishops. ' Ordination;s .J1l. ca'tel"a .Jura sequuntur' is a known rule in law: but it is I ['VOrl-.lS, Vol. 11. pp. :W-I, i{Uf,.J CHAP. YI.] PRERCRIPTIOX .3 J evident that our own Primates "ere inùepCllllent No! Ordi- nalum. themselves, and ordained new Bishop:--, and created new Bishoprics. without licence first obtained from, or giving any account thereof to the Pope. Saint Telaus consecrated and ordained Bishops, as lw thought fit: 'he made one Hismacl Bishop of Saint David's'; and " in like luanneI' advanced man) others of the same order to the same degree, sending them throughout the country, and dividing the parishes for the best accommodation of the clergy and of the people I." nut were not our Primates thCll1selves nominat.ed Question or elected by the Pope. and consecrated by him, or had licence from him? The contrarJ is manifest enough: all our British Answer. Archbishops and Primates were nominated and elected by our Princes with Synoùs, and ordained by thcir own suffragans at home; as Dubritius, Saint David, Sanlpson, &c. not only in the reigns of Aure- lius Ambrosius, and king \rthur, but even until the tiUIC of Henry the First, after thc eleven hundredth year of Christ,-as Giraldus Cambrensis saith: "And always until the first conquest of 'Vales they were conlSecrated b} the Archbishop of Saint David's; and he was likewise consecrated hy other Bishops, as his suffragans, without profcssing any manner of subjec- tion to any other Church 2." Now is it not fair to expect from our advcrsarics I VilI. Regest. [Landa".] apud Ussher, de Britan. Eccl. Antiq. [c. xiv. p. 291, ('d. I..onr1. IRS7.] 2 Itincrarium, Camh. Lib. II. c. I; [po 856, I. 10, etc. apud Camd('u. Anglica Scripta. Cf. Bramhall's R<'l'licatiun to the TIp of Chalcf'llon: Works. Vol. n. pp. Ij1. 152.] --I- . 2 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAr. VI. one instance, either of a Bishop or Archbishop or- dained or consecrated, during the first six hundred years by papal authority in Britain, from their own or our British records? But this challenge, made b,} Archbishop Bramhall I , receives no answer. Objection. Here the Bishop of Chalcedon only offers, "That few or no records of Briti:;h matters for the first six hundred years do remain 2." An,;wer. " This is no answer," (saith the PrimateS) "while all the Roman registers are extant: yea, so extant, that Plat in a, the Pope's library-keeper, is able out of them, to set down every ordination made by the pri- lllitive Bishops of Rome, and the persons ordained." He adds, "Let them shew what British Bishops they have ùrdained, or what British appeals they have received for the first six hundred years: (though he please to omit it) I have shewed plainly out of the list of the Bishops ordained-three by Saint Peter, eleven by Linus, fifteen by Clelllent, six by Ana- cletus, five by Evaristus, five by Alexander, and four by Sixtus, &c.-that there were few enough for the Roman province, none to spare for Britain 4." St Peter. (1) It is said 5 that 'Saint Peter ordained here' ; but that was before he had heen at ROlne: therefore not as Pope of Rome. 1 [Just Vindication: 'Yorks, Vol. I. p. 158.] 2 R. C. [i. e. Richartl Chalcorlon's 'Brief Survey,' p. jO, ('d. Paris. 1654.] 3 [Bramhall's Replication, p. 1G6.] 4 Vid. Bramhall, Tom. I. Disc. III. p. 207; [Yol. II. pp. 166,167, new pdit.] [) [This and the following objections are taken from R. C.'s 'Survey,' pp. ii, et seqq. Th(' answ('rs are mainly from Bramhall's 'R('p1icntion,' uhi supra.] ClIAI'. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 53 (2) 'Eleutherius sent Fugatius and Damianus'; leuthe- . . . nus. but what to do? To baptIze Kmg LucIus: upon the same errand he sent Victor into Scotland I. (3) 'Palladius and Ninian are instances of men Palladius. sent to preach to the Picts and Scotland, as Saint Patrick into Ireland': this was kindly done, but we have not one syllable of any jurisdiction all this while: besides, it is reInarkable, though there be a dispute about Palladiws his being sent, yet it is certain he was rejected, and after died; in whose place Saint Patrick succeeded, without any mandate from Rome, that we read of2. (4) 'Geoffrey of l\Ionmouth saith, that Dubritius, Objection. PrÏlnate of Britain, was Legate of the see Apostolic.' IJegatcs. And we say that Geoffrey tells many fables: and that it is gross credulity to believe him contrary to the authentic history, and more undoubted practices of those times. "V e read,' (saith the Primate) 'of n1any Legates; but certainly either they were no papal Legates, or papal Legates in those days were but ordinary messengers, and pretended not to any lega- 1 [The argument is, that baptizing was no act of jurisdiction. In the latter clause, however, there is somo mistake; for Victor, Bishop of Rome, is not said to have come in person to Ireland (the ancient Scotland), but only to have sent missionaries to King Donald, as Eleutherius had sent to Lucius. Tho whole story is considered fabulous by Bp Stillingfleet, Origines Britan. chap. Ïi. p. 53; ed. Lond. 18-10.] 2 Bed. in vito S. Pat. Lib. I. [This life of St Patrick is among the works of Bede, but was composed by Probus, according to Cave, Hist. Liter. in Bod.-It contains no mcntion of Cælestinus, although Patrick's mission is ascl'ibed to that Pope by Sigebcrt of Gemblours and Matthew of Westminstcl'. Vie]. Spelman. Concil. Tom. I. PI" 49,50. A fuller account may be seen in Ussher, de Britan. Eccl. ,\ntiq. C. xvii. pp. 425, et sef}'I.] , 4 PRESCll IPTIOK. lCu-\.p. VI. tine power, as it iH now under:st.ood: for we read [not] so much as an) one act of jurisdiction done by them, and firmly conclude thence that there was none '.' OhJl::ction. But R. C. saith, 'St Sampson hait a Pall from Home. ' Solution. He had a Pall, but it is not proved that he had it from Rome; it is certain, Archbishops and Patriarchs in the primitive times had Palls, which they received not fronl Rome 2 . Besides, if he did receive that Pall from Rome, in all probability it was after the first six hundred years :-if either, according to Cambrensis 3, he was the five and twentieth Archbishop after St David. or, according to Hoveden 4 , the four and twentieth; and then it is nothing to our present question. ObJectIOn. 'St Gregory granted to Austin the use of the P"ll. Pall,' ::;aith H. C. 'the proper badge and sign of Archiepiscopal dignity, and gave him liberty to or- dain twelve Bishops under his jurisdiction, as Arch- bi!;hop of Canterbury.' Solution. Thi was done at the end of the first six hundred years, and therefore not to our present question: however, if the Pagan Saxons had destroyed Chris- tianityamong the Britains (as they say), it was very ehristianly done of St Gregory, to send Augustine to convert and re-establish the Church among them; hut none can imagine, that by receiving Augustine I [Replication, p. I i3.] 2 [On the history and use of the . Pall,' see Twysdcn's Hist. Vindication, pp. 58, ct scqq.] 3 ItitWl'. Cmnb. Lib. 11. c. l. . R. de Hovcdcn, Annal. A. D. I IUD, [po 7D8, 1. D, etc. inter 'Rerum Anglic. Script ores' : Fmncofurt. IA(H.] CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 55 and his Bishops, they intended to SUblllit themselves and posterity to the see of Rome; which whcn pressed before, the Britains so unanimously rejected. Neither indeed could they do it to the prejudicc of the ancient primacy of the Britains, existing long before, and confirmed in its independency upon any foreign power. For Bede himselfI, as well as all our own historians, makes it IllOSt evident, that the Bri- tains had Bishops long before: we find the subscrip- tions of three of them to the first Council of ArIes 2 - Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelfius de Civitate Colonia Lond.-and from the presence of some of then1 at the Sardican Synod 3 , and the Council of Ariminulll 4, as appears by Atha- nasius and others 5 ; and that they had also an Arch- bishop6 or Primate, whose ancient seat had been at CaerIeon, who rejected the papacy, then posscssing and defending the privilege of thcir freedom frOlll any foreign jurisdiction 7. This their privilege was secured to them, both by thc Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Ephesian Councils 8. 1 [Bede (Hist. Eccl. Lib. II. c. 2) informs us that seven Bishops met Augustine to confer on the question of communion and co- operation. ] 2 [A. D. 314. Concil. ed. Labh. Tom. I. 1430. Cf. Bingham, Antiq. Book IX. chap. vi. s. 20.] 3 [A. D. 347.] 4 [A. D. 359.] 5 [Apol. ad Constant. Ol'p. Tom. II. p. 720, ed. Colon. 1686; Sulpic. Sever. Hist. Sacr. Lib. II. ad fin.] 6 [vÏz. Menevensis Archiepiscopus (Archb. of St David's). The archiepiscopal see had been translated first to Llandaff (A. n. 512), and soon after to St David's. Cf. Spelman, Concil. Tom. I. PI' 106, 107, and Bingham, ubi supra.] 7 [See above, p. 32.] " [For the decisions of the Councils of Nice and El'hcsu!', SCl" If in earn- n,t. Objection. Wilfrid. olulion. AD. (i73. . f) PRESCRIPTION. [Vuw. VI. Contrary to thes( Councils, if the Pope did intend to give Augustine the primacy over the Britains, it was a plain usurpation. Certainly the privileges of the Britannic Church returned with its Christianity; neither could Gregory dispose of them to Austin, or he to Gregory. Besides, lastly, it is not possible any sober luan can imagine, that that humble and holy Pope, St Gregory, who so much detested (if in earnest) thc very title 1 of Universal Bishop, should actually in- vade the privilege of the Britains, and hazard his own salvation in his own judgment, when he so charitably designed the conversion of England by bending Austin hither. R. C. saith, 'It appears that Britain was anciently subject to the see of Rome: for 'Vilfrid, Archbishop of Y or]{, appealed to Rome twice, and was twice restored to his Bishopric.' 'Ve see when this was done; seventy and thrce years after the first six hundred. He appealed indeed 2, but was still rejected; not- withstanding the sentence of Rome in his favour, for six years togethcr, during the reigns of King Egbert and Alfred his son ;-so far is this instance from being a proof of the Pope's possession here at that time. Yet this is " the most famous," saith my Lord Bramhall "(I had almost said. the only) appellant above, pr. 36, 39; and that usurped jurisrliction was not sanctioned hy the Council of ChaJeedon is pro,.cd in Me Palmer's 'Jurisdiction of British Churches,' sect. v.] 1 [See above, p. 39, note 2.] 2 [For a history of his ai-peal:" see Twysdcn's Hist. Vindication, pp. 36-40.] CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. .'57 from England to Home, that we read of before the Conquest I." l\Ioreover, the amnver of King \Jfred to the Allred. Pope's Nuncio, sent hither by the Pope on purpose, is very remarkable. He told hin1, "he honoured them as his parents for their grave lives and honour- able aspects, but he could not give any assent to their legation; because it was against reason, that a person, twice condeluned by the whole Council of the English, should be restored upon the Pope's letter 2 ." At this time it is apparent, neither the Kings of England, nor the Council of English Churchmen- as lny Lord Bramhall expresseth 3 it, "two ICings !;uccessively, and the great Councils of the kingdOln, and the other Archbishop, Theodore, with all the prime Ecclesiastics, and the flower of the English Clergy, opposing so many sentences and messages from ROlne" -did believe that England was under the juribdiction of Rome, or ought to be so. Yea, the King and the Church, after Alfred's After .\1. fred. death, still made good this conclusion, that it was 'against reason, that a person twice cundemned by the whole Council of the English, should be restored upon the Pope's bu1l 4 .' l\Ialmesbur,y would suggest, that the King and the Archbishop Theodore were smitten with remorse I [Just Vinùicatioll; Works, Vol. I. p. 133.] 2 Spelman, Concil. A. D. 705, [Tom. I. p. 203.] 3 [Ubi supra, p. 134.] 4 [The result was that an English Synod promoted John 01 Beverley from Hcxham to York, and placed 'Vilfrid in I1cxhum ,md Ripon. See Twysdcn, p. 3D.] Not in EngJand. 58 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAI'. VI. before their deaths, for the injury done to 'Vilfrid I, &c. But not the King only, but the whole Council, not Theodore alone, but the whole Clergy, opposed the Pope's letter; which is enough both to render the dream of l\lalmesbury a ridiculous fable, and for ever to confirm this truth, that England was not then, viz. in the six hundred seventy and third year of Christ, under the jurisdiction of the Pope, either actually, or in the belief of the Church or kingdom of England. The latter, viz. the non-possession of our belief of the Pope's universal jurisdiction-which is so Iuuch insisted upon by the Romanists-will yet more evidently appear by that which followeth. SECTION n. NO POSSESSION OF OUR BELIEF ANCIENT. W E have found the Britains, by the good Abbot, and two several Synods,-we have found the State of England in three successive Kings, their great Councils and body of the Clergy, refused to yield obedience both to the Pope's persuasions, in- junctions, sentences, and I..Jegates: therefore it seems ] [Cf. Bramhall's 'Just Vindication,' p. 13-1; where tho Oxford editor remarks that Mahllesbury's account agrees with the Life of Wilfrid, cappo 42,58. in Gale's' Scriptores xv.' It is certain, how- ever, that tho warmest opponents of 'Vilfrid were at the time regarded as the greatest ornaments of the English Church. Cf. Twysden, pp. 39, -10; Turnel"'s Hist. of the Anglo-Saxons, Vol. I. pp. 385, et seqq.] CHAP. VI.] PREbCR IPTION. 59 impos ible that Britain or England should then be- lieve eithcr thc Pope's Infallibility, or thcir obligation to his jurisdiction; or that there wa:o: any such thing as the tradition of eithcr, delivcred to them by their ancestors, or believed among them. Indeed, by this one argument, those four great characters of the papacy are deleted and blotted out for ever, viz. Posscssion, Tradition, Infallibility, and Antiquity. I shall add the practice and belief of Scotland Nor in ScotliLlld. too, that othcr great part of our King's dominions. "Thcn the Pope's Legate, 1nor than twiee six hun- dred years after Christ, viz. about 1238, entered Scotland, to visit the churche:::, there, Alexander the Second, then King of the Scots, forbad him so to do, alleging, 'That nonc of his predecessors had ever admitted any such. neither would he suffer it;' and therefore willed him at his own pcril to forbear J. Hence it is evident, there was neither tradition nor belicf either of the Pope's ancient and necessary government, and therefore not of his infallibility;. much less that ancicntly and from the beginning, th Pope had exercised his jurisdiction more in Scotland than in England. "\Ve havc that !Gng's word for it, , None of his prcdecessors had evcr admitted any Ruch.' 1 Mat. Paris. [Hist. Major.] A.D. 1239, [po -198, I. 25; cd. Lond. 1639. ] Not Coun- cils. A postJcs' Canons. Nicc. JI ilcvi, 60 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI. 8ECTION III. IN THE CANONS, APOSTOLICAL, NICENE, MILEVITAN, &c., THIS BELIEF COULD HAVE NO GROUND. W HAT could po::;sibly sway thc first ages to such a bclief of the Pope's universal jurisdiction I ? Ccrtainly nothing from the Councils, nor the practice of the Church in other places, nor indeed the de- clarcd judgment of the Pope himself, nor the words of the Laws. I. Nothing to be found in the CanoJt8 of tlte An- cient Councils could invite to such belief. In the Apostles' Canons 2 we find the quite con- trary ; 7rpwro , the first or Primate among the Bishop::; of every nation, shall be accounted WI;] K 1JaÀ , 'a::; their lIe ad '; and that everyone uf those Primateo shall ÈKÚva P.ÓIIU 7rpárrELv, 'do those things only which belong to his province and the regions under it.' And in pursuance of those Canons. the first Nicene Council decreed roùç v1J' ÉrÉpwv å7rOßÀ118É llra s. J1J' ÈrÉpwlI p. 7rpOCTíECT8at; 'that they that are cast out by some, shall not be reccived by other Bishops,' and 'that this must be observed by th Bishops through every province 3 ;' and in further harmony the l\Iilevi- tan Council prohibits 'all appeal from their own Bishops, but to the African Councils and Primates of their own provinces; and that they which shall ap- peal to any foreign, whether Bishop or Council, shall I Vide cap. ÀX. [Apost. Canon. xxxiv; (luotcd above, p. 34, note 1.] 3 [Nicæn. Concil. Call. v: apud Labh. COllcil. Tom. II. 32; A.] CHAP. , I.] PRESCRIPTION. GJ not be received into Communion by any in Africk).' And, lastly, the practice of all thig is visible in the very S;ynodical Epistle of the African Council to Pope Cælestine, where they beseech him for the future, 'that he will receive none such, because he may easily find it defined in the Council of iee2.' These Canons are all in the Roman Codex, and cannot be pretended to be Ï1walid; neither ean they possibly oblige any man to believe that the Pope had universal jurisdiction as is now pretended. l\loreover, as Dr Hammond 3 notes, to some of these Canons the Pope himself makes oath, that he Pope swears to will inviolably observe them; and from that oath of tIlt-Canon!!. tlw Pope, our Bishops made this very conclusion, that the Popes, that exercised a primacy over any other Bishops but those of their own province in Italy, transgressed their own profession made in their creation 4 : as further appcars 5 by the' Institution of a Christian ]\Ian' in the year 1538. (But lllore largely of this in the last chapters.) Therefore the Britains could not believe that they 1 [ConcH. l\Ii1evit. A. D. 416, Can. xxii; apud Labb. Tom. II. 1542, 15-13: "Quod si et ab eis provocandum putavcrint, non pro- vocent, nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, a nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipiatur."] 2 Vie]. Dr Hammond, at large, 'Dispatcher Dispatcht,' pp. 9i, etc. [Works, Vol. II. p. 221.] 3 [Ibid.: the reference being to the 'Corpus Juris Canonici,' Decret. Part I. Distinct. xvi. c. 8. For at least eight centuries, every Bishop of Rome took an oath on the day of his consecration, to 'keep the sacred Canons, and the Constitutions of the holy Bishops.' Mr Palmer's Jurisdiction of British Bishops, p. 81.] 4 [Hammont.1, Treatise of Schism; Works, Vol. J. P 105.] [) [See' Formularies of Faith.' p. 55: ed. Oxf. 1825.] ardica. ()2 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI. then owed subjection to the papacy, but they must charge the writers of the Apostolic Canons (whether by A postlcs or apostolicallnen) and the Councils, for enacting sacrileg>ious decrees; and the Pope also for swearing the inviolable observation of theIne These things are plain, and S. 'V. by pretending in general, that words admit of various interpreta- tions, without applying his rule to the case, gives but too just occasion to Dr Hammond to expose him aH he doth I. Eadmer 2 speaks plain and home too; it was inau- ditum in Britannia, quemlibet lwminunl SUpel" se vice,;; apo.'Jtolicas gerere, nisi solum ArchiepiscopU'Jì1 CantuarÙe, -' it was a thing unheard of;' no practice of it, no tradition for it :-thcrefore no such thing could be believed, that any other (not the Pope himself) did apostolically govern the affairs of Britain, but only the Archbishop of Canterbury. SECTION IV. COUNCILS OF SARDICA, CIIALCEDON. CON TANTI- NOPLE. I T may be 3 said, the Britains might hear Canon of the Council of Sardica, where decreed, that Bishop!' g>rievcd might appeal Bishop of Rome. of the it wa to the I See' Dispatcher Dispatcht,' pp. 181, etc. [Wurks, Vol. n. 1-'p. 22-1, et scqq.] 2 [lJist. N ovornm], p. 5R. 1. 43; [(,l1. Sl'lll(,11 ] :1 Vid. cap. xx. Sí'ct. ix. CIlAI'. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 63 The word!'! of the Council are these J: ,. In cuse olution. any Bishop, for any cause condemned, maintain hi innocence, if it seem good to you, let us honour the memory of Peter the \.postIe, that it be written b,) those who have judged the cause to Julius the Bishop of Rome; and if it seem good, let the judglnent be renewed, and let them appoint such as may take cog- nizance of it." Hereupon it is plain , (1) These Fathers did not acknowledge the Pope's bupremacy, who thus laid it at the feet, and pleasure of others-' if it seem good to you.' (2) Here is no peremptory order neither, and i1 might not seem good to civil Princes to suffer such Appeals. (3) No absolute appeal it eems was intended; but only the Bishop of ROlne might review the ease: and how much a review differs from appeal, and thai nothing but power to review is here given to the Bishop of Rome, are both fully manifested by the Archbishop of Paris 2. (4) The Decree (such as it is) is not grounded upon any prior right, frOll1 Scripture, tradition, or 1 [Concil. Sardic. A. D. 347, Can. iii; a.pud Labb. Tom. II. 629, A.: El 8È åpá n!> lmUKÓ1TWJJ ÊII TLIIL 1Tpáyp.an M r/ KaTaKpíll uOm, Kal v1ToXap.ßáIlEL ÉaVTòll p. uaOpòII åX).à Ka).òll ÊXnll TÒ 1TpâYlLa, Lila leal alOL!> q Kp{UL àllall wO!ì' l 80KÛ VP.WII Tjj Ù y á1Tr/, rr/TpOV TOV Ù1TOUTÓ).OV T II P.".ryP.T}1I TLP. UWP. II, leal ypacþqllaL 1Tapà TOVTWII TWII IepLllállTWII 'Iov).ícr TC:> ÈmuKÓ1Tcr 'Pwp.T}!>, wun 8Là TooV YELTIILWIITWII TfJ f1TapxíC!- fmuKó1Twr l , l 8/m, ållall w(};jllm TÒ 8LKauT pLOII, Kal ImYllwp.olla!> aVTò 1TapáuxoL, K. T. )..] 2 Petro de l\1arca, de Concordia, Lib. VII. C. 3, s. 6, 7, &c. [Cf. ihiù. Lib. v. s. 47; Lib. VI. c. 30, s. 9; Bramhall, 'Schism GuarclPd,' Vol. II. pp. 531, f't SCtlq. Numerous authorities supporting the sanw view, may bt> seen in Dr 'Vonlsworth's 'Theophilus Anglicanus,' pp. 13R, 13H.] 64 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI. possession, or any former Council; hath no other argument but the honour of Saint Petcr; and that 110t in his authority, but his mm11ory, who first bat in that see, where Julius was now Bishop. But we ma:v have leave to ask, where was the supremacy of the Church of Rome before? or how should the Britains dream of it before? or why did not these Canons take notice of the undoubted Canon of Nice to the contrary, made two and twenty yearR before, either to null or explain it? But that these Sardic Canons neither established the Pope's supremacy, nor were acknowledged to bind the Church afterwards, nor could be accounted an Appendix to the Council of Nice. and what wca k- ness and falseness has been practised upon this argu- ment-is so largely, ingenuously and satisfactorily manifested by Doctor Stillingfleet, that I shall for his fuller satisfaction refer the reader to him I. It is strongly argued, in the last reasonings of mJ Lord llramha1l 2 , that' after the Em tern Bishops were departed, this Council of Sardica was no General Council; because the presence of five great Patri- arclls were ever held necessa1'JT to the being of a General Council; as Bellarmine hÎ1nself confesscth, d(> Concil. Lib. I. c. 17. , If this Council had been general. wh:y do Saint Gregory, Isidore, and TIede, leave it out of the number of General Councils? "\Vhy did Saint Aw;;- tin, Alypius and the African Fathers, slight it? And I Rational Account, pp. 419, etc. [Vol. II. pp. 06, et seqq. eel. ISH. ct. also Br ti1lingfl<>(>t's Origines Britan. pp. H5. 146.] 2 [Schism Ouar.l<>,l: Work!;, Yol. n. pp. 5 2, ,): .] (;".\1'. VI.] PRESCRIPTIOl\. 6/) (which is more) wh;} do the Eastern Church not reckon it among their lSeven, nor the 'Vestern Church among their eight first General Councils? 'Vhy did the English Church omit it in their number in the Synod of Hedtfeld 1 in the year 680, and embrace only unto this da;} the Council of :Nice, the first of Constantinople, the fir8t of Ephesus, and the first and second of Chalcedon 2 ?' The first five General Councils were therefore in- corporated into our English Laws; but thi8 Council of Sardica never was. Therefore, contrary to this Canon of Appeal, it iR the fundamental Law of England, in that famous memorial of Clarendon, , All Appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Archbishop. and if the Archbishop failed to do justice, the last complaint must be to the King to give order for redress 3 .' Ii is evident, the great Council of Chalcedon 4 Chalcerlon. contradicted this Canon for Appeals to Rome- where Appeals from the Archbishop are directed to be made 'to every Primate, or the holJ see of Constantinople,' a well as Rome. From which evi- dence, we have nothing but silly evasions, as that Primate 5 truly observes. Besiùes, if our forefatherb had hearù of the Ca- 1 Apud Spelman, ConcH. [Tom. I.] p. 169. 2 [See authorities in the new edition of Bramhall, Vol. II. p. 533.] 3 [Mat. Paris. Rist. Major. A. D. 1245, pp. 100, 101. Cf. Bram- hall, ubi supra] · Act. xv. Can. ix. [apud Labb. ConcH. Tom. IV. 759, D.] .'} [Bramhall,] Schism Guarded, p. 37-1; [Works. Vol. n. p. !);{4.] !) 66 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAt'. VI. nons of the Councils b'uly general-as no ùoubt they had-how could they possibly believe the un- Constanti- limited jurisdiction of Rome? The Council of Con- nople. stantinople is not denied to give equal privileges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch Chalcedon. of Rome I. And the Council of Chalcedon conclude thus 2 : "For the" (Nicene) "Fathers did justly give privileges to the see of old Rome, becauöe it was the imperial city; and the hundred and fifty godly Bishops, moved with the sam consideration, did give equal privileges to the see of new Rome; rightly judging, that that city, which was the seat of the empire and senate, should e1-Uoy equal privileges with the ancient imperial city of ROlne, and be ex- tolled and magnified in ecclesiastical affairs as well as it, being the second in order from it." And in the last sentence of the J uùges, upon review of the cause-" The Archbishop of the imperial city of Cönstantinople, or new Rome, must e1"Üoy the Flame privileges of honour, and have the same power, oui of his own authority to ordain l\letropolitanö in the Asiatic, Pontic, and Thracian Dioceses." 1 [Concil. Constant. I. A. D. 381, Can. jii: TÒII p.ill TOL KWIIUTaIl- TLIIOV1TÓX W!> l1TíUK01TOII lXnll Tà 1Tp ußÚa Tij!> np.ij!> p. Tà TÒIl rij!> 'pwp.1J!> l1TluIC01TOII, 8Là TÒ dllaL aV 1I lIiall 'PW}J.1JII. Labh. Concil. Tom. II. 947, c.] 2 [Concil. Chalcedon. Act. xv. Can. xxviii: Kal yàp Tcf (JpóIICf T !> 1Tp ußvT;pa!> 'Pwp.1J!>, 8Là TÒ ßauLX vnll T II 1TÓXLII lK íIl1JII, oí 1TaT;p !> lKÓTW!> å1T0l\ 8wlC:aUL Tà 1Tp uß îa. Kal Tcf aÌiTcf ulC01Tcf KLJlOVP. 1I0L oí pII'. (J OcþLX;uTaToL l1TíUK01TOL Tà 1uu 1Tp ußÚa å1Tillnp.all Tcf rij!> II/a!> 'Pw- , , (J ' ',\ ' , ' ß '\' , '\ ' p.1J!> a!LWTaTW pOIlCf: ^O,rw!> K!JLlla !>, TTJII aUL Hg. aL UV Y IC^1J,TCf np.1J(JHuall 1TO?"LII, Kat TWII LUWII a1ToXavovuall 1Tp UßELWII Tr/ 1Tp ußvnpg. ßauLXí8L 'Pwp.r/, Kal III Toî!> lKKX1JUtauTLlCoî!>, cJ!> h íIl1JII, p. yaXvII u(Jat 1Tpåyp.aUL, 8 VTipall P. T' lK íll1JII 1J1T p;xovuall.] CHAP. VI.] }'HESCRIPTIOX. 67 Are these the worùs of a General Council? Could these Fathers imagine the Pope at that time l\Ionarch of the whole Church? Or could this be acknow- ledged by England at first, and they yet give up their Faith to the Pope's universal power? Can these things consist ? Yea, is there not something in all the Councils allowed by the ancient Britains, and the ancient English Church, sufficient to induce a Faith quite contrary to the Roman pretensions? But as to this Canon of Constantinople, S. 'V. Objection. quits his hands; roundly telling us, that it 'was no free act,' but 'voted tumultuously, after most of the Fathers were departed.' S. 'V. had been safer, if he had been wiser: for Solution. that which he saith is altogether false, and besides such a cluster of forgeries, as deserves the whet- stone to purpose ;-as my Lord Bramhall Inanifests against him I. (1) False: the act was made before the Bishops had license to depart; it had a second hearing; and was debated by the Pope's own Legates on his be- half, before 'the most glorious Judges' ; and maturely sentenced by them in the name of the Council 2. This was one of those four Councils, which Saint Gregory honoured next to the four Gospels 3. This is one of those very Councils, which every succeed- ing Pope doth swear to observe to the least tittle 4 . 1 Schism Guarded, p. 354. [Works, Vol. 11. p. 489.] 2 [Vide Act. XVI. apud Labb. Concil. Tom. IV. 795,] 3 [" Sicut Sancti Evangelii quatuor libros." Greg. Epist. Lib I. c. 24; Indict. ix.] 4, [See above, p. 61.] 5-2 GS PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI. (2) For his forgeries about it, he is sufficientl shanled by the Primate in the place cited 1: it is pity such shifts should be used, and it is folly to use them; when the truth appears, what remains but both the person and the cause reproached 2 ? SECTIO v. ARABIC CANONS FORGED,-NO CANONS OF TIlE COUNCIL OF NICE. ()bjection. Y ET it is a marvellous thing, that the Romanist should dare to impose upon so great and learned a Primate as the late Archbishop Laud, that by 'the third Canon of the Council of Kice, the Patriarch is in the same manner over all those that are under his authority, as he who holds the see of Rome is head, and prince of the Patriarchs'-' re- sembling Saint Peter, and his equal in authority3.' Ans\\cr. 'Vhen it is most evident to the meanest capacity, that will search into it, that that is no Canon of the true Council of Nice; and that instead of the third, it is the thirty-ninth of the supposititious and forged Canons,-as they are set forth in the Arabic editions, both by Pisanus and Turrianus 4. In these editions there are no less than eighty Canons pretended to be Nicene, whereas the Nicene Council never passed above twenty; as is evident 1 [Bramhall, Vol. II. pp. -189, -190.] 2 Sce more of the Councils at the latter end. [' Postscript.'] 3 [Labbo, ConcH. Tom. II. 303, c; but see Stillingflect's Vimli- cation of Archhp. Laud, Vol. II. p. 158; cd. 1844.) 4 [In Labùe, ubi supra..) CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. f)!) from uch as hould know best-the Greek authors, who all reckon but twenty Canon of that Council: such as Theodoretl, Nicephorus Callistus 2 , Gelasius C;yzicenus 3 , Alphonsus Pisanus; and Binius 4 himself confcsseth that all the Greeks say there were no more but twenty Canons then determined. Yea, the Latins themselves allowed no more: for although Ruffinus 5 make twenty-two, it is by splitting of two into four. And in that Epitonle 6 of the Canons, which Pop(' IIadrian sent to Charles the Great, for the govern- ment of the 'Vestern Churches, A. D. 773, the !Same number appears. And in Hincmarus's7 1\18. the same is proved, from the testimonies of the Tripartite His- tory, Ruffinus, the Carthaginian Council, the epistles of Cyril of Alexandria, Atticus of Constantinople, and the twelfth action of the Council of Chalcedon. And if we may believe a Pope, Stephen in ' Gratian 8 ' 1 Theodoret. Eccl. Rist. Lib. I. c. viii; [po 29. c; ed. Vales.] 2 Niceph. Callisto Eccl. Rist. Lib. "Ill. c. 19; [Tom. 1. p. 571, c; ed. Paris. 1630.] 3 [According to Cavf' (Hi st. Liter.) this writer flourished about A. D. 47ft He composed a history of the Council of Nice, the second book of which was transferred by Alphonsus Pisallus into his own Latin history of that Council. The words of Gelasius arc as follows: i É() JlTo 8i leal 'KK"X1jULUUTLKOV!> Kallólla!> i'KoULII 'II aVTjj Tjj 'II NtKaíg. U1JIIÓÔce, K. T. X. Lib. II. c. xxx. The whole history is printed in Labbe, Concil. Tom. II.] 4 [Not. in Concil. Nicæn. Tom. I. p. 366, co1. i. A; ('d. lG36.] 5 [Hist. Eccl. Lib. x. c. 6.] 6 [Apud Justell. Not. in Cod. Eccl. Mrican. p. 13.] 7 [Apud Justell. ibid.] 8 [Corpus Juris Canon.] Distinct. xvi. c. xiii. [The refcrence, however, does not quito bear out the text; for, after stating that thcre wero extant in the Roman Church only twenty canons, Gra- ti:m makC'f; this POpC' to han' afì,ll'fl. ,. sCll quo lIcglf'ctu alia defccf'- rint :tmhi unm f'st."] 70 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI. saith, the Roman Church did allow of no more than twenty. The truth is put beyond all question, lastly, both by the proceedings of the African Fathers in the case of Zosimus about the Nicene Canons, when an early and diligent search made it evident; and also by the 'Codex Canon urn Ecclesiæ Africanæ,' where it is ex- pressly "aid, there was but twenty Canons 1. But this matter is nlore than clear, by the elabo- rate pains of Dr Stillingfleet [in his] defence of the late Archbishop Laud; to whom I nlust refer my reader 2. Objection. Yet Bellarmine and Binius would prove there were more than twenty 3. Solution. But their proof.,:; depend either upon things, a supposititious as the Arabic Canons themselves; such as the Epistles of Julius and Athanasius 'ad l\[arcum'; or else they only prove, that some other thing!::ì were determined by that Council, viz. concerning re-bapti- zation, and the keeping of Easter, &c.-which indeed might be act of the Council, without putting them into the Canons, as Baronius 4 himself confeöseth, and leaves the patronage of them. And Spondanus 5 , in his contraction of Baronius, relates it as his positive opinion, that he rejcctcd all but twenty, whether Arabic or other, as spurious. So that it will bear no further contest, but we 1 [po 58; Cf. p. 363.] 2 pp. 391, 392 ; [Vol. 11. pp. 158, et seqq. ed. 1844.] 3 [Ibid. Vol. n. p. 162; from whence the following solution is epitomized.] 4 Annal. ad an. 325, CLXXX. 5 Epitom. Baron. ad an. 325, :nn. CHAP. VL] PRE:-5CRIPTION. 71 may safely conclude, the Arabic Canons, and conse- quently this of the Pope's authority, iö 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. SECTION VI. PRACTICE Th"TERPRETED THE CANONS TO THE SAME SENSE AGAIXST TilE POPE-DISPOSING OF P ATRIARCHS-CYPRIAN-AUGUSTL.,E. W E have found nothing in the Canons of the ancient Councils that might give occasion to the belief of the Pope's jurisdiction in England, in the primitive ages of the Church; but indeed very nIueh to the contrary. But the Romanist I affirms against my lord of Can- terbury, that 'the practice of the Church is always the best expositor and assertor of the Canons.' \\r e are now to examine, whether the ancient practice of the Church was ðufficicnt to persuade a belief of the Pope's juribdiction as is pretended: in t.he mean tilne 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 Catholic practice is found on rccord, that can be supposed a sufficient ground of this Faith, I [viz. T. C., or Thomas Carwell, in the 'Lab)'I"inthus Can- tuariensis,' p. 18-1; cr. Bp Stillingfleet's Reply (' Vinùication of Archhp Laud'). Vol. II. p. 16 .] 72 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI. eithcr in England or any part of Christendom? Cer- tainly not of Ordinations, or Appeals, or Visitations. Yea, can it be imagined, that our English ancestors had not heard uf the practice of the Britains In maintaining their liberty when it wa a saulted by Austin, and rejecting his demands of subjection to the see of Rome I ? No doubt they had heard of the Cyprian privilege 2, and how it was insisted on in bar of the universal pastorship, by their friends the Eastern Church ;-from whom 3 they in likelihood re- ceived the Faith, and with whom they were found at first in ConllTIunion, about the observation of Easter and Baptism; and in practice, diverse from the Church of Rome. But one great point of practice is here pitched upon by Baronius, and after him by T. C.4 It is the Pope's confirmation of the election, deposing and re- storing. of Pa riarchs; which they say he did ' as hcad and prince of all the Patriarchs.' and consequently of the whole Church. 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. <:onfirma- (1) It is urged, that the Popc's confirmation is tlOn of I atriarch!l. required to all new electcd Patriarchs. Admit it, but the Archbishop of Paris, Petrus de 1\larca 5 , fully answcrs ßaronius (and indeed eycry Objection. Solution. I [See above, pp. 45, -16.] 2 [See above, p. 3U.] 3 [Cf. Twysdcn's Vindication, PI'. 9, I3.J 4 [Cf. Stillingfleet, ubi supra.] . J)c COJ1eonlia Rat'('rtlotii I't Impcrii, Lih. \"I. c. Y. s. 2. CJI \P. VI.] PUESCRIPTION. 73 hod)' else), that 'this was no token of jurisdiction, but only of receiving into Comnuu1Ïon; and as a tes- timony of consent to the Consecration.' If any force be in this argument, then the Bishop of Carthage had power over the Bishop of Rome; because he and other African Bishops confirnled the Bishop of Rome's ordination 1. Raronius insists much upon 'the Confirlnation of Anatolius by Leo I.' which very instance answers it- self. I.eo himself tells us, that it was to manifest, 'that there was but one entire Communion among them throughout the worl(12.' Yet it is not to be omitted. that the practice of Comsecra- tion de- the Church supposeth that the validity of the Patri- pends ot on con fir- arch's Consecration depended not upon the Con- m!\tion. firmation, or indeed, consent of the Pope of Rome. Yea, though he did deny his communicatory let- ters, that did not hinder them from the execution of their office. Therefore }'lavianm;3, 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 Bishop's of Rome. At last, the Bishop of Rmlie, severely rebuked for his pride by the Emperor, yielded; and his consent was given 1 S. Cyprian. Epist. LII. ed. Rigalt. [" quo (i. e. loco Fabiani) oecupato dc Dci volnntate atque omnium nostrum consensione fir- mato," ctc.] 2 [Ep. xxxviii: "Ut per totum mundum una nobis sit unius communionis intc,c:ritas," ctc.] :J [ThcodoJ'ct. Eccl. Hist. Lih. '". ('. 2: ; Cf. StiJIill!lf!cet'!' Vindi- al"tioJl. Vol. II. pp. 17-1, 17:).] 74 PRESCRIPTION. [CUAl>. VI. only by renewing communion with him. Hut where was the Pope's power, either to make, or make void a Patriarch, while this was in practice? Depo!\ing (2) Doth practice better prove the Pope's power Patriarchs. t d h P . h .. Th .. o epose Un\Vort y atrmrc s { e contrary IS eVI- dent; 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 Coun- cil of Sanlica decreed in the case of Athanasius, as P. de l\Iarca l abundantly proves. Also, that the Coun- cil of Sardica itself, did not (as is commonly said) de- cree appeals to Rome; but only gave the Bishop of Rome power to review their actions, but still reserv- ing to provincial Council that authority which the Nicene Council had established them in 2 . Objection. But T. C. urgeth, that 'we read of no less than eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome.' Solution. "There doth he read it? In an epistle of Pope Nicolaus to the Emperor l\lichael. ' "\Vell chosen,' saith Doctor Stillingfleet-' a Pope's testimony in his own cause; and Huch 3 one as was then in contro- yersy with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and so late, too, as the ninth century is 3 ' :-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 Patriarch::; mentioned by him werc deposed by the Pope's sole I Vid. de Concordia, Lib. VII. c. i. s. 6. 2 [ConcH. Nicæn. Can. V; and for tho Council of ardica, see above, p. 63.] :i [Stillingflect's Vindication, Vol. II. pro 175, 176.] CHAP. VI.] PRESUIUPTION. 75 authority, but not ejected sine consensu Rumani Pontificis, 'without his consent'; and his design was only to shew, that Ignatius the Patriarch ought not to have been deposed without his consent]. 'Did not Sixtu!s the third uepose Polcrchronius Objection. Bishop of Jerusalem' ? X o. He only sent eight persons trom a Synod Solution. at ROlue to Jerusalem; who offered not, by the Pope's authority to depose him, as should have been proved, but by their Ineans seventy neighbour-Bishops were called, by whom he was deposed. Besides, ßinius himself condemns those very acts, that report thi::; story, for spurious 2 . (3) But have we any better proof of the Pope's Rest ring PatrIarchs. power to 'restore such as were deposed ? The only instance in this case brought by T. C. is of Athanasius and Paulus restored by Julius: and indced to little purpose 3. It is true, Athanasius, condemned by two Synods, goes to R01ue, where he and Paulus are received into communion by Julius, not liking the decree of the Eastern bishops. Julius nevcr plcad::, his power to depose Patriarchs, but that his consent for the sake of unity should also have becn first desired; and that so great a matter in thc Church rcquired a Council both of the Eastcrn and 'Yestern Bishops 4. "But," saith Dr Stillingfleet, "when wc consider ] Vide Nicol. 1. El'ist. viii. Michael. Imper.; apud Concil. ('d. Rin. Tom. VI. p. 506. 2 ConcH. Tom. II. p. 685. 3 [Cf. Stillingllcpt, ul,i supra, p. 176.] 4 Vid. P. de l\Iarca, de Cflll('orrlia. Lin. VII. c. 4, s. Ô. 76 })RESCRIPTION. [Cu.u>. YI. with what hcat and stomach this was received by the Eastern Bishops; how they absolutely deny that the 'Yestern Bishops had any more to do with their pro- ceedings, than they had with theirs; when they say, that the Pope by this usurpation was the cause of all the nlischief that followed; we see what an excellent instance you have made choice of to prove thc Pope's power of restoring Bishops, by Divine right, and that this was acknowledged by the whole Church I." Sure, so far the Church's practice abroad could not prevail to settle his right of jurisdiction in the English faith; especially considering the practice of our own Church, in opposing the letters and Legates of Popes for six years together, for thc restoring of Archbishop \Vilfrid, by two of our own successive IGngs, and the whole State of England ecclesiastical and civil, as appeared above 2 . J\Ioreover, St Cyprian 3 professeth in the Council of Carthage, "For no one of us hath made himself Bishop of Bishops, or driven his fellow Bishops to a neces ity of obedience": particularly rclating to Stephen, then Bishop of Rome, as Baronius himsclf resolves 4. But upon a mattcr of fact, St Augustine gave his own judgment, both of the Pope's powcr and action, 1 [Stillingfleet's Vindication, Vol. II. p. 177.] 2 [pp. 56, 57.] 3 [A. D. 255; apud Labb. Concil. Tom. I. 786: "Nequc euim quisquam nostrum episcopum se esse episcoporum constituit, aut tymnnico terrore ad ohservandi necessitatcm collegas suos adigit." The Council was att{'uded by eighty-seven bishops, besides priests and deacons.] · Annal. En!. :111 :111. .'5R, XXI\'. CHAI>. VL] PRESCRIPTION. 77 in that known e:a::,è of the Donatists \. (1) They had leave to be heard by foreign 13ishops. (2) Forte non debllit, 'yet perhaps l\[elchiades, the Bishop of the Roman Church, ought not to usurp to himself this judgment, which had been determined by !seventy African Bishops, Tigisitanus sitting PrÏll1ate.' (3) St Augustine proceeds, , And what will you say, if he did not mmrp this power? For the Emperor, being de- sired, sent Bishops judges, which should sit with him, and determine what was just upon the whole cause.' So that upon the whole, it is easily observed, that in 8t Augustine's judgment, both the right and the power, by which the Pope (as the rest) proceeded, was to be resolved to the En1peror, as a little before, ad cujllS curam, 'to .whose care '-it did chiefly belong; de f)'lla rationem Deo redditllru8 est, 'of which he was to give account to God.' Could this consist with the belief of the Pope's universal pastorship by Divine right? If there can p08sibly, after so clear evidence, need more to be said of 8t Augustine's judgment in this, it is only to refer you to the controversies be- tween the African Bishops and the Bishop of Romc, in case of appeals 2. 1 [So Augustin. Epist. CLXIT. The question is very fully stated in Stillingfleet's Vindication, Vol. II. pp. 178, et seqq.] 2 Vid. Dr Hammond, 'Dispatcher Dispatcht', pp. 398, et('. [Works, Vo1. II. pp. 2DO, 291); Bp Stillingfleet's Vindication, [Vol. II. pp. 186-194. See below, sect. viii.] 78 PRE cRIrTIUN. [CHAP. YI. SECTION VII. NOT THE SAYINGS OF ANCIENT rOPES, OR PRACTICE -AGA THO-PELAG illS-GREGORY -VICTOR. r d. W E can find nothing in the ancient Canons, or ancient practice, to ground a belief of the Pope's authority in England upon; Jet sure Pope's then1selves claimed it, and used expressions to let us know it. "T ere it so indeed, experience tells us how little Pope are to be believed in their own cause; and all reason persuades us not to believe them, against the Councils and practice of the Church, and the judg- ment of the Fathers. But some of the ancient Popes have been found so honest, as to confess against themselves; and ac- knowledge plain truth against their own greatness. The Pope's universal headship is not to be be- Agatho. lieved from the words of Pope Agatho 1, in his letter to the Emperor; where St Paul stand as high ab St Pet.er-oi 7"WV 1\7roO'7"óÀwv Kopvcþaîot-both are said by him to be heads or chief of the Apostles. Besides, he expressly claimed only the Western Patri- archate. Pelagius. Rut Pope Pelagius II. is more plain and home to ROlue itself. Nee etiarn Rornanlls Pontifex 'ltniver- salis est appellandus-' the Pope of Rome is not to be called universal Bishop2.' This was the opinion of 1 Concil. Tom. v. p. 61, B. [ed. Bin. Numerous other testi- monies to the equality of the Apostles, both in honour and juris- diction, may be seen in Barrow, on the Pope's Supremacy, SuppOS. I. Works, Vol. I. pp. 587-593; ed. 1716.] 2 [Corpus .Juris Canon.] Decret. Pa11 I. Di!'ti1lct. XC'IX. [cap. v.] CHAP. VI.] PRESVRIPTIOK. 7!-ì that Pope of Home himself, as it is cited out of his Epistle, and put into the body of the law by Gratian. N ow one would think, that the same law denied the power, that denied the title properly expressing that power. How triflingly 1 doth S. 'V. object, 'these words are not found in the Council of Carthage, while they are found in the Corpus J'llris'-the Law now of as 111llCh force at Rome as. that Council. It is weaker to say2, they are Gratian's own addi- tion, seeing his addition is now law; and also pro,Ted to be the sense of the Pope Pelagius. In his Epistle, he saith, 'Let none of the Patriarchs ever use thc name of Universa}3',-applying in the conclusion to himself, being then Pope, as one of that number; and so, if he were either Pontifex _1Iaxim'lls, or a Patriarch, and neither himself nor any Patriarch might be called Universalis, then sure nothing was added by him, that said in his Title to the fourth chapter as Gratian did, Nee etiam Rornanus POlltifeæ, 'not even the Bishop of Rome must be called Universal Bishop'. nut what shall be said to St Gregory, who in his Gregory. Epistle to Eulogius 4, Bishop of Alexandria, tells him, 1 [Cf. Hammond's' Dispatcher Dispatcht', chap. v. sect. ix: Works, Vol. II. p. 297.] 2 [Ibid.] 3 [" N uUus Patriarcharum universalitatis vocabulo unquam uta- tur." Corpus Juris Canon. ubi supra.] 4 Gregor. Epist. Lib. VII. Indict. I. ep. xxx; [ed. Antverp. 1615: ":Non tamen invenio vestram beatitudinem, hoc ipsum quod memoriæ vestræ intuli, perfecte retinere voluisse. Nam dixi, nec mihi vos, nec cuiquam alteri tale aliquid scribere debere; et ecce in præfatione epistolæ, quam ad me ipsum qui prohibui direxistis, superbæ appellationis verbum universalem me papam dicentes, im- primere curastis," etc. etc. Opp. Tom. IV. co!. 240, F.] 80 l'HESCIUPTIO . [CIIAI'. VI. 'that he had prohibited him to call him Univer al Father; that he was not to do it; that reason re- quired the contrary; that it is derogatory to his bre- thren; that this honour had, by a Council, that of Chalcedon, been offered to his predecessors, but re- fused and never used by any'. Again higher he tells ....\Iauritius 1, 'fidenter dieo, whoever calls himself Universal Priest, or desires to be so called, is by his pride a forerunner of Anti- christ'; 'his pride is an indication of Antichrist approaching', as he saith to the Empress. Yea,' an imitation of none but the Devil, endeavouring' to break out to the top of singularity', (as he saith 3 to John himself): yea elsewhere he calls this title, 'the name of blasphenly4', and saith, that those that con- sent to it do fidem perdere, 'destroy the Faith 5'. A strong title,-that neither Saint Gregory, nor, as he ::saith, anyone of his predecessors, no Pope that 1 Lib. VI. ep. xxx: [" Ego autem fidenter dico, quia quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatìone sua antichristum præcurrit, quia superbiendo se cæteris præponit." Opp. Tom. IV. co1. 215, E.] 2 Lib. IV. [Indict. XIII.] ep. xxxiv: [" Sed in hac ejus superbia quid aliud nisi propinqua jam antichristi esse tempora designatur ?" Opp. Tom. IV. co1. 140, A.] 3 Lib. IV. [Indict. XIII.] ep. xxxviii; [" Quis rogo in hoc tam perverso vocabulo, nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur, qui, despectis angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis, ad culmen cona tus est singularitatis erumpcre, ut et nulli subesse, et solus omnibus præesse videretur." Opp. Tom. IV. co!. 145, D.] 4 Lib. IV. [Indict. XIII.] ep. xxxii: [" Sed absit a cordihus Christianorum nomen istud blasphemiæ, in quo omnium saCl'r- dotum honor adimitur, dum an uno sihi dementer arrogatur." Opp. Tom. IV. col. 137, E.] 5 Ibid. ep. xxxix; [" In isto enim scelesto vocahulo consentirp, nihil cst :tliud quam fid<>m perdere." Opp. Tom. IV. co1. 148, ('.] CHAP. YI.] PRESCRIPTION. 81 went before him, would ever accept of: and herein, saith he I, " I plead not IllY own cause, but the cause of God, of the whole Church, of the Laws, the vene- rable Councils, the commands of Christ; which are all disturbed with the invention of this proud pom- patic style of Universal Bishop." Now can anyone inlagine, except one prejudiced as S. 'Y., that the power is harmless, when the title, that doth barely express it, is so devilish a thing? Can anyone imagine, that Saint Gregory knew him- self to be that indeed, which in word he so much abominates? Or that he really exercised that U ni- versal authority and 'p niversal Bishopric, though he so prodigiously lets fly against the style of 'Universal Bishop' ? Yet all this is said, and lllust be main- tained, lest we should exclude the Universal Pastor- ship out of the Primitive Church 2. There is a great deal of pitiful stuff used by the Romanist upon this argument, with which I shall not trouble the reader; yet nothing shall be omitted that hath any shew of argum ent on their side; among 1 Ibid. ep. xxii; [" Quia vero non causa mea, sed Dei est; et quia non solus ego, sed tot a turbatur ecc1esia, quia piæ leges, quia venerandæ synodi, quia ipsa Domini nostri Jesu Christi mandata superbi atque pompatici cujusdam sermon is inventione turbantur," etc. Opp. Tom. IV. col. lð7, A.] 2 [See S. 'V. s objections and the reply to them in Dr Ham- mond, Works, Vol. II. pp. 294, etc. Bp Stillingfleet, in onsidering similar objections, gives a clear account of the various meanings attached to the title' Universal Bishop.' The modern Church of Rome in claiming prerogatives for the Pope makes all lawful juris- diction derivable from him. 'Vindication of Archbp Laud,' Vol. II. pp. 214, etc.] 6 82 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. YJ. which, the words of Saint Grcgory following in hi.; argmnent are most material. Objection. Saint Gregory saith, 'Thc care of the whole Church was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles, Saint Peter; and yet he is not called the Universal Bishopl.' Solution. It is confessed that Saint Gregory doth say that the care of the whole is cOlnmitted to Saint Peter; again, that he was the prince of the Apostles 2, and yet he was not called Universal Apostle. It is hence plain, that his being Prince of the Apostles did not carry ÏiI it 80 much as Universal Bishop; otherwise Saint Gre- gory would not ha,'e given the one, and denied him the other; and it is as plain that he had the care of all Churches, and so had Saint Paul 3 ; but it is not plain that he had power over all Churches. Doctor Hammond 4 proceeds irresistibly to provc the contrary from Saint Gregory himself, according to the words of the Novel: 'If any complaint be luade,' saith he, 'against a Bishop, the cause shall be judged before the Ietropolitan, "secundum sanctas Reg'lllas et nostras 5 Leges"; 'if the party stand not to 1 [" Cura ei totius ecc1esiæ, et principatus committitur, et tamen universalis apostolus non vocatur.' Lib. IV. Indict. XI. ep. xxxii ; Tom. IV. co1. 137, B.] 2 [" Omnium apostolorum Petro principi apostolo totius ecc1esiæ cura commissa est." Ibid.] 3 [2 Cor. xi. 28.] 4 [Dispatcher Dispatcht, chap. II. s. iv ; Works, Vol. II. p. 208. The capitular in question may be seen in Gregory's Epistles, Lib. XI. Indict. VI. ep. lvi; Tom. IV. co1. 442, A.] [) [i. e. 'the irnperiallaws;' the words being extract('d from the Emperor's Constitutions.] CHAP. VI.] PREscn IPTIOX. 83 his judgment, the cause is to be brought to the Archbishop or Patriarch of that diocese, and he shall give it a conclusion, according to the Canons and Laws aforesaid' ;-no place left for appeal to Rome. Yet it must be acknowledged, Saint Gregory Objection. adds., "Si dictum fueTit, etc., where there is no Ietropolitan nor Patl"iarch, the cause may be heard by the Apostolic see,"-which Gregory calls "the Head of all Churches." Now if this be allowed, what hath the Pope gained, Solution. if perhaps such a Church should be found as hath neither Prinlate nor Patriarch? How is he the nearer to the Universal Authority over those Churches that have Primates of their own; or which way win he by this means extend his jurisdiction to us in England, who have ever had nlore than one Ietropo- litan ?-The Archbishop of Canterbury was once ac- knowledged by a Pope to be "gwl!;:i {(lte'l'"i'll. ()rbi.fil Papa 2". But admitting this extraordinary case, that where there is neither l\Ietropolitan nor Patriarch there, they are to have recourse to the see Apostolic; it i" a greater wonder that the Romanist should insist upon it. than that his late Grace should mention it; 1 [" Contra hæc si dictum fucrit, quia nec l\Ietropolitam habuit nec Patriarcham, dicendum est quia a sede Apostolica, 'lure omnium ecclesiarum caput est, causa hæc audicnda ac diIimenda fuerat," etc. Ibid. col. 442, n.] 2 [This was the language of Urban II. to Anselm. Cf. ,V. Malmesbur. de Gestis Pontif. Lib.. I. p. 223, 1. 33; apud Rerum Anglic. Scriptores; ed. Francofurt. 1601. Numerous other titles, equally exalted, may hp spen in 'l'wYSdCll'S Vindication, p. 22.] 6-2 84 PREf'CRIPTIOX. [CHAP. YI. -at which T. C. ::;0 much admires 1: for this one ob- servation, with the assistance of that known rule in Law, 'e.vceptio firnwt regulam in non exceptis,' puts a plain and speedy end to the whole controve sy. For if recourse may be had to Rome from no other place, but where there is neither Priluate nor Patriarch, then not frOln England 2, either when Saint Gregory laid down the rule, or ever since, and perhaps . then from no other place in the world. And indeed pro- vision was thus made against any such extraordinary case that might possibly happen; for it is but reason, that where there is no Primate to appeal to, appeal should be received somewhere else; and where better than at Ron1e, which St Gregory calls Caput omnium EcclesiæJ'um }I-and this is the utlnost advantage the Romanist can hope to receive from the words. Objection. But we see Saint Gregory calls Rome the 'Head of all Churches 3 '. Solution. It is true whether he intends a primacy of fame or visible splendour and dignity, being the seat of the Emperor, or order and unity, is not certain: but it is certain, he intends nothing less by it than that which just now he denied,-a supremacy of power and universal ordinary jurisdiction; he having, in the words imn1ediately foregoing, concluded all ordinary juris- diction within every proper primacy or patriarchate 4. I [Cf. Stillingfleet's Vindication of Archbp Laud, Vol. II. 1'. 194, where Carwell's wonder is fully explained.] 2 [See above, pp. 31, 32.] 3 lSee above, p. 83, note 1.] 4 [Mr Palmer (Treatise on the Church, Part VII. chap. iii.) enumerates the circumstances, which in the first ages of the Gospel gave an accidental pre-eminence to the Roman Church.] CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTIOX. 85 But, saith S. 'V., 'Saint Gregory practised the Objection. thing, though he denied the word of Universa}1'. 'Vhat hypocrisy! damn the Title as he doth, Solution. and yet practise the thing!- you must have good proof. Hi first instance is of the Primate of Byzacium, wherein the Emperor first put forth his authority, and would have him judged by Gregory: "Piissimus Im- peratm' eum [iuxta statuta canonicaJ per nos voluit }udical'i", saith Gregory 2. Hence Doctor Hammond slnartly and soundly observes, 'that appeals from a Primate lie to none but the supreme magistrate 3'. To which purpose, in the cause of )Iaximus Bishop of Salona, decreed excommunicate by Gregory, his sentence wa :::;till with this reserve and submission, nisi prius, etc. "unless I should first understand by my Il10st serene Lords (the Emperors) that they com- Inanded it to be done 4 ". Thus, if this 'perfect' instance (as S. 'V. calls it) have any force in it, his cause is gone, whatever advantage he pretends to gain by it. Besides, the Emperor's command was, that Gre- 1 [Cf. Dr Hammonò, Dispatcher Dispatcht, chap. v. sect. IX. :n; W orks, Vol. II. p. 29-1. ] 2 (Epist. Lib. VII. Indict. II. ep. lxv; Opp. Tom. IV. co1. 276, D.] 3 [ubi supra, 33.] 4 [The whole sentence is as follows: "Quod ego amliens, ad eundem prrovaricatorem, qui inordinate orùinatus est protinus misi ut omnino missarum solemnia celebrare nullo modo præsumeret, nisi prius a serenissimis dominis cognoscerem, si hoc fieri ipsi jussissent, quod ei sub excommunicationis interpositione mandavi." Gregor. Epist. Lib. IV. Indict. XIII. ep. xxxiv; Opp. Tom. IV. coL 140, c.] 86 PR E::;CRIPTION. [CHAP. VI. gory should judg'e him 1, }uxta statllta canonica 2; and Gregory himself pleads, "quicquid esset canonicum faceremus 3 ". Thus S. 'V.'s cause is killed twice by his own , perfect' instance: for if Saint Gregory took the judgment upon hiIn in obedience to the Emperor, and did proceed, and was to proceed in judging ac- cording to the Canons, where was then the universal J\Ionarchy ? Yet it is confessed by Dr Hammond, which is a full answer to all the other (not so 'perfect' instances), " that in case of injury done to any by a Primate or Patriarch (there being no lawful superior, who had power over him) the iI"Üured person sometimes made his complaint to the Bishop of Rome, as being the most eIninent person in the Church; and in such case he questionless might, and ought in all fraternal charity, to admonish the Primate or Patriarch what his dut.y \vas, and di:::;claim conunullioll with him, un- less he refonn 4 ". But it ought to be shcwn that Gregory did form- ally excommunicate any such Primate or Patriarch, or juridically and authoritively act in any such cause, without the expres8 license of the Emperor,-which not being done, his instances are answered: besides, I [i. e. the Primate of Byzacium, and not the Bishop of Salona, last mentioned.] 2 [Above, p. 85.] 3 [" Tame'n piissimus imperator admonuit, ut transmitteremus, et qui equid esset canonicum facercmus." Greg. Epist. Lib. VII. ep. lxv. col. 276, D.] 4 [Dispatcher Dispatcht, chap. v. sect. IX. * 50; Wor1.s, Vol. 11. p. 296.] CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 87 Saint Gregory always pleads the ancient Canons, which is fhr from any claim of Universal Pastorship by Divine right, or donation of Christ to Saint Peter. "I appeal,'" saith Doctor Hammond, "to S. 'V. whe- ther that were the interpretation of'secundU1n Canones', and yet hc knows, that no other tcnure but that will stand him in stead I". Indeed, "the unhappiness is," as the Doctor ob- scrves 2, " that such acts, at first but necessary fraternal charity, were by ambitious men drawn into example, and nleans of assuming power; which yet as they pretend frOlll Christ to St Peter, on the score of Universal Pastorship, cannot be more vehemently prejudiced by any thing, than by these examples, which being rightly considered, pretend no higher than ecclesiastical Canons, and the universal Laws of charity;.. . but never made claim to any suprenlacy of power over all Bishops by Divine institution". It yet appears not that Saint Gregory practised the thing, but to avoid arrogance disclaims the name of Universal Bishop. T. C. against my Lord of Canterb ury 3 goes ano- [Objec- tIOn.] .. ther wa;y to work: he grants the title, and also the thing signified by it, to be both renounced by Saint Gregory; but distinguishes of the tenll 'Universal Bishop' into grmnmatical, to the exclusion of all others from being properly Bishops, and metaphorical, 1 [Ibid. 51.] 2 [Ibid.] 3 [Labyrinthus Cantuariensis, p. 197. 3. In this instance, as in a few others, the text of Fullwood reads A. C., which was the assumed title of Fisher; whereas the author of the Labyrinthus (to which Stillingfleet replied) was T. C. Thomas Carwell, alias Thorold.] 88 PRESCRIPTIOX. [CHAl'. VI. whereby the Bishops are secured, as such, in their respective dioceses, yet all of them under the juris- diction of the Universal Bishop, viz. of Rome. Solution. This distinction Doctor Stillingfleet J destroys, not more elaborately than fully and perfectly: shewing, that it is impossible Saint Gregory should under- stand the term 'Universal Bishop' in that strict gramInatical sense; for the reason 2 why this title was refused, was because it seemed to diminish the honour of other Bishops, when it was offered the Bishops of Rome in a Council of six hundred and thirty Bishops; who cannot be imag'ined to divest themselves by their kindness of their very office,-though they hazarded somewhat of their honour. Can we think the Council, that gave the same title to John, intended thus to depose themselves? How comes it to pass, that none of John's or Cyriacus's succeslSors did ever challenge this title, in that literal sense, if so it was understood? But to waive many things impertinent, it is evi- dent Saint Gregory understood the title metaphori- cally, from the reasons he gives against it; which also equally serve to prove against S. 'V. 3 that it was not so much the title as the authority of an Universal Bishop, which he so much opposed. He argueth thus to John the Patriarch: "'Vhat wilt thou answer to Christ the Head of the Universal Church in the day of judgment, who dost endeavour 1 [Vindication of Archbp Laud, Vol. II. pp. 226, et soqq.] 2 [. . . "omnium sacerdotum honor adimitur, dum ab uno sibi dementer alTogatur," etc. Greg. Epist. Lib. IV. Indict. XIII. ep. xxxii. co1. 137, E.] 3 [Ahovp. p. 85.] CHAr. VI.] PRESCRIPTIOK. 89 to subject all his members to thee, under the name of Universal Bishop 1 ?" Again, doth he not " arise to the height of singu- larity, that he is subject to none, but rules oyer a1l 2 ?" And can you have a more perfect description of the present Pope than is here given? Or is it the title or the power, that Inakes him subject to none, that 'rules over all ?' Again, he imitates the 3 pride of Lucifer, endea- vouring to be Head (not sure in title, but power) of the Church triumphant, as the Pope of the Church militant: exalting his throne (not his name), as Gre- gory adds, above the stars of God, viz, the Bishops, and the height of the clouds 4. Again, Saint" Peter was the first member of the Church: Paul, Andrew, and John, what are they else but Heads of particular Churches? And yet they are all 111embers of the Church under one Head 5", (i. e. Christ, as before 6 he had said) :-we see he allows not Peter himself to be Head of the Church. "None that was truly holy, was ever called by that name of 1 [" Tu quid Christo, universalis sanctre ecc1esiæ capiti in extremi judicii es dicturus examine, qui cuncta ejus membra ti- bimet conaris universalis appellatione supponere ?" Lib. IV. Indict. XIII. cp. xxxviii; Opp. Tom. IV. co!. 145, D.] 2 [. . . "ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere ut et nulli subesse, et Bolus omnibus præessc videretur?" Ibid. J 3 [Ibid.] 4 [Ibid. Gl'egory here quotes Isaiah xiv. 12-15.] 5 [" Certe Petrus apostolus primum membrum sanctæ et univer- salis ecc1esiæ est. Paulus, Andreas, Johannes, quid aliud quam singularium sunt plebium capita? Et tamen sub uno capite omncs mcmbra sunt ccc1csiæ." Ibid. co1. H6, A.] 6 [Ahove, note 1.] 90 PRE CIUPTION. [CIIAP. VI. Universaillishopi :"-which he makes to be the Harne with the l-lead of the Church. But lastly, suppose 8t Gregory did mean, that this title in its strict grammatical sense was to be abhorred, and not as metaphorically taken. 'Vhat hath the Pope gained, who at this day bears that title in the highest and IStrictest sense imaginable? as the Doctor 2 proves; and indeed [it] needs no proof, being' evident of itself, and to the observation of the whole world. Thus all the hard words of St Gregory ut- tered so long agon, against such as admitted or desired that title, unavoidably fall upon the 11lodern Roman Bishops, that take upon thelll to be the sole Pastors of the Church; and say that they are (Ecu- menical Bishops, and that all jurisdiction is derived from them. They are 'Lucifers' and 'Princes of Pride'; using a 'vain, new, rash, foolish, proud, pro- fane, erroneous, wicked, hypocritical, singular, pre- !;umptuous, blasphemous, name;' as that holy Pope inveighed against it. l\Ioreover, as he al!;o adds, 'they transgress God's laws, violate the Canons, dishonour the Church, despise their brethren, and caulSe Schism 3. Objection. But it is said 4, that 'Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches all at once. Therefore (saith A. C.) the Pope had of right lSome authority over the 1 [... "quo (nomine) vocari null us præsumpsit, qui vcracitcr sanctus fuit." Ibid.] 2 [Stillingflcet's Vindication, Vol. II. pp. 232, et scqq.] 3 [Cf. Lib. IV. epp. 32,34,36,38, 39; Lib. YI. cpp. 24,28,30,31; Lib. VlI. cpo 70; passim.] 4 [See Archbp Laud's Conference with Fisher, sect. xxv. 13, 1). 150. cd. Oxf. 1839; and Bp Stillingfleet's Vindication, Vol. 11. pp. 238, 239.] CHAP. VI.] pnESCRIPTIO . 91 Asian Bishops, and by consequence oyer the whole Church; and this appears in tha,t Irenæus, in thp name of the Gallican Bishops, writes to Victor not to proceed so l'ashly in thi action; as appear in Euse- bi us '. (1) 'Ye answer, that those Bishops alllong whonl Solution. Irenæus was one, did severely rebuke that Pope for offering to excommunicate those Asian Churches 1 :- therefore they did not believe him to be the snpren1e, infallible Pastor of the whole Church. (2) His letters declaring that excommunication, not pleasing all his own Bishops, they countermanded 2 him :-surely not thinking hÎ1n to be what Pope would now be esteemed. (3) Hence Cardinal Perron is angry with Euse- bins, and calls him an Arian, and an enemy to the Church of Rome; for hinting, that though the Pope did declare thenl excomn1ul1icate, yet it took no effect, because other Bishops continued still in communion with them 3. (4) But the force of the whole argument leans upon a plain mistake of the ancient discipline, both in the nature, and the root or ground of it. For the nature of ancient exconlmunication, espe- 1\Iistake of the Nature cially when practised by one Church against another, and o!>t of DlSCl- did not imply a positive act of authority, but a nega- pline. tive act of charity; or a declaring against the com- munion of such with themselves; and therefore was 1 [<Þ;POJITlU 8è leal al TOVTWII cþwllal, 1TXTJIeTLKWnpolI KaOa1TTop.ÉIIWII TOV BíKTOpO!>. 'Ell olr Kal Ó Elp1Jllaío!>, Ie. T. X. Euseb. IIist. Eccl. Lib. v. c. 24. Tom. I. p. 369; ed. Oxon. 1838.] 2 [' AJlTL1TapaK X -ÚOJITQL 8 Ta ailTCf, Ie. T. X. Ibid.] 3 [Cardinal du Perron's Reply to the King of Groat Britain, Book II. chap. VI. p. 163, Engl. Tntnsl. Douay, 1630.] 92 PRE CRIPTIO . [CHAP VI. done by equals to equals, and sonletinles by inferiors to superiors. In equals,-thus, Johannes Antiochenus 1, in the Ephesine Council, excommunicated Cyril, Pa- triarch of Alexandria; and in inferiors (in the sens(' of our Ronlan adversaries)-for the African Bishops excommunicated Pope Yigilius 2 . Hence also, Acacius 3 , the Patriarch of Constantinople, expunged the name of Felix, Bishop of Rome, out of the diptychs of the Church; and Hilary anathematized Pope Liberius 4. Therefore Victor's declaring the Asian Churches to be excomnllmicate, is no argulnent of his power oyer them. Secondly, the root or ground of the ancient dis- cipline is also as plainly mistaken,-which was not authority always, but care and charity. Care, I say, not only of themselvcs who used it, but also of the Church that was censurcd, and indced of thc wholc Church. It is here proper to considcr, that though Bishops had thcir peculiar seats, and limits for thcir jurisdic- 1 [The circumstances are fully related by Fleury, Histoire Eccles. Liv. xxv. s. 45.] 2 Victor Tununensis, Chronicon, p. 10, [col. I; apud Thesaur. Temporum, opera J. Scaliger. Amstelod. 1658: "Post consulatum Basilii, v. c. anno x. Africani antistites Vigilium Romanum cpi- scopum damnatorom 111. Capitulorum synodaliter a Catholica communione, reservato ei pænitentiæ loco, recIudunt," etc. Cf. Flemy, Liv. XXXIlI. s. 26, 32. In the sixth General Council, Hono- l'ius, Bishop of Rome, was anathematized as a Monothelite. See Bingham, Antiquities, Book XVI. chap. iii. s. 12, and Dr Routh's Opuscula, Vol. 11. p. 153, and notes.] 3 [Fleury, IIist. Ecc1. Liv. xxx. s. 17.] 4 [" Iterum tibi anathema et tertio, prævaricator Liberi! " Fragment. S. Hilar. ; Opp. colI. 426, 427; ed. Paris. 1631. See Bower's' Li ves of the Popes,' Vol. I. pp. 136, 137. Lond. 1748. ThE' Abbé Fleury makes no attempt to deny the apostasy of Liberius. "II renoßl;a à la communion de saint Athanase, et embrassa celIe (leB Orientaux, ("est-à-dire, des Ariens." Hist. Eccl. Liv. XIlI. s. 46.] CHAP. YI.] PRESCRIPTIOX. 93 tions, yet they had all a charitive inspection and care of that Universal Church, and sometÏ1nes denomina- tions accordingly. Hence we deny not that the ancient Bishops of Rome deservedly gained the title of æcumenical Bishops,-a thing of so great moment in the contro- versy, that, if well considered, might advance very far towards the ending of it. F or so the title hath been given to others, as well as the Bishop of Rome; anù therefore, it could not argue any authority peculiar to hinl. Also the saIne universal care of the Church (the occasion of the title) hath been acknowledged in others as well as in him ; and indeed the power, which is the root of that care, as the occasion of that title, is founded in all Bishops. Here are three things noted, which may be dis- Three t . 1 . d d Notes. Inct y conSl ere . (1) Power is given to all Bishops with an imme- diate respect to the good of the whole Church; so that if it were possible, that every particular Bishop cotÙd take care of the whole Church, they have authority enough in their function to do it,-though it be impossible, and indeed inconsistent with peace and order, that all should undertake it. And there- fore they have their bounds and limits set them; hence their particular dioceses: therefore, as St Cyprian, 'there is but one Bishopric in the whole world, a part of which is held by every Bishop 1 ' . 1 [" Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur." De Unitate Ecclesiæ, cap. v. 'In solidum' is a law-phrase, and signifies that part of this one episcopacy is so committed to every single bishop, that he is nevertheless charged with taking care of the whole. Leslie's Answer to the Bp of Meaux: ,V orks, Vol. III. p. 231; Oxf. 1832.] 94 PRESCRIPT[OX. [CHAP. VI. (2) Thus we find in the prinlitive Chureh, that every Bishop had his partieular charge, yet they still regarded the common good; extending their care (the second thing observed) sometimes beyond their own division, by their counsel and direction,-yea, and exercised their functions sometimes in other places. Of which Dr Stillingfleet! gives luany in- stances in Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenæus, St Cyprian. Faustus. Yea, upon this very ground, N azianzen 2 saith of St Cyprian, that 'he not only governed the Churches of Carthage, but all the western parts. and even almost all the eastern, southern, and northern too, as far as he went'. Arsenius speaks more home to Athanasius 3 : "'V e embrace (saith he) peace and unity with the Catholic Church, over which, thou, through the grace of God, clost preside". 'Vhence Gregory N azianzen 4 saith of Athanasius, that 'he made laws for the whole earth'. And 8t Basil s writes to him, 'that he had care of all the Churches as of his own'; and calls him 'the Head and Chief of all'. And St ChrysoHtom 6 in the praise of Eustathius, 1 Rational Account, pp. 424,425; [Vol. II. p. 216, new edit.] 2 Orate XVIII. p. 281, [A. Opp. Paris. 1619; Ov yàp Tfj!> KapX1J- 80llíWII 1TpoKa()i' TaL P.ÓIIOII 'KKXTJUía!>, . . . àXXà Kaì 1Táu1J!> Tfjr ;U1T pí01J, K. T. X.] 3 Athanas. ad Imperator. Constant. Apol. [Opp. Tom. I. p. 786, D. Kal p.Úr àU1Ta'óp. lIoL T II lp II1JII Kal ;IIWULII 1TpÒ!> II lea()oXLK 1I 'KKXTJUíall, !> Uti leaTà Xåpw 8fOV 1TpotuTauUL, K. T. X.] .. Orate XXI. p. 392, [c: 1I0p.0() nî 8; Tn OlKOVP. i llll1TáXIII.] 5 Ep. LII. [Opp. Tom. III. p. 79; ed. Paris. 1638.] 6 Opp. Tom. v. p. 631. ed. Savil. [Tom. II. 607, ß. ed. Paris. l;IS; Kal yàp II 1Tmm8 1Jp.Éllor leaXwr 1Tapà T TOV rrll -úp.aTo!> XnpLTO!>. ÔTL T !> iKKXTWí(l!> 1T(>oHTTwTa oi'le iK íll1J!> P.ÓII1J!> K 8 u()m 8Û . . . UUAP. Vr.] PRESCRIPTIOX. 95 the. Patriarch of Antioch, aith, that 'lw was Ill- structed by the Divine Spirit, that he was 110t only to have care of that Church ovcr which he was set, but of the whole Church throughout the world'. K ow what is this but to say in effect, these great men were Universal Bishops, though indeed, they none of then1 had power of jurisdiction over any Church but their own; as, notwithstanding the general care of the ancient good Bishops of Rome, had of the good of the whole-and their influence aud reverence in order thereunto-the Bishop of Rome had not. (3) Upon the former ground and occasion, somc Bishops in the most famous Churches had the honour of the title of {Ecumenical or "lY niversal Bishops. But here we Blust confess, the Bishops of ROllH" had the advantage, being the most famous of all ; both by reason of their own primitive luerit, and the glory of the empire, especially the latter. The Roman empire was itself accounted 'Uni- versal'; and the greatne s of the empire advanced the Church to the same title, and consequently thc Bishops of that Church above other . 1. That the Roman empire was so, appears by a 111uItitude of testiInonies, u1aking orbis Rornanus and orbis lmman'lts synonymous, collected by Dr Stilling- fleet I. Hence Ammianus l\Iarcellinus calls Romp caput mundi, 'the head of the 'V orld '; and the Roman Senate Asylum ìJlundi totius. And it was usual then to call whatever was out of the Roman empire bar- c1 à Kal 1Táu1J!> Tij!> KaTcì T II OlK01JJLill1JII KfLP.ill1J!>. Othcr proofs of this position may be seen in Bingham, Book II. chap. v.] I Rational Account, pp. 425, 42G; [Vol. n. pp. 21R, 219. new cd.] 96 PRESCRIPTION [CHAP. VI. ba'ì'ia, as the same Doctor I proves at large. Therefore that empire was called in Greek OîKOIlfA. VfJ2. 2. Some Bishops in the great Churches in the Roman empire were called (Ecmnenical, as that re- lates to the OîKOIlfA.ÉV'1, viz. the Roman empire. This appears because the very ground of the advancenlentof the Patriarch of Constantinople was the greatness of the city, as appears in the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon 3 about it; and the privileges of old Rome gave the nleasure of the privileges of new ROlne. And in probability, the ground of that Patriarch's usurping the title of (Ecumenical Patriarch was but to correspond with the greatness of his city, which was then the seat of the empire; as Dr Stillingfleet very reasonably conjectures 4 . l\Ioreover, all the three Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, had expressions given theln tantamount to that title :-' the government of the whole world', 'the care of all the Churches', 'the government as it were of the whole body of the Church', as Dr Stillingfleet 5 particularly shews. But most clear and full to that purpose, as he observes, is the testimony of Theodoret concerning N estorius being made Patriarch of Constantinople: "He .was intrusted with the govermnent of the Catholic Church of the orthodox at Constantinople, and thereby of the whole world 6 ". 1 Ibid. 2 Acts xi. 28. [Luke ii. 1] 3 [See above, p. 35, note 1.] 4 [Vol. II. p. 219. Ct. Bingham, Book II. chap. xvii. s. 21.] 5 [Ibid.] (j TheodOl'. Hæret. Fabul. Lib. IV. c. 12; Opp. Tom. IV. p. 245. I CUAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 97 'Vhere shall we fÌ1ul so illustrious a testimony for the Bishop of Rome? Or, if we could, we see it would prove nothing peculiar to him. Therefore, if the Council of Chalcedon I did offer the title of Universal Patriarch, or if they did not,-but as the truth rather is, some papers, re- ceived in that Council, did give him that title,- it signifieth nothing to prove the Pope's universal authority. Therefore Simon Vigorius 2 ingenuously confesseth, that 'when the ",Vestern Fathers call the Roman Bishops Bishops of the universal Church, they do it from the custom of their Churches, not that they look on them as Universal Bishops of the whole Church, but in the same sense, that the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, are called so; or as they are universal over the Churches under their own patriarchate; or that in KaTà KWIIUTaIlTLllotÍ7ro LII Tc.JII òpB08ógwII KaBo LI( !> IKK TJUía!> T II 1Tpo 8p{all 1TLUT V TaL, ov8ÈII 8i TTOII KaL rij!> OìK01JJLÉVT}!> á1Táur}!>.] 1 [Gregory (Epist. Lib. IV. Indict. XIII. ep. xxxii.) speaks as if this title was formally offered and declined. The true state of the case is somewhat different, as Bishop Stillingfleet shews from the Acts of the Council. 'Vindication;' Vol. II. pp. 220, 221.] 2 Comment. ad Resp. Synodal. ConcH. Basil. p. 37; [quoted by Stillingfleet, Vol. II. p. 221.] 7 98 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI. that offer of the title of Universal, and his refusing of it, and inveighing against it; and that these were engines used by hhn to deprive others of the same title, if not to advance his own see to the power signified by it ;-though if he did indeed design any such thing, it is an argument that he was ashau1ed openly to clailn or own it, while he rails against the title (in the effects of it, which depended upon the power itself) as such an abominable thing. However, if the Council of Chalcedon did indeed offer (or only record) that title to Gregory, it is more than manifest, it could not possibly be intended to carr.y in it the authority of the whole Church, or any more than that qualified sense of Vigorius before mentioned; because other Patriarchs had the same titIe,-and we see no reason to believe, that that Council intended to subject thelnselves and all Patri- archs to the authority of the "T estern Pope, contrary to their great design of advancing the see of Con- stantinople to equal privileges with that of Rome; as appears by their fifteenth Session, Canon XXVIII, and their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo I. Thus the bare title is no argument,-anù by what hath been said touching the grandeur of the Roman empire, and the answerable greatness and renown of the ROlnan Church, frequent recourse had unto it fronl other Churches, for counsel and assistance, is of 1 [See this letter in Labbe, Concil. Tom IV. 834, et seqq. Leo opposed the twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon, on the plea that it violated the sixth Nicene Canon, which gave the second rank to Alexandria. Notwithstanding his opposition, th{' Canon stood its ground.] ( CUAP. 'TI.] PRESCRIPTION. 99 no more force to conclude her suprelnacy, nor any matter of wonder at all. Experience teacheth us that it is and will be so in all cases; not only a renowned Lawyer, Physician, but Divine, shall have great resort, and almost uni- versal addresses. An honest and prudent countryman shall be upon all commissions; the Church of Rome was then falnous both for learning, wisdom, truth, piety, and I may add tradition itself, as well as great- ness, both in the eye of the world and all other Churches; and her zeal and care for general good, keeping peace, and spreading the grace of the Gospel, was sometimes admirable. And now no wonder that applications in difficult cases were frequently and generally made hither, which at first were received and answered with love and charity, though soon after the ambition of Popes knew how to advance, and hence to assume authority. Fron1 this, we see, it was 110 great venture (how- ever T. C. term it), for Archbishop Laud to grapple with the authority of Irenæus, who saith I, 'To this Church (meaning ROlne) propter potentiorem p'rincipa- litatem, for the Inore powerful principality of it, it is necessary that every Church, that is the faithful 'llndique, should have recourse; in qua sempel' ab Ids qui S'Unt ttndiq1le conSe'1'vata est ea quæ est ab Apostolis traditio.' I [Adv. Hæres.] Lib. III. c.3. [Tertu1lian has a similar passage (De Præscriptione, cap. XXXVI,) where he refers the disputant, if in Achaia, to Corinth; if in proconsular Asia, to Ephesus; if in Italy or Africa, to Rome; all these being apostolical Churches, and therefore likely to have retained the true doctrine. See Dr Routh's Opuscula, Vol. I. p. 1M, and note, p. 206.] 7-2 100 PRESCRIPTIOK. [CHAP. VI. His lordship seems to grant the whole,-Rome being then the imperial city, and o a Church of more powerful authority than any other, yet not the head of the Church Universal. This may suffice without the pleasant criticizing about 'llndique, with which, if you have a mind to be merry, you may entertain yourself in Dr Stillingfleetl. But indeed A. C. is guilty of many mistakes in reasoning, as well as criticizing: he takes it for granted, that this principality is attributed by Ircnæus here to ROll1e, as the Church, not as the city. (2) That the neccssity arising hence was concerning the :r.'aith, and not secular affhirs; neither of which is certain, or in likelihood true 2. Besides, if both were granted, the necessity is not such as supposeth duty or authority in the faithful, or in Rome; but (as the ense nlakes evident) a neces- sity of expedience, Ronle being most likely to give satisf..'tction touching that tradition about which that dispute was. Lastly, the principality here implies not proper authority, or power to decide the controversy: one kind of authority it CT ßaUJL{a!> VP.roll vu ß ía!> UVII f1Taíllcp ()a1JJLá'oJL 1I -n;1I () apÉuToII 1TpÓ() ULII. . . ÍÀap 1Jóp. JIOL 1T pl riì!> TOLaVT1J!> EVU ßOV!> 1TpO()ÉU w!>, P.ETà Troll fie ßá()o1J!> riì!> Kap8ía!> òð1Jpp.roll vxapLUTfîll å1T1JP áp. ()a.] 3 [W orks, Vol. II. p. 290, 5.] CUAP. 'T] PRESCRIPTION. 103 Pope Gregory received the power of hearing and determining causes several tiInes (as he himself eon- fesseth) from the Emperor; as we shewed before I. Hence Pope Eleutherius 2 to I{ing Lucius, "You are the Vicar of Chri:st :" -the same in effect which is contained in the laws of Edward the Confe::,::,or 3 . And Pope Urban 4 the Second entertained our Archbishop Anselm, in the Council of Bari, with the title of the Pope of another world, or (as some relate it) the 'Apostle of another world, and a Patriarch worthy to be reverenced.' Now when the Bishops of Rome did acknowledge that the civil magistrate had power to conunand the assenlbling of General Councils, and to cOlnnland Popes thenlselyes to hear and determine ecclesi- a tical causes ;-when they acknowledged the King of England to be the VIcar of Christ, and the Arch- bishop of Canterbury Pope of another world ;-we nlay, I think, safely conelude that whatever they thought of the prÏ1nacy of dignity, they did not believe themselves, or give occasion to others to believe, that they had then the jurisdiction of Eng- land, much less of the whole world. Indeed, the power of Emperors over Popes was exercised severely, and continued long in practice 5. 1 [See above, p. 85.] 2 [For the reply attributed to Eleutherius, see Collier, Eccles. Hist. Book I. cent. i : Vol. I. p. 14; ed. Lond. 1708.] 3 [Leges Edw. Confess. XVII; in 'Ancient Laws and Insti- tutes,' ed. Thorpe, V 01. I. p. 449.] .. [Vide W. Malmesbur. in Anselm. p. 223,1. 33; ed. Francof. 1601; Archbp Laud's Conference with Fisher, sect. xxv. x. p. 141, ed, Oxf. 1839.] 5 Vide King James's Defence [of the right of Kings; \Vorks, 104 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI. A. D. 654, Constantius bound and banished Pope l\iartin -A.D. 963, Otho rejected Pope John XIII. and lnade Leo VIII. Pope: and John XIV., Grcgory V. and Sylvester II. were made Popes by the Otho's.-A. D. 1007, Henry II. deposed three Popes. This practicc is confessed till Gregory VII.; and before A. D. 679, Popes submitted to Emperors by purchasing their investitures of them, by submissive tcrms, and bow- ing the knee before them. SECTION YIII. NOR THE 'VORDS OF THE IMPERIAL LAW. I F the ancicnt Councils, or practice, or Popes themselves, offered nothing to persuade our an- cestors to a belief of the Pope's universal power or possession of England, certainly we lTIay despair of finding any such thing in the ancient Laws of the. Church ;-which are justly prcsumed to contain the sense and rule of all. " 'Vere all other rccords of antiquity silcnt," saith our late Primate 1, "the Civil Law is proof enough:" for that is a lTIOnmnent of the Primitive Church; and not only so, it bcing the Imperial, as well as Canon Law, it gives us the reason and Law both of the Church and the whole world. Now what saith the Law? It first forbids the title, and then the practice. pp. 408, -109. cd. Lond. 1616. These and other similar instances are there related on the authority of Platina, Baroni us, awl Sigebert of Gemblours.] 1 [Archbp Laud, Conference with Fisher, sect. xxv. x. p. HI. ed. 1R3D.] CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 105 P1'imæ sedis Apostolus, 'the Patriarch or Bishop of the first see,' i:::i not to be called Prince of the Priests or Supreme Priest I , nor, as the African Canon adds, aliquid lwJusnwdi, 'any other thing of that kin<.12: The practice of any such power was expre:ssly forbidden, and not the proud title only: the very text of the Law saith, a Patriarc/ta /ton datw' Ap- pellatio, 'from a Patriarch there lies no appeaP.' And this we have found agreeable to the J\Iilevi- tan Council 4 (where Saint Augustine was present), forbidding under pain of excon1ffilmication any ap- peal to any foreign Councils or Judicatures: and this is again consonant to the fifth Canon of Nice 5 , as that was to the thirty-fourth Apostolic 6 ,-where the PrÍ1nate in every nation is to be accounted their head. Now what do our adversaries say to this? Indeed they seeln to be put to it ; and though their wits are ycry pregnant to deliver many answers (such as thcy be) in nlost cases, they all seem to join in one poor slight cvasion here; lla1nely, that 'the Laws concerning appeab did only conccrn inferior Clergymen, but Bishops were allowed to appeal to Ron1c, even by the I Corpus Juris Canon. DcCl.ct. Part I. Distinct. XCIX. c. 111. [" Primm scdis Episcopus non appellctur princeps saccnlotum, vcl 8ummus saccrdos."] 2 [Ibid.] 3 Cod. Thcodos. Lib. I. Tit. iv. 29; Authcnt. Collat. n.. Tit. xv. c. 22. I Can. XXII; [LabIlo, ConcH. Tom. 11. 151 .] '" [Labbe, ConcH. Tom. 11. 32. A.] 6 [Pat res Apol'tol. cd. Coteler. T()m. I. p. 412.] 106 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI. African Canon, and acknowledged In that Council's Epistle to Pope Boniface.' Three bold sayings: (1) that the Law concerned not the appeals of Bishops. (2) The Council of Africa decreed Bishops' appeals to Rome. (3) And acknowledged it in their Letter to Pope Boniface. But are these things as truly as boldly said? For the first which is their conlment, whereby they would restrain the sense of the Laws, to the xclusion of the Bishops, we shall consider their ground for it, and then propose our reason, and the Law expressly against it; and then their reasons will need little answer. Objectiofl. They say the Law reacheth not the difference between Patriarchs thenlselves. Solution. But if there should happen a difference betwixt a Patriarch and the Pope, who shall decide that? Both these inconveniences are plainly solved by re- ferring all Huch extraordinary difficulties to a General Council. But why should the Law allow foreign appeals to Bishops and not to Priests? Are all Bishops Pa- triarchs? Is not a Patriarch over his Bishops, as well as a Bishop over his Priests? l\Iay not the gl'WJamen of a Priest be given by his Bishop, or the difference alllong Priests be as considerable 1 to the Church sonletimes as among Bishops? Or hath not the Uni- versal Pastor, if the Pope be so, power over and carc 1 Cælestius [who went to Rome] denied the necessity of grace, [and for his Pelagianism had been previously condemned by two Synods held at Carthage in A. D. 412, and 416. Labbe, Concil. Tom. II. 1510, 1533.] CUAt'. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 107 of Priest::; a::; well a Bishops? Or can the SWIl'i1mm Imperium receive limits fron1 Canon or Law? To say, that Priests' are forbidden to appeal, but the Pope is not forbidden to receive their Appeal , ib plainly to cripple the Law, and to make it yield to all the inconveniences of foreign appeals against its true end. But what if this very Canon, they pretend to allow appeals from Bishops to Rome, do expressly forbid that very thing it is brought to allow? And it doth so undeniably, as appears in the authentic collection of the African Canons 1; non provocent ad transmarina judicia, sed ad primates suar'llm provin- ciarum, aut ad universale Concilium, Bicut et de Episcopis sæpe constitlltum est. The same thing 'had often been determined in the case of Bishops.' Perron 2 and others say, 'this clause was not in Objection. the ancient l\Iilevitan Canons.' Have they nothing else but this grouncUess eon- Solution. ceit to support their universal Pastorship against express Law, for four hundred years after Christ? Sure it behoved highly to produce a true authentic copy of those Canons, wherein that clause is omit- ted ;-which because they do not, we conclude they cannot. However, it is manifest, that the san1e thing against appeals of Bishops to Rome had been often deter- mined, by far greater testimony than the bare asser- 1 [Vide Cod. Canon. Eccles. African. can. XXVIII; a})lU] Labb. Concil. Tom. II. 1064, n.] 2 [Reply to King James, Book III. chap. x. pp. 329, et seqq. English Trans!. Douay. 1630.] lOb PRESCRIPTIO :. [CHAP. VI. tion of Perron and his partncrs, VIZ. that gcneral Council of Carthage, A. D. 419, about three years after that l\Iilcvitan. At the end of the first Session, they reviewed the Canons of the seventeen lesser Councils, which J ustellus nlentions ;-and wherein, no doubt, that point had been often determined ;-and out of them all composed that Codex canonl.lm Ecclesiæ Aþ'icanæ, with that clause inserted; as appears both in the Greek and nlany ancient Latin copies, and was so received and pleaded by the Council of Rheims, as Hincmarus proves as well as others I. Gratian confesseth it, but adds this antidote 2, Nisi fm'te Romanam Sedem appellave'rit, i. e. 'nonc shall appeal to Ronlc (the nlain design of this Council) cxccpt thcy do appeal to R0111e ;'-not expounding the Canon, but exposing himsclf and that exccllcnt Council. Objection. But T. C. urgeth 3 the Epistle of that Council to Boniface (as was before noted), and thence proves that the Council acknowledged, that Bishops had power in their own cause to appeal to Rome. Solution. It is true, they do say4 that, in a letter writtcn a ycar before to ZOSin1l1S, they had granted liberty to Bishops to appeal to Rome. This is truc, but scarce honest,-the next words in the letter spoil the argu- mcnt and the sport too: for they further say a, that 1 [These particulars are abridged from Bp Stillingfleet, Vindi- cation, Vol. II. p. 188, who states them on the authority of Justel's Preface to the Codex Canonum Eccl. African.] 2 [Apud Labb. Concil. Tom. II. 1554, A.] 3 [Stillingflcet's Vindication, Vol. II. p. 190.] .. [Epist. ad Bonif. apud Labb. Conci1. Tom. II. l1-1l1, c, D.] [, [Ihid. 11-11, c.] Cu.\.P. VI.] PRESCRIPTI01\. 109 because the Pope contended that the appeals of Bishops were contained in the Nicene Canons, they were contented to yield that it should be so, till the true Canons were produced. Now what can the reader desire to put an eternal end to this controversy-and consequently to the clahn of the Universal Pastor in this age-but an account of the judgment of this Council, when they had received the copy of the Nicene Canons (on which the point depended) out of the East. This you have in that excellent Epistle of theirs to Pope Cælestine, who succeeded Boniface; and the elaborate Dr Stillingfleet 1 , who searcheth all things to the bottom, hath transcribed it at large, as a worthy l110nument of antiquity, and of very great light in the present controversy. To hhn I shall refer the reader for the whole, and only note some few ex- pressions to the purpose. , 'Ve' (say they) 'earnestly beseech you to adnlit no more into your Communion those whom we have cast out: for your reverence will easily perceive thai this is forbid in the Council of Nice. For if this be taken care for, as to the inferior Clergy and Laity, how much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops? ... The Decrees of Nice have subjected both the inferior Clergy and Bishops to their l\Ietropolitans; for they have most wisely and justly provided, that every business be determined in the place where it began...Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one, if he be offended, to appeal to the Council of the 1 Rational Account, pp. 410, 411; [Vol. II. pp. 191, et scqq.; new edit.] 110 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI. province, or even to an universal CounciL... Or how can a judgment Inade beyond th sea be valid, to which the persons of necessary witnesses cannot be brought, by reason &c. For this sending of men to us from your holiness, we do not find it commanded by any Synod of the Fathers. And as for that which you did long since send to us by Faustinus, our fellow Bishop, as belonging to the Council of Nice, we could not find it in the truest copies, sent by holy Cyril our colleague, Bishop of Alexandria, and by the venerable Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople; which also we sent to your predecessor Boniface, &c.... Take heed also of sending to us any of your clerks for ex- ecutors to those who desire it, lest we seelll to bring the swelling pride of the world into the Church of Christ....And concerning our brother Faustinus (Api- arius being now for his wickedness ca!:St out of the Church of Christ,) we are cOlúident that our brotherly love continuing.. . Mrica shall no more be troubled with him.' This is the sum of that famous Epistle :-the Pope and the African Fathers referred the point in dif- ference to the true Canons of the Nicene Council,- the Canon:s determine against the Pope, and from the whole story it is inferred evidentIy,- (1) That Pope Boniface himself implieth his ju- risdiction was limited by the General Council of Nice, and that all the Laity and Clergy too (except Bishops) that lived beyond the seas, and consequently in Eng- land, were exempted from his jurisdiction by that Council. (2) Pope Boniface even then, when he made his CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. ]11 claim and stood npon his ternlS with the Ati-Ïcan Fathers, pleads nothing for the appeals of transl1larine Bishops to Rome, but the allowance of the Council of Nice,-no 'Tu es Petrus' then heard of. (3) Then it seems the practices of Popes thenl- selves were to be ruled and judged by the ancient Canons and Laws of the Church. (4) The African Fathers declared the Pope fhl- lible and actually mistaken, both as to his own power and sense of the Council; proving substantially that neither authority from Councils, nor any foundation in justice, equity or order of govermllent, or public conveniency, will allow or suffer such appeals to Ronle; and that the Pope had no authority to end Legates to hear causes in such cases. All these things lie so obviously in prejudice both of the Pope's possession and title, as Universal Pastor at that tin1e, both in his own and the Church's sense, that to apply them further would be to insult; which I shall forbear, seeing Baronius is so ingenuous as to confess, there are some 'hard things' in this Epistle, and Perron hath hereupon exposed his wit with so much sweat and so little purpose, but his own cor- rection and reproaeh,-as Dr Stillingfleet notes 1. Yet we may modestly conclude fron1 this one plain instance, that the sense of the Nicene Council was defined by the African Council, to be against the Pope's supremacy, and consequently they did not submit to it nor believe it; and a further consequence to our purpose is, that then the Catholic Church did 1 [Vindication, Vol. II. p. 198.] 112 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI. not universall;y o\vn it :-i. e. the Pope's supremacy then had not possession of the faith of the whole Church. For as T. C. maintains I, the Africans, not- withstanding the contest in the sixth Council of Carthage, 'were always in true Catholic Communion with the Ronlan Church, even during the term of this pretended separation:' and Cælestine hÏ1nseIf saith, that Saint Augustine, one of those Fathers, 'lived and died in the Communion of the Roman Church 2.' SECTION IX. THE CONCLUSION TOUCHIKG POSSESSION ANCIENTL Y. W E hope it is now apparent enough, that the Pope's supremacy had no possession in England from the beginning, or for the first six hundred years, either de facto or in fide. Our ancestors yielded not to it; they unanimously resisted it, and they had no reason to believe it, either fr0111 the Councils or practice of the Church, or from the edicts and rules of the imperial Law, or the very sayings of the Popes themselves. Thus Samson's hair, the strength and pomp of their best plea, is cut off. The foundation of the Pope's supremacy is subverted, and all other pleas broken with it. If, according to the Apostles' Canons 3, 'every 1 [Labyrinthus Cantuar.] p. 191. [ 6.] 2 [Labyr. ubi supra; and Bp Stillingfleet's Vindication, p. 202.] :I [Can. XXXIII. al. xxxv; apud Coteler. Tom. I. p. 442.] CHAP. Vr.] VRESCRIPTION. 113 nêltion had its proper head in thè beg'inning, to be acknowledg'cd by them untler God' ;-alld accorùing to a General Council I , all such hea.ds should hold a::; from the beginning ;-there can be no ground after- ward for a lawful possession to the contrary. If 'Tu es Petl'lls' and' Pasce oves' have any force to maintain the Pope's Supremacy, why did not the ancient :Fathers, the authors of those Canons, see it? 'Yhy wa:s not it shewn by the Popes concerned, in bar against them, when nothing ebe could be pleaded? \\Then both po;,;,es::iion aud tradition were to be begun, antI had not yet laid their foundation ? Yea, when actual oppo:sitioll in Englanù was made against it; when Genera) Councils abroad laid restraints upon it; and the Eastern Church would not acknowledge it. Indeed, both antilluity, universality, and tradition itself, and all colour of right for ever, fails with pos- seSSIon. For possession of supremacy, afterwards, cannot pu,,::,ibly have either a Divine or just title, but must lay its foundation contrarj to God's institution and ecclesiastical Canon. Anù the po:,sessor is a thief and a robber, our advcrsaries being judges. lIe in- vades others' provinces, and is bound to restore: am.l long posse:s:sion is but a protracted rebellion against God anù his Church 2 . However it be with the secular powers, Christ's Vicar 11lUst certainly derive from him, must hold the 1 [Concil. Nicæn. can. vi; apud LaLL. Tom. II. 32, c.] 2 [See some interesting remarks 011 this suLj('ct in MI' Palmer's '.Jurisdiction uf the ßritish Episcopacy,' lip. 132-138.] 8 114 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI. powcr he gave, must comc ill it at his duoI'. Anù S. 'V. himselfl against Dr Hamn10nd fiercely affirmeth, that 'possession in this kind ought to begin near Christ's time; and he that hath begun it later, unless he can evidence that he was driven out fron1 an ancient possession, is not to be styled a possessor, but an usurper, an intruder, an invader, disobedient, rebel- lious, and schismatieal.' Good night, S. \Y. Quod ab initio fuit invalidurn, t'ractu temporis non convalescit,-is a rule in the civil Law. Yea, whatever possession the Pope got afterwards was not only an illegal usurpation, but a manifest violation of the Canon of Ephesus 2 , and thereby con- ùemned as schismatical. 1 [Schism Disarmed,] p. 50. 2 [Aputl Lahb. Concil. Tom. III. 802.] CHAPTER VIL. TIlE POPE IL\.D NOT FULL POSSESSION HERE, BEFORE IIEXRY YIII.-I. NOT IN AUGUS- TIXE'S TI l\I E.-II. NOR \.FTER. I T is boldly pleaded, that the Pope had possession of the supremacy in England for nine hundred years together, from Augustine till Henry VIII: and no king on earth hath so long", and so clear pre erip- tion for his crown. To which we answer, (1) That he had not such po ession. (2) If he had, it is no argument of a just title. SECTION I. NOT IN AUSTIN'S TIME-STATE uF STTPREMACY QUESTIONED. W E shall consider the Pope's supremacy here, as it stood in and near Saint Augustine's time, and in the ages after him, to Henry VIII. I. 'Ve have not found hitherto, that in or about the time of Augustine, Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope had any such power in England as is pre- tended. Indeed, he caIne from Rome, but he brought no mandate with him; and when he was come, he did nothing without the I{ing's licence. At his arrival, he petitions the King; the I{ing commands him to :4ay in the Isle of Thanet. till his further plea'3ure 8- 116 l'OSSE8S ION. [Cn.\P. vII. was known :-he obeyeù; afterward the King gave hinl licence to preach to his subjects, and when he was hinu;elf converted, majoJ'em, jJl'ædicandi Uccntiam, he enlarged his licence so to do 1. It is true Saint Gregory2 presumed largely, to subject all the Priests of Britain under Augustine, and to give hilll power to erect two ArchbishoPl'ics. and twelve Bishoprics under each of them; but it is one thing to claim, another thing to possebS; for Ethcl- bert was then the only Christian IGng, who had not the twentieth part of Britain ;-and it appears that after both Saint Gregory and Austin were dead, there were but one Archbishop and two Bishops throughout the British Islands, of the Roman Communion. Indeed, the British and Scotch nishops were many, but they renounced all communion with Home 3, as appeared before. 'Ve thankfully acknowledge the Pope's sending over preachers; his conullellding 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 eminen1 a Prelate in the Catholic Church; but sure these were not marks of supremacy. It is possible, Saint .l\Ielit (as is 4 urged) might 1 Bed. I1ist. Eccl. Lib. I. c. 25, 26. [Augustinc \\as consccrat('ll by the Archbishop of ArIes (c. 27.) and plctced in Cantcrbur) by the King; Lib. I. c. 25. Lib. II. c. 1. Cf. Archbp Bramhall's' Just Vindication,' Part I. chap. iv; Works, Vol. I. p. 132.] 2 [Apud Spelman, Concil. Tom. I. p. 90.] 3 Bell. Hist. EccI. Lib. II. c. 2, c. 4. 4 [R. C. (i. c. Richard Chalc('don)'s · Sm.v('y' of Bramhall's Vindication, chap. iv. I.] CHA!'. YII.] I 'O SE.SSIOX 117 bring the Decrees of the Roman SJnod hither to be ob:served, and that they were worthy of our accept- ance, and were accepted accordingly; but it is cer- tain, and will afterwards appear to be so, that such Decrees were never of force here, further than they were allowed bJ the King and kingdom. It is not denied, but that sometimes we admitted the Pope's Legates and nulls too; yet the legatine Courts were not anciently heard of. neither were the Legates themselves, or those Bulls of any authoritJ'" without the !Gng's eonsellf1. Some would argue from the great and flattering titles that were aneientl,y given to the Pope; but sure uch titles can neyer !-\ignif.y posscssion or power,- which at the ame time, and perhaps bJ the very same persons that gave the titles, was really and indeed denied him. nut the great service t.he ßishop of Chaleedon hath done his cause. by thesí' little instances before mentioned, will best appear 2 by a true state of the question touching the supremacy betwixt the Pope and the King of England; in which such things arc not all concerned. The plain question is, 'Yho was then the political head of the Church of England, the IGng or the Pope? Or more immediately, whether the Pope then had possession of the supremacy here in such things, as was denied him by Henry YIIl. at the beginning of I [Thesc points arc proycd below, chap. ix. cct. II; chap. x.] 2 Yid. Bramhall, [Replication to thc Dp of Chalccdon, rart I. f'lmp. iv: Works, Vol. II. pp. 137. fit !':('qq.] 118 l)OSS.ESSI ON. [CHAP. VII. our Heforluation, and the Pope still challengcth? And they are such as thesc : (1) A legislative power in eecle:::;iastical cau:::;c::,. (2) A dispensative power. above and against the Lm\s of the Church. (3) A liberty to send Legate:::;, and to hold lega- tine Courts in England without licence. (4) The right of receiving the last appeals of the IGng'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 living's, and a power to impose upon them what pensions, or other burthens, he pleaseth. (7) The goods of Clergymen 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, it is cnough to observe. that we find no footsteps of such possession of the Pope's power in England, in or about Augustine's time. As for that one instance of Saint 'Vilfrid's appeal, it hath appeared before I, that it being rejcctcd by two Kings successively, by the other Archbishop, and by the whole body of the English Clergy, sure it is no full instance of the Pope's possession of the supremacy herc at that time ;-a.nd needs no further an wer. 1 [See above, pro 5(), 57.] CIIAl'. VII.] POSSE8 lOX. 119 SECTIOX II. XO CLEAH OR FULL POSSESSIO IN THE AGES AFTER AUSTIN TILL HENRY YIII.-EIGIIT DISTINC- TIONS-THE QUESTION STATED. I T may be thought that though the things mentioncd were not in the Pope's possession so early, yet for many ages together they were found in his posscssion. and so continued without interruption, till Henry VIII. cjectcd the Pope, and posscssed himself and his suc- cessors of them. 'Vhether it were so or not, we are now to examine; and lest we should be deccived with colours and gene- ralities. we must distinguish carefully,- (1) Betwixt a primacy of order and dignity and unity, and sllprcmacy of power,-the only thing dis- putcd. (2) Betwixt a judgment of direction resulting from the said primacy, and a judg>ment of jurisdiction depending upon suprcmacy. (3) Betwixt things claimed, and things grantcd and possessed. (4) Betwixt thingð pOððeððeù continually, or for :some time only. (5) Bctwixt possession partial and of SOlliC lesser branches. and plenary or of the main bod ' of juris- diction. (6) Betwixt things permitted of courtcsy, and things granted out of duty. (7) Betwixt ineroachment through eraft, or power or interest, or the temporary oseitaney of the people; and powcr groundcd in tlw Laws. enjoycd with the ]20 rOSSESSIOX. [CHAr. VII. consent of the states of the kingdom in times of peace. (8) Lastly, betwixt quiet possession, and inter- rupted. These distinctions may receive a flout from some capricious advcrsary; but, I find, there i need of them all, if we deal with a subtle one. For t.he question is not, touching primac)' in the Bishop of Rome, or an acknowledged judgment of di- rection flowing from it,-or a claim of jurisdiction which is no possession,-or a partial possession of ]10Wer in ::;ome lesser things,-or a larger power in greater matters, yielded out of courtesy, oseitancy, or fear, or surprise, and hcld onlJ for a time, while things werc unsettled, or by power, craft, or in- terest, but soon aftcr disclaimed, and frequently interrupted: for this is not such a possession as uur adversaries plead for,-or, indeed, will stand them in Rtead. But the qucstion in :-;hort is this: 1V/wthe1' tit(' Popc had (t quiet and 1l1lilltCl'J'llpted possession f!f tI,( SlljH'cmc powm' over the Church of England in t/w,yC ,q,'eat bnOlc/ws C!f S1t}Jl'CJnacy dcnicd him by IIem'y the Eighth, for nine /lU'ìUlred yem's togethn'. m' f()7" man,,! ages togethf!,'j' bifore that time? This strictly I1Ulst be the question: for the com- plaint is, that Henry YIII. dispossessed the Pope of the suprelnacy which he had cnjoyed for 5ò l1mny ages, and made himself head uf the Church of Eng- land; therefore thosc vcr.r things which that IGng thcn denied to the Pope, or took from him, must be those ßo"ers of the uprcma{''y, which the rapists CHAP. VII J POSSESSIO . l J prctcll(l the Popc had possession of, for so Inany agcs togcther before his time. Two things, therefore, and those only, are needful to be sought here: 'Vhat those branches of power are, which Henry the Eighth denied to the Pope, and resumed to himself and hi::; successors? And whether the Pope had quietly, and without plain interruption, possessed thc same for so many ages before his time? A nel in order thereunto, when and how he got it? C llA PT ER VIII. 'VIIAT TIlE SUPREl\IACY 'VAS, 'VHICII HENRY TIlE EIGIITII TOOK FROM TIlE POPE:-THE PARTICULARS OF IT, 'YITH NOTES. I T is true, Henry VIII. resumed the title of the only Supreme Head in earth of the Church of England, and denied this title to the Pope; but it is plain, the controversy was not so much about the title as the power,-' the honours, dignities, jurisdic- tions, authorities. profits, &c. belonging or appertain- ing to the said dignity of Supreme Head of the Church of England'; as is evident by the statute 1. The particulars of that power were such as these :- I. Henry VIII. prohibited all appeal to the Pope and Legates from Rome 2. II. He also forbad all payments of money upon any pretence to the Pope 3 . III. lIe denied the Pope the nomination and consecration of Archbishops and Bishops, and presen- tations 4 . IV. He prohibited all suits for Bulls, &c. to bl' made to the Pope, or the see of Rmlie s . Y. He prohibited any Canons to be eÀecutcd here without the IGng's licence 6 . 1 26 0 Hf'n. VIII. c. 1. 2 2-1 û Hen. YIII. c. 12. : [23 0 IIcn. YIII. c. U; 2.3 0 IIcl1. YIlT. c. 20.] I 25 0 lien. YIII. c. 20. 5 25 H lIt'lI. YHI. c. :n. ,; 25 11 111'11. VIII. c. I f). CllAI'. VIII. J POSSESSION. 1 3 I have pcrw:;ed the statute!S of King Henry VIII., 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 controversy 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 boY the IGng alone, but by all the states of the king- dom, in luany statutes. (3) The denial of all these branches of !Supre- macy to the Pope were grounded upon the ancient laws and eustom 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 lUust conclude, that the Pope might be guilty of an usurpation, but could never have a legal possession of that !Supre- macy, that is in the question. (4) ote, that the states of the kingdOlu in the reign of Queen J\Iary, when boY lueaus of Cardinal Pool the,Y recognised the Pope's suprcmaey, it was with this careful and express limitation I, 'that nothing therein !Should be understood to diminish any the liberties of the imperial crown of this realm, which did bclong unto it in the twentieth year of Henry VII L' -without diminution or enlargement of the Pope's supremacy in England. as it was in the twcntieth year of IIenry VIII. So that Queen )Iar;) and her parliamcnt added nothing to the Pope. but only restored what he had before; and when and how that wa=-, obtained is next to he examined. 1 1" awl 2 0 Phil. awl Mary. e. R. [sect. 24.] l'hrcc senses of appeal. CHAPTER IX. 'VIIETIIER TIlE POPE'S SUPREMACY lJEHE "'AS IN ( UIET POSSESSION TIl,L HENRY TIlE EIGHTH. "{XTE have found what branches of the Pope's power f , were cut off by Henry VIII.- The question is, 'Yhether the Pope had possession of thcm, without interruption, before that time? And that we may procecd distinctly and clearly, we FihaIl consider each of the former branches bJ themselves; and first we begin with the Pope's power of receiving .Appeal from hence, which carries [I '.Cl'J" considerable p[lrt of his pretended jurisdiction. SECTION I. 01" APPEALS TO ROME-THREE NOTIONI:'; OF APPEAL -APPEALS TO ROME l,OCALL Y, OR BY LEGATES - 'VILFRID-AN SELl\f. A PPEALS to Rome we hayc found among these thing which were prohibited bJ Henry YIll: therefore no doubt the Pope claimed, and in somc sort possessed, thc power of receiving such Appeals bcfore. 13ut what kind of possession. how free, and how long, is wort.h) to be inquired. 'Appe[ll' is a word taken Hc,.cral ways: ometimc8 it b onl.} to accul'ie; (f'O we Hnd it in tlw Statutes] ] [Sre th(' ( Hnlls' (If Parliament, sun ann.] CHAP. IX.] Po :sE:ssIO . 12,> 1]D antI 21 0 Hich.ud I1.) SOlllctimcs to rcfcr OU1'- clves for judgmcnt to <;omc worthy pcrson; (so Franc- tort appealed to John Calvin 1.) But now it i::, chief1.'- used for a removing a cause from an inferior to a superior court, that hath power of disallulling what the other did. In this last sense, historians 2 tell us that Appeals to Rome were not ill use with us, till about five hun- dreù years agon, or a little Inore, viz. the year 1110. These Appeals to Home were received and judgetl either in the Pope's court at Rome, or by his Legates in England. A word or two of each. For Appeals to the Pope at Rome, the two famons I. Locally. instances of'Vilfrid and \.nseIIl1 take up lllllCh of our history. But they both seem, at least at first, to haye ,nlfrid Anselm. appealed to the Pope, under the econd notion of appeal; not to hinl as a proper or legal judge, but as a great anù venerable Prclate. But not to stick there, it is well known what effect they obtained. As for 'Vilfrid, his account was of elder date, and hath appeared before 3 , to the great prejudice of the Pope's possession in EnglaIlll at that time. But Anselm is the great monument of papal obe- Anselm. tlience, and (as a learnedlllan 4 observes) the first pro- moter of papal authority in England. lIe began his enterprise with a pretence, that he ought not to be 1 [Troubles at Frankforù, p. 3G; ed. 1575.) 2 [See Twysden's Historical Vindication, p. 35.] 3 [See above, pp. .>G, 57.] 4 [Twysden, Hist. Vind. pp. 14, 41. It is important to bear ill mind that Anselm was an Italian.] 12G POS E IO . [CHAP. IX. barred of visiting the \'lear of St Petcr Caml{( 'l'cgi- 'minis ccclesiæ, but he was not mffered to do that 1. So far was the Pope then, frOlll having the power of receiving Appeals, that he might not receive the visit of a person of Anselm's quality, without the King's le 1Ye. First, he was told 'by the Bishops, as weB as lay- lords, that it was a thing unheard of, and altogether against the use of the realm, for any of the great men, especially himself, to presmne any such thing- without the l{jng's licenee 2 .' Notwithstanding, he would and did g'o; but whai followed? His bishopric was seized into the King's hand, and the Pope durst not, or thoug-ht not good, to give him either ('onl ilillln or a'llxiliwn. as Sir Roger Twysden makes appear 3 out of Eaclmer. In the dispute, the king told A nselm the Pope had not to do with his rights. and wrote that free letter we find in J orvalensis 4; and upon the ambi- guous answer of the Pope, the King sent Anschn him- self to ROlne, [and with him another person,] who spake plainly, his master for the loss of his kingdom. would not lose the investiture of his churches 5 . 1 [See the circumstances more fully narrated in Twysden, pr. 15-17. On one occasion, when the Pope's condemnation of regal investitures was made known in England, Anselm had occasion tu complain as follows: "Quod audientes rex et prillcipes ejus, ipsi etiam episcopi et alii minoris ordinis tam graviter acceperunt, ut assererent se nullo modo huic rt:>i assensum præbituros, et me de regno potius quam hoc servarent expuIsuros, et a Romana ecclesia se discessuros." p. 16.] 2 [Eadmer, Hist. Nov. p. 39, I. O.J :1 pp. II, 12; [po 15, new edit.] 4 col. 999, I. 37, etc. [apu(l Scriptores x. ('ò. Lond. 1652.] !"j Eadmer, p. 73, 1. 13. CHAP. IX.] POSSESSIOK. 127 But ' \nselm, as Archbishop, took the oath that Objection. was appointed by the Pope to be taken at the receiving of the pall,-which allowed his power to receive Appeals.' It is true; but Paschalis himself!, who devised that Aß!Hver. oath, acknowlel1geth that it was (as Anselm signified to him) not admitted, but wondered at; and looked on as a strange innoyation both by the King and the great men of the kingdom. The K.ing pleaded the fundamental laws and customs of the land against it: "It is a custom of mJ kingdOln, instituted by my father, that no Pope nlay be appealed unto, without the King's licence. He that takes away the customs of the kingdOlll doth yiolate the power and crown of the King 2 ." And it is well noted by Archbishop BramhalJ3, that 'the laws established by his father (viz. 'Villiam the Conqueror) were no other than the laws of Edward the Confessor, that is to say, the old Saxon laws,' -who 1 had before yielded to the request of his barons (as Hoveden 5 notes) to confirm those laws. But thoug'h Anselm had obliged himself by the Raid oath to the Pope, yet the rest of the Rishops refused the yoke; and thereupon 1\Ialmsbury tells 1IS6, that' in the execution of these things, all the 1 narou. Annal. Tom. XI. ad an. 1102, VIII. 2 Malmesbur. de Gcstis Pont. Anglorum, Lib. I. [po 219; cd. Fl"ancof. 1601.] 3 [Just Vindication, Part I. Disc. ii; \Vorks, Vol. I. p. 136.] 4 [i. c. 'Villiam the Conqueror.] 5 [R. de Hovedcn, Annal. inter Rerum Ang1. Scriptorcs, p. 60S; {'d. Franc. 1601.] 6 [Ubi supra, p. 219.] 128 POSSESSION. [CHAP. IX. Bishops of England did t1en y their sum'age to their Primate.' Consequently, the unanimit y of the whole realm appeared in the same point, in the reign of this King's grandchild, in the statute of Clarendon; confirming the former British-English custom, not only by thcir consents but their oaths 1 :-wherein generally every man is interdicted to appeal to Home. This statute of Clarendon waR Blade, when popery seemed to be at the height in England. It was made to confirm the cust0111S and libcrties of Henry the Second's prcdecessors, that is to say (as the words of the statute arc) his grandfather Henry the First, son of the Conqueror, and other kings. Now the eustOllls of England are our common Laws, alul the eustonlS of his preùecessors were the Saxon, Danish, and N or- man Laws; and therefore ought to he observed of all. as my Lord Bramhall reasons 2 . 'Vhat these customs were, I may shew more largely hereafter; at present this one is pertinent. "All Appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, frOl11 the Bishop to the Archbishop, and if the Archbishop fail to do his duty, the last complaint must be to the King, to give order for redress 3 ," that is, by fit delegates. In Edward the Third's time, we have a plain law to the same purpose in these worùs'.: "Vhosoever 1 Mat. Paris, Hist Major. A. D. 1164, [po 100]: R de Hovedell, Annal. [po 496.] 2 [Just Vindication, Vol I. pp. 135-137: Schism Guarded, Vol. II. p. 439.] 3 [Mat. Paris, .\. D. 116-1; P}J. 100, 101; pd. 1639.] .. 27 0 Etlw. III. c. 1. CUAP. IX.] PO SESSIOX. 129 houltl lIra" any uf the King's ..;ubjects out of the realm, in pIca about any cau::,e, whereuf the cogni- zance belongeth to the I{ing's court; or should sue in any foreign court to defeat any judgn ent given in the I{ing's court,' (viz. by appealing to Rome) 'they should incur the SaIne penalties.' And upon the same ground, the body of the king-donI would not suffer Eùward the First to be citeù before the Popel. It is confessed, that in the Laws of Henry I. it is Objection. granted, that in case a Biðhop erring in faith, and on admonition appearing incorrigible, ad SltrltJaos Pon- tifices (the Archbishops) vel sedem apostolicwn accu- setur :-which passage, as Sir Roger Twysden 2 guesses, was inserted afterwards, or the grant gotten by the importunity of the then Pope. But the same learned man's note upon it is, that Answer. "this is the only cause wherein I find any English law did ever approve a foreign judicature 3 ." It is plain, Ansehn's Appeal (now on foot) was disapproved by the whole kingdom 4; it is evident, that this clause was directly repugnant to the liberties and customs of the realm, upon which Anselm's Appeal wa so ill resented. It is manifest in those days and after, Appeals to Home were not common, (yea, this very Pope Pas- chalis 5 complains to this IGng, Vos opp'J'essis apostolicæ sedis appellationem .mbt7'alzitis,-whieh was A.D. 1115,) 1 [A. D. 1301. The lettcr may be seen in Fox, Acts and MOIlu- ments, Vol. I. pp. 388, 389, erl. 1684.] 2 [Vindication, p. -11.] 3 [Ihid.] -I [See ahove, p. 126.] .:; Eadmer, [po ll;j, 1. 31.] J30 POSS.E SION l CIIAI'. IX. and that they were held a cruel intrusion l on the Church's liberty; so as at the assize at Clarendon, 1164, this law, if it were so, was anllulled and declared to be contrary to the liberties and customs of the realm; the eighth chapter whereof is wholly spent in shewing the right of the kingdOlll in this point, quod non appellm'etw' Pl'O causa aliqua ad seelem apostol'icam. 'without leave had first, from the IGng and his offi- cials,' as John of Salisbury interprets 2. Objection. Indeed the IGng did personally yield afterwards, A. D. 1172, not to hinder such Appeals in ecclesiastical causes. Answer. But the whole kingdom, four years after, would not quit their interest; but did again renew the assize of Clarendon, 1176, using this close expres- sion 3: Justitiæ faciant qu,ærere per consuetudinem ter'JYf!- illoð, qui ú regno recesserunt; et nisi redire voluerint [infra tm'rninum nominatum] et stare [ad rectum] in clt'J.ia domini 'regis, postea utltlagentu'r, etc.-as Gervase also notes 4. Accordingly this was the practice, during King' Richard the First's tiIne. Geofl-ì'ey, Archbishop of York, was complained of, that he did not only refuse Appeals to Rome, but ilnprisoned those that made theIn: and though upon that complaint, a time was assigned to mak(' his defence to the Pope, yet he 1 [Hem. Huntilldon. Hist. Lib. VIII. p. 395, I. 15, etc. ed. Fmncof. 1601.] 2 [Johan. Sarcsber. Epist. clix. p. 254; cd. Paris, 1611.] 3 [This took place in a parliament at N orthamptoll. Viù. H. tIe Hoveden, Annal. p. 502, I. 29.]' 4 [Gervas. Dorobern. Chronica, col. l.J.33, 1. 19; inter Scrip- tores x.] CHAP. IX.] POSSESSION. ]:H refused to go, because of the King's prohibition and the indisposition of the air I . After this, upon a difference with the King, the Archbishop went to ROlue, and made his peace with the Pope, and returns; but the King offended with it committed 2 the care even of the spirituals of his Archbishopric to others, till he had reconciled him- self to the crown 3 ; which was near two years after, about 1198, After this again he received complaint from Inno- centius III. 'non excusære te potes,' &c. "Thou canst not excuse thyself as thou oughtest, that thou art ignorant of the privilege of Appeals to us ; seeing thou thyself hast sometimes done the same 4 ." And near about the sanle tinle (as Twysden ob- serves), 'Robert, Abbot of Thorney, deposed by Hu- bert, the Archbishop, was kept in prison a year and a half, without any regard had to his appeal n1ade to the Pope 5 .' Indeed, that Pope Innocent III. and hi clergy, great instrmuents in obtaining 1\Iagna Charta from that Prince, had got that clause 6 inserted, L'iceat um.- cuique, 'it is lawftù for anyone to go out of our kingdom, and to return, nisi in tempore guerræ per aliquod b'J'e'ile temp'lll .' "After which," f'aith'i TWJTsden, 1 [R. de Hoveden, A.D. 1I95, p. 751,1. 10.] 2 [R. de Hoveden, Annal. p. 766,1. 22. etc.] 3 [Ibid. p. 778, 1. 25.] t [A. D. 1201, p. 817, 1. 53, etc.] 5 [Ibid. A. D. 1I95, p. 757,1. 17. Other instances of the saI1l kind are adduced by Twysdf'n, p. 48.] 6 [Apud Mat. Paris, Hist. Major. p. 258. 1. 5 , etc.] 7 [Ihid.] 9-2 132 POSSESSION. [CUAP. IX. it is carce imaginable how many petty causes wel'e by Appeals rell10ved to Rome; "-which did not only cause jealousy at Rome, that the grievance would not long be borne, and put the Pope in pru- dence to study and effect a mitigation, by some favourable privileges granted to the Archbishop- ric; but it did also awaken the King and kingdom to stand upon, and recover their ancient liberty in that point 1. Hereupon, the body of the kingdom, in their que- rulous letter to Innocent IV. 1245, or rather to the Council at Lyons, claÏ1n 2 'that no Legate ought to come here, but on the King's desire, et ne q'ltis extra regnu'ln t'rahatm' in ca'ltsam,'-which 3 1\Iatthew Paris left out; but is found in 1\fr Roper's 1\IS. and 1\11' Dugdale's (as Sir Roger Twysden 4 observes); agreea- ble to one of the Gravamina Angliæ, sent to the samc Pope, 124ß, viz. quod Anglici extra regn'U'in in ca'ltsis apostolica auctoritate tra/tuntur 5 . Therefore, it is most rell1arkable, that at the re- vising of l\lagna Charta by Edwarù I., the former clause, Liceat unicltique, &e. was left out. Since which time, none of the clergy might go beyond seas but with the King's leave; as the writs 6 in the Register, and the Acts of Parlialllent 7 assure us; and (which iH 1 [Cf. Twysden's Vindication, pp. -19, et seqq.] 2 Apud Mat. Paris, p. 668, 1. 3. 3 [viz. the clause ' ne quis,' etc.] 4 [Vindication, p. 51, and note 8.] 5 [Apud Mat. Paris, p. 6!J9, 1. 10.] 6 [Registrum Brcvium, fot. 193, b; ed. Lond. lGts7.) 7 [Parliament at Cambridge, 12 0 Ric. II., apud lIen. de Knygh- ton, col. 2734, l. 39, etc.: Stat. 50 Ric. II. I. C. 2.] CHAP. IX.] POSSESSION 133 more) if any were in the court of ROIllC, thc King caned them home I. The rich Cardinal Bi hop of 'Vinchester 2 kncw thc law in this case, and that no man was so great, but hc might need pardon for the offence: and there- fore, about 1429, caused a petition to be exhibited in Parliament 3 , 'that neither himself, nor any other, should be troubled by the King', &c. for cause of any provi- sion or uffence done by the said Cardinal against any statute of Pro visors ',&c. This was in the eighth of I-Icnry the Sixth, anù we have a plain statute making such Appeals a præm,unire in Edward the Fourth 4. Sir Roger Twysden 5 observes. 'the truth of tbis bar- ring Appeals is so constantly averred by all the ancient monuments of this nation, as Philip Scot 6, not finding how to deny it, falls upon another way; that, if the right of Appeals were abrogated, it concludes not the see of Rome had no jurisdiction over this Church.' The concession gives countenance to our present in- 1 [Hen. de Knyghton, col. 2601, I. 44, etc.) 2 [i. e. Henry Beaufort, brother of King Henry IV.] 3 Rot. ParI. 10 0 Hen. VI. 9 16. [A full account is given by Twysden, Yind. p. 52.] 4 9 0 Eùw. IV. 3. [According to the printed 'Rolls' and 'Statutes', no parliament assembled this year. Perhaps Full- wood's authority was Sir Edw. Coke's Reports, (Part v. fot. 26, b; cd. 162-1), ,"hero similar language is used and the same reference given. Coke, however, is speaking of a decision of the Court of King's Denell. The great Statutes prohibiting Appeals to Rome, under the penalty of a Præmunire, are 16 0 Ric. II. c. 5. and 27 0 Edw. III. c. 1.] 5 [Uhi supra, p. 53.] 6 [Trmtis(' of thp Schir,1Il of Enp:lan(l, p. 1 H; ett. Ambtenlam, lfì.jn.] - lð-t POSSE 8ION . [CHAP. IX. qun'y; the consequence I:;ha11 be considered in its proper place. 'Vhat can be further aid, in pretence of a quiet possession of Appeals for nine hundred years toge- ther ? Since it hath been found to be interrupted all along, till within one hundred years before Henry VIII. Especially, I:;eeing my Lurd Bramhall hath made it evident by clear instances, that it is the unanimou judgment of all Christendom, that not the Pope, but their own 80vereign in their Councils are the last judges of their national libertie l. ECTI01\ II. OF THE POPE'S POSSESSION HERE BY IllS LEGATES -OCCASION OF THEM-ENTERTAINMENT OF THEM. I T is acknowledged by !!lOme, that citing English- men to appear at Rome was very inconvenient; therefore the Pope had his Legates here, to execute his power without that inconvenience to us. flow the Pope had posbession of this legatine' power, is now to be inquired. The correspondence betwixt us and Rome, at first, gave rise to this power; the mcssengcrs from Rome were sometimes called Lcgati, though at other times Nltncii. After the erection of Canterbury into an Âr<."h- bishopric, the .Archbishop was held. qlws; ((1((Tius 1 Vide Bramhall, pp. 10u-118; [Ví\1. I. PI'. 210, l't 6('(J')' ne" ('flit.] CHAP. IX.] POSSESSIO . 135 OJ'bis Papa, as Urban] r. styled him 1; he exercising!! vices apostolicas in Anglia, that is, used the same' power within this island, the Pope did in other parts. Consequently, if any question did arise, the deter- mination was in Council; as the deposing Stygand;"', and the ðettling 4 the precedency betwixt Canterbury and York. The instruetions 5 mentioned of Henry I., the right of the realm 6 , that none should be drawn out of it auctoritate apostolica, do assure us. that our ancient applications to the Pope were aet of bro- therly confidence in the wisdom, piety, and kindness of that Church; that it was able and wining to advise and assist us in any difficulty; and not of obedience, or acknowledgement of jurisdiction,-as appear b) that letter'l of l{enulphus and others to Pope Leo III. A.D. 797. (QuibwJ sapientiæ clavis,-'the key of wis- dom,' not authority, was acknowledged therein.) l\Iueh less can we imagine, that the Pope's mes- sengers brought hither any other power, than that of direction and counsel at first, either to the King or Archbishop. The Archbishop was nullÙl8 nnquam Lf!gati ditioni addict us 8: therefore none were suffered 1 .Malmesbur. dc Gcstis Pontif. ..An.l!1. [Lib. I. p. 223, 1. 13: Gcrvas. Dorobern. col. 1327, 1. 5R.] 2 [Eadmcr, p. 58, l. 43.] 3 Florcnt. Wi orn. Chronieon. A. n. 10iO, [pp. 636, 637; ed. Francof. 1601.] t [Cf. Twysden's Vinflication. pp. 25, 2ï, 72.] 5 LIbid. p. 19.] 6 [Virl. Mat. Paris, A. D. 12-16, p. 699, 1. 10.] j Ma,\mcsbU1'. de Gestis Rcgum, Lib. I. [po 31, 1. 1\1, etc.] 8 [Gervas. Dorohcrn. Actus Pontif. Cantuar. co!. lG63, l. 56. Gcn-ast' of Cantcrbury is also the authority for thc folIo" ing- par- ticulars. ViiI. col. HS!í, 1. h , de.' ('(\1. 1(1)31, l. i. de.] 136 POSSESSION. [CHAP. IX. to wear a n1itre within his province, or had the ero- sier earried, nor laid any exeon1n1unication upon this ground, in diæcesi Archiepiscopi apostolicam non tenere sententiam: the Church of Canterbury being then es- teen1ed I omniwn nostrum 'lnater communis sub spollsi Jesu CAristi dispositione. True, the Pope did præcipere, but that did not argue the acknowledgement of his power ; (so John Calvin commanded I{nox 2): the question is, how he was obeyed? It is certain his precepts, if disliked, were questioned 3, opposed 4 , and those he sent not pcr- n1Ïtted to lueddle with those things they eame about á . But historians observe, that we luight be wrought O.c L casion to better tem p er, son1e I Jersons were admitted into vt egatcs. the kingdom, that might by degrees raise the papacy to its designed height. These were ealled Legatës; but we find not any courts kept by them, or any power exercised with effect, beyond what the I{ing and kingdon1 pleased, whieh indeed was very little. The Pope's Legate was at the Couneil touching' the precedence of the Arehbishops; but he subscribed the sixteenth, after all the English Bishops, and not like the Pope's person or proctor, (as Sir Roger Twys- den 6 proves). The first Council. wherein the Pope's Legate pre- ce.ded Archbishops, was that of Y ienne, a little more 1 Gcrva . Dorobern. Actus Pontif. Cantuar. [co!. 1663, l. 2",] 2 Knox, Hist. Church of Scotland, p. 93, [cd. 1644.] 3 Eadmcr, p. 92, l. 40. I Gervas. DuroLcrn. ùl. 1315, 1. 66. 5 Ihid. ('oJ. 155R, 1. 56. [1"1'(' more on t hiE; suhjcct in T\\ ysllcn.r. Vim1. pp. 25-27.] 6 rp. 2:>.1 CHAP. IX.] POSSE:sSIOX. 137 than three hundred years agon, viz. 1311, (as the same author 1 observes) ; wherein he looked like the Legate of his holiness indeed. But let us examine what entertainment the power of a Legate found here. The Archbishop was jea- lous that a Legate, residing here, would prove 2 in sua di!Jnitatis ]J'l'æJ'lldicium,; and the King himself was not without Fuspieions, and therefore would suffer none, so n1ueh as to be taken for Pope, but whon1 he ap- proved; nor any to receive so much as a letter from Home, without acquainting him with it; and held it an undoubted right of the crown, that 'none should be admitted to do the office of a Legate here, if he himself did not desire it'ì.' Things standing thus, in A.D. 1100, the Archbishop of Yienne coming over reported himðelf that he had the legatine power of all Britain committed to him; but finding no eneouragen1ellt to use his eommi:ssion, departed, 'by none received as Legate, nor doing an) part of that office 4.' Fourteen Jears after, Paschalis II., by letters ex- postulates with the King about several thing:-;, in par- ticular, 'his non-admitting either messenger or letter, without hi::; leave 5 .' A year after, [he] addressed Anselm, nephew to the late Archbishop, shewing his commission vices !JC'i'C'l.C (tpostolicas in Anglia. This made known, the elcrg) and nobility III Council at London, sent the Arch- 1 [p.29.] 2 Mat. Paris, A. D L237, p. 440, 1. Ii. 3 Eatlmcr, p. 125, l. 5 , etc.: p. 6, 1. 2..; p. L 13, J. 1. l Ibid. p. 58, l. 40, de. ;i Ihid pr. 112-1 Hl 13h POSSESSION. [CHAP. IX. bishop to the IGng in Normandy to nlake known unto him the ancient custOlll of the realm, and b his advice to Rome, ''llt hæc nova anniltilaret 1.' After this, A.D. 1119, the King sent his Bishop to a Council held by Calixtus II. at Rhein1s, with in- structions among other things, that they should hun1- bly hear the Pope's precepts, but bring' no superfluou rtdinventiones into his kingdOlll 2.' In November following, the Pope and King had a nlceting 3 at Gisors in Normandy; where Calixtus confirn1Cd unto him his father's usages, in peeial, that of sending no Legate hithel', but on the Ring's desire: and when the same Pope, not full two years after his grant to the contrary, addressed another Legate to these parts, the IGng's wisdOln so ordered it, 'that he which CaIne to do the offiee of a Legate in all Britain. was sent as he came, '\vithout doing an . part of that office 4 .' OhJection. But it is said that Calixtmi confirmed unto the IGng his father's usages: therefore it was in the Pope's power originally amI by delegation, and not in the King. Accordingly in our best authors (and in particular, Eadmcr), we find these words, collata. concessa, impetrata, pm 'J'iÛssa, as is urged in answer to my Lord Coke \ An:;wcI:;. (1) These word indeed intimat<, the Pope's kind- 1 EadmCl', p. U8, l. 2 ; I). 120. 2 [Twysdcn's Vindication, p. ] n: on the Huthorit , (If Ordcricus Yitalis, pp. 857, 858.] 3 [Viù. Eadmcr, p. 125, 1. -19.] j Ibid. A. u. 1121, p. 137, l. 46; p. 13R, 1. 13, ctc. .. [yiz. hy Persons, the Jesuit, in his Answer to ir EdwHrò (joke's n"port!', eap, ix. "'cd R, p. :!ofl.l CHAP. IX] PO E ION. 139 ness and peaceable dispo ition at pre cnt, viz. that he will not disturb, but allow our enjoyment of our an- cient privileges as if they were customs concessa, fungi pC1"1nissa; the Salne Eadmer calls 1 antiqua Anglia consuetudo, libertas regni. (2) The words do seem also to intimate the Pope's clain1 at that time: but the true question i8 about his possession, which in placing Legates there was ever denied him, not as a thing granted formerly by the Pope, but as one of the 2 dignitates, usus, et con- suetudines (as Henry I. claimed amI defended). (3) Lastly, they rather intimated the Pope's want of power, than proved his authority here; and what our princes did in their own right, he would continue to them as a privilege, for no other reason but because he could not take it fronl them, or durst not deny it to then1. 80 he dealt with Edwarcl the Confessor 3 : Vobis et posteris vestris Regibus commit- ti/juts advocationem et tuitionern ejusde'fn loci; but long before that, our Kings looked upon it as their offiee 4 l'egae populum Domini et Ecclesiam eju8, which the Pope knew well enough. Therefore, a Legate land- ing in England in Edward the Fourth's time, wa:-, obliged to take oath, that he would attempt nothing to the derogation of the rights of the King or crown á. In Henry the Sixth's nonage, his uncle was sent Legate by ::\Iartin V. Richard Caudray the King's 1 p. 123, 1. 33, p. lIS, 1. 33. 2 [Vid. Heu. I. Epist. apud JorvalcIls. cot. !J9!J, 1. 4f',] 3 [Ailrcd. ,lc Vita Ed". co1. 388,1. 53, inter F\criptorcs x.] I Baron. Annal. TOln. >..1. aeI an. JH.;9, '{XII[. .., p ('e l'okf\'s Report!', )'art \'. 1'01. 27, a: pd. Hl2-1. J 140 POSSESSION. [CHAP. IX. attorney, n1aùe protestation 1, , that none was to eon1e as Legate from the Pope, or enter the kingdOlll with- out the I{ing's appointment': a right enjoyed from all memory. In the reign of Henry V. the design of sending a Legate from Rome, though it were the l{ing's own uncle, was opposed 2; the enterprise took no effect during that !Gng's reign. And in the eleventh of IGng Henry IV., the judges unanimously pronounce 3 , 'that the statutes which restrain the Pope's provi- sions were only declaratory of the eomn1on laws of England.' It was in the year 1245, when the whole state of England complained of the l ope's infamous messen- ger, Non obstante, by which oaths, customs, &e. were not only weakened but made void; amI unles the grievances were removed, Oprwtebit no.'? pone'pe 'JJ1llrU11l pro clorno D01nini, et libertate Regni 4 . Yea long after this, in the year 1343, Edward III. made his addresses likewise to Rome, which the l>ope branded with the title of' rebellion!}.' nut to requite him, that wise and stout prince made the statutes of Provisors and p'J'æmuni-re 6 , directly opposed to the ineroachments and usurpations of the court of Rome. 1 [The Legate here spoken of was Henry Deaufort, gr'eat uncle of King Henry VI. The original (locumcnt is printed in Fox, V 01. I. p. 802, co1. 2; ell. 1684.] 2 [This was the same Henry Beaufort. See Duck's Life of Archbp Chichcle, pp. 3.J, et seqq. Lond. lê8I.] 3 [S<,e Coke's ll<'pOl.ts, Part v. fot 23, a.] 4 Mat. Paris, A. D. 12-t5, 1240, [pp. 698, 69D.] 5 Walsingham, [llist. A. n. 13-13, r. HD: inter Angl. I':eript. cd. ('arn(leH. Fnmcof. lG03.] r. r251) t;,lw. HI. I':tat. fì. : 27 n E(hc III c. 1.1 ('H-\P. IX.] POSSES ION. 14. 1 'Vhercby he so abated their powcr in EnglanJ for sundry ages following, that a Dean and Chapter wað able to deal with the Pope in England, and to foil hinl too I. The SUlll is, during the reigns of all the British and Saxon Kings, until the Norman Conquest, lega- tions from Rmne were ðeldolll, and but lllessengers :- a Legatine or Nuncio's court we find not. Gregory, Bishop of Ostiunl, the Pope's own Legate did confess, that 'he was the first Roman priest that was sent into those parts of Britain from the time of St Austin 2.' 'Vhen these Legates multiplied, and usurped authority over us, the kingdom would not bear it; aF' appears by the statute of Clarendon, confirming the ancient British-English custom, with the consent and oaths of all the Prelates and Peers of the realm: and upon this eUðtom was the law grounded, "If anyone be found bringing in the Pope's letter or mandate, let him be apprehended, let justice pass upon him without delay, as a traitor to the King and kingdOln 3. And all along afterwards we have found, that still as occasion required, the same custom was Inaintained and vindicated both by the Church and State of the realm, till within a hundred years before Henry VIII. So that the rejection of the Pope's Legate is founded in the ancient right, the C01l1111011 anù sta- tute laws of the realm; and the legatine power IS a plain usurpation contrary thereunto, and was ever 1 A. D. H20, Dramhall, p. 99; [Y 01. I. p. 195, new cd.] 2 Spelman, Concil. A. D. 7S4, lTom. I. p. 293.] 3 .Mat. Paris, A. D. 116.t, [pp. IOU, 101]; R. de Hovcden, [Annal. p. 4n6.] J-J.z POSSESSION. [CUM'. IX. looked upon as !;ueh, it never having any real possession among us by law, or quiet possession in L'l.et, for any considerable time together; but was still intel'l'upted by the whole kingdom, by new declaratory laws against it. Thus, we have seen how the Pope's possession of the fOrInal branch of jurisdiction, by Appeals anù Le- gates, stood here froll1 8t Austin to Henry VIII. ; and that 'it was quiet and uninterrupted for nine hundred years together,' pas seth away as a vapour; the contrary being evident by as authentic testÏ1nonies 3!"- can be desired. A nù now what can be imagined to enervate them? Objection. If it be urgeù that it was once in the body of our laws, viz. in l\Iagna Charta!, Liceat unicuique de cætel'O exire de 'J'egno nost1'o, et redire salvo et secm"e per te'J'"'i'am et per aquam, salva fide nostra; nisi in tempore guerræ per aliquod breve tempus ;-it is confessed. Answer. But here is. no expression, that plainly and in terms gives licence of Appeals to Rome. It is indeed said, that it is lawful for any to go out of the king- dom and to return safe, but mark the conditions fol- lowing, Nisi in, &e. It is likely, these words were in- serted in favour of Appeab, but it may be the authors were timorous to word it in a more plain contradic- tion to our ancient liberties. (2) The very form of words as they are, would seem to intimate that the custom of England was otherwise. (3) Lastly, if it be considered, how soon after, 1 [Apml Mat. Paris, p. 258, I. 5: . de.] CHA1'. IX.] POSSESSIOK J 4:J anù with what unanimity ànd éourage our ancient liberty to the contrary was redeemed and vindicated, and that clause left out of l\Iagna Charta ever since, though revised and confirmed by so many Kings and Parliaments successively, it is only an argument of a sudden and '\iolent torrent of papal power in IGng .J ohn s tinIe, not of any grounded or well settled authority in the English laws, as our English liberties have. I conclude with those weighty words of the Statute, 27 0 Edw. III. c. 1: 'Having regard to the said statute maùe in the time of his :,aid grandfathers, which statute holdeth always in force, which was never annulled or defeateù in any point; and foras- much as he bound by his oath to do the same, to be kept as the law of the realn1, though that by suffer- ance and negligence it hath been since attempted to the contrary 1.' 'Vhereupon, it is well observed, that Queen l\IaQ" herself denied Cardinal Pet0 2 to appear as the Pope s Legate in England in her time; and caused all the sea-ports to be stopped, and all letters, briefs, and bulls to be intercepted and brought to hers. 1 Vide Preamble of the statute. 2 [See' Antiquities of the English Franciscans,' Part I. p. 25 , J..ond. 1726.] 3 [See Collier's Church IIist. Vol. II. p. 399, foJ. cd.] CHAPTER X. TIlE POPE'S LEGISLATIVE PO'YER IN" ENGLAND BEFORE HENRY VIII.-NO CANONS OF TilE rOPE OBLIGE US ",TITHOUT OUR CONSENT-OUR KINGS, SAXONS, DANE NORMAN MADE LA'VS ECCLESIASTICAL. W E have found possession of the executive power otherwise than was pretended; we now come to consider how it stood with the legislative. The Pope indeed claimed a power of making and imposing Canons upon this Church; but Henry VIII. denied hin1 any sueh power, and prohibited any Canons whatsoever to be executed here, without the King's licence 1. The question now is, 'Vhether the Pope enjoyed that power of making and imposing Canons effectually and quietly here, frOlll the time of St Augustine to I-Ienry the Eighth, or indeed any considerable time together. And this would invite us to a greater de- bate, who was suprenle in the English Church (the Pope or the King) during that time, or rather who had the exercise of the supremacy: for the power of making laws is the chief flower or branch of the su- prenlacy, and he that freely, and without interruption, enjoyed this power, wa doubtless in the possession of the supremacy. That the Pope had it not, so long and so quietl.r 1 25 0 IIt'n. VIII. c. 1!J. CHAP. X.] Pù:s:sESSIOX. ]45 a:s is pleaded by sorne, and that our Kings have gene- rally enjoyed it, will both together appear with evi- dence enough by the particulars following :_ (1) If none were to be taken for Pope but by the King's appointment, sure his laws were not to be received, but with the IGng's allowance. (2) If not so much as a letter could be received from the Pope without the King's knowledge, who caused words prejudicial to the Crown to he renounced, sure neither his laws. Both the antecedents we find in Eadmer 1. (3) If no Canons could be made here without the King's authority, or being made could have any force, but by the King's allowance and confirmation, where was tllf' Pope's Supremacy? That Canons Convoca- ld b I h . h h I T. , tions by cou not e ma( e ere WIt out t e \..Ing s authority Kings. is evident, because the convocations themselves always were, and ought to be assembled by the King's writ2. Besides the King caused some to sit therein who might supervise the actions, and Legato ex parte regis et regni inhibereut, ne ibz: ccm.tra 'j,pgiam coronarn et dig- nitatem aliquid statuere attentaret 3 ; and when any did otherwise, he was forced to retract what he had done (as did Peckham 4); or the decrees were in pauci, Se1'- 'llatæ (as those of Boniface 5). I [Hist. Nov.] p. 6,1. 26; p' 113, 1. 1. 2 Eadmer, p. 24, 1. 5, l. 11, [The Statute 25 0 Hen. VIII. c. 19. based its decision on what' always had heen:] 3 Mat. Paris, A. D. 1237, p. 447, 1. 51. 4 [Vide Selden. de Synedriis; Opp. Vol. I. Tom. II. p. 982; ed. 1726.] 5 Lyndwood, [Provinciale, Lih. II. òe Foro Competenti, p. 92. not. d; ed. 1679.] 10 Canons confirmed by Kin s. 146 POSSESSION [CnAp. X. If Canons were made, though the Pope's Legate, and consequently all his power, was at the making of them, ;yet had they no force at all as laws over us, without the King's allowance and confirmation 1. The I{ing having first heard what was decreed 2 consemmm ]JfJ"æbuit, auctm'itate regia et potestate concessit et cou- fi'J'ma1,it statuta concilii, 'by his kingly power he con- firmed the Statutes of the Council of 'Villiam Arch- bishop of Canterbury, ancl the Legate of the holy .Roman Church, celebrated at \Vestminster'..,.'Hy the assent of the King, et }J'J'Ùnorum omnium Re!}Jli. the chapters subscribed were promulged 3.' Twysden concludes 4: "As for Councils, it is cer- tain none from Home did, tin 1125, intermeddle in calling any here 5 ." If they did come to them, as to Calcuith, the King, upon the advice of the .Arch- bishop, statuit diem concilii, 'appointed the ùaJ of the Council.' So when 'Yilliam I. held one at'Vinchester, 1070, for deposing Stygand, though there came to it thrce sent from Alexander 11, yet it was held. Jubeute et presente Rege, who was 6 pre ident of it. 1 Eadmer, p. 6, I. 29. 2 [Continuatio ad] Florpnt. Wigorn. .\. H. 1127. p. U() : [(>(1. Francof. 1601.] 3 Gervas. Dorohern. A. D. II75, col. H29, l. 16. 4 [Historical Vim1. pp. 2-1, 25. The above instaneC's, amI otJH'rs of a like nature, may be seen in Twysden's chapter OIl th(> nutho- rity of the crown in matters ecclesiastical. Ibid. pp. 129, C't s('q(l'] 5 [In this case, as in others, the reading of tht' nf'W t'dition of 'fwysdC'n's Vindication has IJPcn inserted into our Author's tl'xt.] (j [The authority is the Lifo of Archhp. Lanfranc, c. VI., pr('- fix('d to the Paris editioIl of his works. In a couIleil touching pr('cedency hetwpen the sees of Canterhury Hwl York, the pnpp's legate suhscriùed the sixh'l'lIth. nft('r all tIll> En 1ish hishop". Twys(lm. 11 I hI. ] CHAP. X.] POSSEHSIO X. ]47 All our Canons are therefore (as they are justlv Canon" L King's callcd) the King's eccle iaRtical Laws; because no Iaw . Canons have the power of Laws, but !-iuch as he allm\ and confirms: and whatsoever Canons he confirmed of old, that had their original fronl a foreign power. he allowed for the sake of their piety or equity, or as a means of communion with the Church from whence they came; but his allowance or confirmation gave them all the authority they had in England. It is a point so plain in history, that it is beyond C efore t e onquest. question, that during all the time from St Gregory to the Conquest, the llritish, Saxon, and Danish Kings (without any dependence on the Pope) did usually make Ecclesiastical Laws. \\Titness the laws) of ..iE- thelbirht, Ine, \Vihtræd, Alfred, Edward, Æthelstan, Edmund, Edgar, Ethelred, Cnut, and Edward tIlt' Confessor; among whose laws 2, one nlakes it the office of a King'. to govern the Church as the Vicar of God. Indeed, at last the Pope was officiously kind, anù did bestow after a ver)' formal way upon the last of those Kings, Edward the Confessor, a privilege, which all his predecessors had enjoyed as their own undoubted right hefore, "i7.. the protection of all the Churches of England, anù power to him and his succes;,ors the Kings of England for ever, 'in his stead to make just ecclesiastical Constitutions, with the advice of their Bishops and Abhots 3 .' But with thanks to his Holi- ness, our Kings stiU continued their ancient custom ) [See' Ancient Laws amI Institutes,' (>(1. Thorp('. Vol. I.J 2 [L('gt's Edw. Conf. sed. XVIII. \"nl. 1. p. 49n.] ;\ [Yitl. Spt'hnau. ('oneil. TOIll. l. p. (;: -J..J 10-2 A fter the ConI} uest. 148 PO:-;SES IOX. [CHAP. X. which they had enjoycd from the beginning, in the J;ight of th(' Crown, without respcct to his courtesy In that matter. After the Conquest, our N orman King did al u exerch,e the SaIne legislative power in ecclesiastical causes over ecclesiastical persons from time to timc. with the consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal. lIenee all those statutes concerning benefices, tithes, ad vowsons, lands given in mortmain, prohibitions. consultations, lJ'j'æmunÙ'es, quare-impedits, privilege of clergy, extortions of ccclesiastical courts or officer , regulations of fees, wages of priests, mortuarics, anc- tuaries, appropriations; and in sum, as Bishop Bram- hall adds, "all things which did belong to the external mbsistence, reghl1ent, and regulating of the Church 1'; " and this in the reigns of our best Norman Kings be- fore the Reformation. nut what laws do we find of the Pope's making in England? Or what English law hath he ever effec- tually abrogated? It is true l11an:v of the Canons of the Church of Rome were here observed; but before they becanle obliging, or had the force of laws, the }(jng had power in his great Council to receive them, if they were judged convenient, or if otherwise to reject them. It is a notable instancc that we have of this, 111 Henry the Third's time 2 . \Vhcn some Bishops pro- posed in Parliamcnt the rcccption of the ecclcsias- tical Canon, for the legitimation of children born be- 1 p. 73; [\V orks, Vol. I. pp. 138, 139 ; ed. 1842.] 2 20 0 Hen. III. c. 9. [This nnd the folio" iug illstanct' arp also from Bramhall, uhi supra, p. 140.] CHAP. x.] PO SE SIOX. 149 fore marrIagc, all the Pcers of the Heahn stood up, and cried out with one voice. '.1.Vn[llrnWJ ler/(>8 n[lli((' mutm'i,' 'we will not have the laws of England to be changcd.' A clear evidence that the Pope's Canons were not English laws, and that the Popish Bishops knew they could not be RO, without the Parlianlent. Likewise the King and Parlimnent made a legis- lative exposition I of the Canon of the Council of L) ons, concerning bigamy; which the,y would not have done had they not thought they had power according to the fundamental laws of England, either to receive it or reject it. These are plain and undeniable evidence . that whcn Popery wa at highest, the Pope s Supremac) in making laws for the English Church was very inef- fectual. without the countenance of a greater and more powerful, viz.. the supremacy of our own IGngs. Now admit that during some little space the Pope did impose, and England did consent to the authority Con ent f I . C . h .. admitted. o 1l anons, (a mdecd t every reJectmg of that authority intimates); yet that is very hort of the po:;ses ion of it without interruption for nine hun- dred years togcther. the contrary being more than evident. However this con ent was given cither b)r permis- Ry ,?cr- . n\l s1(1n. "'IOn or grant. If only by perlnission. whether through fear or reverence, or convenience, it signifies nothing, when the King and kingdom sce cause to vindicate our ancicnf liherties, and resolve to endure it no longcr. I {o Edw. 1. e. 5. Or hy grant. ]50 POSSESSION [CHAr. .À. If a grant be pretended, it Wêlb either from the King alone, or joined with his Parliament. If from the King alone, he cOtùd grant it for his time only, and the power of resuming any part of the prerogativc granted away by the predecessors, accompanies the Crown of the successor.; and fidelity to his office and kingdonl obligeth him in justice to retrieve and re- cover it. I believe none will undertake to affinn, that the grant was made by the law, or the King with his Pa.r- liament; yet if this should be said and proved too. it would argue very little to the purpose; for this is to establish iniquity by a law. The King's prerogative, as head of this Church, lieth too deep in the ver,Y const.itution of the kingdom, the foundation of our common law, and in the very law of naturc; and is no more at the will of thc Parliament. than the fun- damentalliberties of the subject. Lastly, the same power that Inakc can repeal a law: if the authority of papal Canons had bcen ac- knowledged, and ratified by Parliament (which cannot be said), it is most certain it was revoked and re- nounced by an equal power, viz., of Henry the Eighth, and the whole body of the kingdom. both civil and ecclesiastical. It is thc resolution both of reason and law, that no prescription of time can be a bar to the Supreme Power; but that for the public good it may revoke an'y concessions, permission or privileges. Thus it was dcclarcd in Parliament in Edward the Third's reign, when reciting the statute of Edward the Firðt ;- CIIAI'. X.] POSSESSIOX. 151 they ay I, 'the tatutc holdcth nlwa'y In force, and that the King is bound b,y oath to cause the same to be kept,' (and consequently, if taken away, to be restored to its observation) 'as the law of the land:' that is, the common, fundamental, unalterable law of the land. Bc ides the case is most clear, that when Henl'J YIII. began his reign, the laws asserting the Supreme Authority in causes, and o,'cr person ecclesiastical. were not altered or repealed; and Henry \"111. u ed his authority again t papal incroachments, and not against, but according to the tatute, as wcll as t.he emnnIOn law of the land. 'Vitness all those noble laws of Pro visors and P'j'a:munire, which (as nIY Lord Bramhall 2 saith) "we may truly call the palladium of England, which preserved it fronl being swallowed up in that va t gulph of the Roman Court; made by Edward 1., Edward III., Richard II., He111'y IV." 1 [27 0 Edw. Ill. ' Prcamhlc.'] :! [Schism Guarded. Part I. Disc. IV. ; Works, y 01. II. p. 433.] CHAPTER XI. OF THE PO\VEU OF LICENUES, &c. HERE, IX ED"T ARD III., RICHARD II., HENRY IY., HENRY V., HENRY VI., HENRY VII. T HOUGH the Pope be denied the legislative and judiciary (or executive) power in England, yet, if he be allowed his dispensatory power, that will have the effect of law , and fully super ede or impcde the' execution of laws, in ecclesiastical causes, and upon ecclesiastical person:,. It is confessed, the Pope did usurp and exercise this strange power, aftcr a wonderful manner in Eng- land, before Henry VIII., by his licenccs, dispensa- tiom:!, impositions, faculties, grants, rescripts, dcla- gacies, and other such kind of instrumentb, as the statute 25 0 Henry VIII. mentions 1 ;-and that this power was denied or takcn from him by the same tatute, (as also 2 by another, 28 0 Henry VI!.,) and placed in (or rather reduced to) the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Cantcrbury, saving the rights of the See of Y ork,-in all causes convenicnt and ne- cessary for the honour and Hafcty of the IGng, thp wealth and profit of the Rcalm, and not rcpugnant to the laws of Almighty God. The ground::; of relnoving this powcr fro111 the Pope, as they are expressed in that excellent pre- 1 23 0 Hen. VIII. c. 21. 2 80 Hen. VIII, c. 16. CHAP. XL] PO:sSESSION. ]53 amble to the aid tatutel, 25 0 Henry VIU., are worthy our reflection :-they are (1) The Pope's usurpation in the premises. (2) His having obtained an opinion in many of the people, that he had full power to dispense with all human laws, uses, and customs, in all causcs spi- ritual. (3) He had practised thi strange usurpation for nlany years. (4) This his practice was in great derogation of the imperial Crown of this realm. (5) England recogniseth no :-;uperior, under God, but the IGng only, and is free fronl ubjection to any laws but such as are ordained within this realm, or admitted customs by our own consent and u:-;age, anti not as laws of any foreign powcr. (6) And lastly, that according to natural equity, the whole state of our realm in Parliament hath thi:-; power in it, and peculiar to it, to dispense with, aIter, abrogate, &c., our own law:o; and customs for public good; which power appears by wholesome Acts of Parliament, made before the reign of Henry VIII., in the time of hi:; progcnitor . }<'or these reason it wa enacted 2 in tho:;c sta- tutes of IIenr,y VIII., 'That no subject of England should sue for licences, &c., henceforth to the Pope, but to the Archbishop of Canterbury.' N ow it is confc:;scd before, and in the preamble to the tatute, that the Pope had used this power for many years; but this iH noted as an aggravation of 1 [c. 21.] 2 [:!5 0 IIell. VIII. c. 21. 2.] l.j4 POSSESSIOX. rcu.\P. Xl. the grievance, and one rcaðon for redres ;-but whether he cnjoyed it from the time of Saint Austin, or how long quietly, is the proper question; especially seeing the laws of the land, made by king Henry's predecessors, are pleadcd by him in contradiction to it. 1\'0 tn. Y ca, who will come forth and shew us one instanc(' stance I IOn vears after of a papal dispensation in England for the first cleven (' hrist. hundred years aftcr Christ? If not, five hundred of the nine hundred years' prescription, and the first five hundred too, as well as the first eleven hundred of the fifteen, are lost to the Popes, and gained to the prescription of the Church of England. But Did not t.he Church of England, without any reference to the Court of Rome, use this power during the first elevcn hundred years? 'Vhat man is so hardy a:-- to deny it, against the InuItitude of plain in tances in history? Did not our Bishops relax the rigour of eeclesia - tical Canons? Did not all Bishops, all over the Christian world, do the like before the monopoly was usurped l ? In the laws of Alfrcd alone 2, and in the conjoint laws 3 of Edward and Guthrum, how many borts of ecclesiastical crimef, were di pensed with, by the sole 1 [" According to Thomassin (Yet. et N 0\. Ecd. Discip. Tom. II. p. 606) dispensations and licences were originally gmntell to nIl Bishops; hut gradually in the tcnth :md following ('etlturic , they were allowed to dcvolve to, 01" were usurped hy. the Roman pon- tiffs." l\ir PalmCl"s 'Tt"catise on th(' r.hun:h,' '"oJ. I. p. 33,): 3nl ('(Ii t.] . 2 [Sce 'Ancient J aw and InstÜutcs,' ('(1. Thorpe, \'01. 1. PI'. .1-1. pt H''ll).l J [Ihid. PI" U;(i, et seqfl'] CllAI'. à.l.] POSSES IOX, 155 n's Vindica- tion, p. 64; and Bramhall. ubi supra.] 2 [Twysdpn, p. 65.] 3 Hector. BOf>th. Hist. cnt. Lib. XII. [quoted by Bramhall Y 01. II. p. 422.] ll-':! J 6:j II. Law. ]()4 PU E IúX, [CHA]'. XII. of this discourse. For if his possession were good, it was ::;ettled in law, and if quiet, the laws were not made to oppose it, by the great States of the kingdom. l\Iy lord llramhall l hath produced three great I. Claren- laws, as sufficient to determine this controversy, \"he- don. ther the King or the Pope be Patron of the English Church,-the Assize of Clarendon, the Statute of Car- lisle, anù the Statute of Proyisors. Thc first tells U plainly. that 'thc elcction of an Archbishop, Bishop. Abbot, or Prior, was to be made by the respectÏ\ dignitaries upon the King's calling thcm together to that purpose, and with the King's consent. _\.nd there the person electcd was prcsently to do homage to the IGng as to his liege lord 2.' And that this luethod was exclusive of the Pope. 2., Stat te the Statute of Carlisle 3 is ver y distinct: "The Kin g ' is of Carlisle. the founder of all Bishoprics, and ought to have the custody of thenl in the \'acancies, and the right of patronage to present to thell1"; and that " the Bishop of Rome, usurping the right of patronage, g>iveth then1 to aliens"; that this "tendeth to the annullatiou of the state of holy Church, to the disinheriting of I{ings, and thc destruction of the realm": "this is an oppression, and shall not be suffered." The Statute of Provisors, 25 0 Edward III., affirms. that" elections were first granted by the King's pro- genitors, upon condition to demand licence of the King to choose, and after the election to have the 3. Statute of Provi- sors. 1 [Schism Disarmed, Part I. Disc. IV. Vol. H. p. 40i.] 2 [Mat. Paris, Hist. Major. A. n. I HH, p. WI.] 3 [35 0 Edw. Y. c. 4. 3.] CUAI'. XII.] POSSESSIO . 165 royal asscnt;... which conditions not being kcpt, the thing ought by reason to resort to his first nature." And thercfore they conclude, that "in case reserva- tion, collation, or provision, be made by the Court of Rome, of any Archbishopric, &c.... the IGng and his hcirs shall have the collations for th(' same timc... ;uch as his progenitors had before the free clection were granted I." And they tell the I{jng plainly, that "the right of the Crown, and the law of the land is such," that thc King ,. is bound to makc remedics and laws against ",nch mischiefs 2." And they acknowlcdge "that he is advowee paramount immediate of all churches, pre- bcnùs, and other benefices, which are of the advowry of holy Church:" i. e. sovereign Patron of it. ::\ly Lord Coke more abundantly adds the resolu- tions and dccrecs of the law, to COnfil'll1 us in thc point. In the time of 'Villi am I., ,. it is agrced that no man can make any appropriation of any church having cure of souls, but he that hath ecclesiastical jurisdiction; but 'Yilliam I. did nlake such appropria- tions of himsclf, without any other 3 ." "Edward I. prescnted his clcrk, who was refused by the Archbishop, for that the Popc by way of pro- vision had conferred it on another. Thc l{jng brought his Quare Iwn admisit, the Archbishop pleaded that the Bishop of ROll1e had long time before providcd to t.hc samc church as one having suprcmc authority, and that hc durst not, nor had powcr to put him out, 1 l25 0 Edw. Ill. Stat. VI. 3.] [Ihid. 2.] 3 7 Edw. III. Tit. '(luan' Iml'cdit; If): [Cob-, Camlrey'::; Car"e ; Rt'port!', Part Y. [01. 10. h.] 166 POSSJ<:SSlüX [CHAI'. XII. which was by the Pope'::; bull in pos::;e::;sion; for which, ...by judgment of the common law, the lands of his whole Bishopric were seized into the King's hand;:;, and lost during his life!." And IllY lord Coke's note 2 upon it is, that this judgment was before any statute was Dlade in that case. In the reign of Edward III., "it is often resolved that all the Bishoprics within England were founded by the King's progenitors, and therefore the advow- sons of them all belong to the I(ing, and at the first they were donative; and that if an incumbent of any church die, if the patron present not within six Illonths, the Bishop of that diocese ought to collate...if he be negligent by the space of six months, the l\letropo- litan of that dioce::;e shall confer one to that church ;" : and lastly, by the common law the lapse is to the King, as to the supreme within his own kingdom, and not to the Bishop of Rome 3 .' This King presented to a benefice, his presentee wa di turbed by one that had obtained Bulls from RODle, for which offence he was condemned to 'per- petual imprisonment 4. I t is no small spice of the King's eccle::;iastical patronage, that we find the lOng made Canons secular to be regularS; and that he made the Prior and Con- vent of 'V e tminstcr a distinct corporation from the Abbot 6 . But more full if:! the CR"5e of Abbot )[orris'1, who 1 [Coke's Reports, ubi !5upm, 1'01. 12, b.] 3 [Coke, ubi supra, fo1. 14, b.] 5 [FoI. 16, b.] ï l.I"oI. 16, b.] 2 LIbid.] ! [Fol. 15, a.J 6 [1"01. 17, a.] ('liAr'. XII.] rO SESSIOX. 167 c;;cnt to Home to be confirmed by the Pope; who b,) his bull slighted the election of l\Iorris, but ga.ve him the Abbey, of his spiritual grace, and at the request (as he feigned) of the J{ing 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 Eng- land, and that the Abbot for obtaining the same was fallen into the l{ing's mercy,-whereupon all hi::; pos- sesbions were seized into the K.ing's hands. In the reign of Richard II., one ued a provision in the Court of Rome against an incumbent, recovered the church, brought an action of account for obla- tions, &c.; but the whole Court was of opinion against the plaintiff, and thereupon he became nonsuit}. Sec statute 16 0 Richard II., c. 5, against all papal usurpa- tion:;, and this in particular; the pain is a Pt'æmunire. In Henry the Fourth's reign, " the Judges say that the statutes which restrain the Pope's provisi ns to the benefice uf the advo"-ðons of spiritual men were made, for that the spiritualty durst not in their just cause say against the I>ope's provisions; so as thosc statutes were made, but in affirmance of the common laws 2." X ow what remain::; to be pleaded in behalf of thp Pope's patronage of our Church, at least as to hb possession of it, against so many plain and great evi- denccs, both of law and deed ? All pretence::; touching the Popc'::; gi,illg the Pall are more than anticipated; for it i::; not to be denied, I [Uokl', uhi supra, fot 20, h.] 2 ([hid. 1'01. 2:{. a.] 168 PO SESSION. [CH.W. XII. but that was not held necessary, either to the conse- cration, confirmation, or investiture of the very Arch- bishop before Anselm's time: yea it is manifest that Lanfranc, Anselm, and Ralph, did dedicate churches, consecrate Bishops and Abbots, and were called Arch- bishops, while they had no pall, as Twysden proves out of Eadmer 1. 'Ve never read that either Laurentius or l\Icllitus received the pall from Rome, who no doubt were as lawful Archbishops as Austin. Girald 2 and Hoveden 3 both give us an account that Samson of t David's had a pall, but do not say from Rome; though in the time of infection he carried it away with him. After Paulin us there are five in the catalogue uf York 4 expressly said to have wanted it (and 'Vilfrid was one of them), yet are reputed both Archbishops and Saints; and of others in that series, it is not easy to prove they ever used it, nor Adilbaldus, till the fourth year after his investiture. And Gregory the Great saith 5, that it ought not to be given 'Jt-lsi fortiter postu- lanti. 'Vhat this honorary was anciently seems uncer- tain; but it is most certain, it could not evacuate the King's legal and natural patronage of our Church, or discharge the Bishops fronl their dependence on, and allegiance to, his Crown. It is true indeed, when Pope Nicolaus could not deny it, he was graciously pleased to grant this 1 [See Twysden's Vindication, pp. 64, 65; new edition.] 2 [Gimlel. Cambrensis, !tiner. Lib. 11. c. i. p. 855.] 3 [R. de Hovcdcn, AnnaL, A. D. I HW, p. 798.] .. [See authorities for t.hese f,wts in Twysrlcn, Hist. Yind. pp. 60, 61.] -:> [Epif't. Lih. "JI. ep. :i: Indict. I.] CUAP. XII.] POSf\ESSIO::\ . 169 patronage to Edward the Confessor 1: " Vobi.., et pOS- teris vestri.ç regibus cornrnittirnus ad'l}ocationem,' etc. '\V e commit the advowson of all the churches of England to you and your successors, King:; of England.' It might have been replied, 'Þlicolaus Papa h.oc dornino meo p'i'ivilegium, quod ex paterno lure Sllsceperat, p7'æ- huit,' as the Emperor's advocate 2 said. This is too mean as well as too remote a spring of our kingly power in the Church of England, though it might, ad hominem, sufficiently supersede (one would think) all papal practices against so plain and full a grant. If any thing passed by it, certainly it must be that very power of advowson. that the Popes after- wards so much pretended, and our laws (mentioned) were made on purpose to oppose them in. 'Ve see no reason, therefore, against the statute of IIenry VIII. so agreeable to the ancient rights and laws of this realm: 'Be it enacted, that no person shall be presented, nominated, or commended to the }>ope, to or for the dignity of an Archbishop or Bishop within this realm, nor shall end or procure there for any manner of bulls, briefs, palls, or other things requisite for an Archbishop or Bishop.'...' All such (viz. applications and instruments) shall utterly cease, and no longer be used within this realm;' and such as do 'contrar) to this Act, shall run into the dangers, pains, and penalties of the statute of the Provision and Pl'ætHlmh'e 3 .' 1 [Apnd Ailrcd. ùe Vita Edw. Confc::;soJ', col. 388, l. 53; inter f-:criptorcs x.] 2 Baron. Tom. u. ad an, I05!J, X llI. 3 2.jO Hen. VIII. c. 20, [ 2, 6.] CHAPTER XILI. OF PETER-PENCE, AND OTHER MONEYS .FORl\IERLY PAID TO TIlE ropE. U p 0 N complaint by Parliament, in Henry the Eighth'8 reign, of intolerable exactions of great sums of money by the Pope, aR well in pensions, censes, Peter-pence, procurations, &c., and for infinitp orts of bulls, &c., otherwise than by the laws and customs of the realm should be permitted ;-it was enacted 1, that ' no person should thenceforth pay any such pensions, Peter-pence, &c., but that all such pay- ments should thenceforth clearly surcease, and never nlore be levied, taken. or paid,' -amI all annates or first-fruits, and tenths, of Archbishops and Bishop::; were taken away, and forbidden to be paid to the Pope, the year before 2. Our payments to the Court of Rome seelU to have been of four sorts, Peter-pence, first-fruits and tenths, casual (for palls, bulls, &c.) and extraordinary taxa- tions. Briefly of each :- 1. I. For Peter-pcnce (the only ancient payment), Peter- pence. it was at first given and received as an ahns-eleemo- syna beati Pet'ì'i, saith Paschalis II.3- per haps rendered out of gratitude anù reverence to the See of Rome, 1 25 0 Hen. VIII. c. 21, [* 1.] 2 23 0 Hen. VIII. c. 211. a Epist. Hcmjco I. apud Ea(lmcl", p. 113, I. 27. [Ou tho subject of payments to the Papacy, soe Twysflen's Hist. Viud. (pp. D.J, (.t H'qq.), from which this chapter was mainly derived.] CHAP. XUI.] POSSE SJOX. 171 to which England was no ùoubt frequentI.y obliged, for their care and counsel and other a sistance8: and by continuance this alms and gratitude obtained th( name of rent, and was metaphorically called !Some- times tributum I, but never anc.iently unùerstood to acknowledge the Pope as superior lord of a lay-fee. But when the Pope changed advice into precept, and counsel into law and empire, and required addi- tions, with other grievous exactions, unto his Peter- pence, it was a proper time to be better advised of ourselves, anù not to encourage such a wild usurpation with the continuance of our alms or gratitude. This alms was first given by a Saxon king, but by whom it is not agreed; but that there was no other payment besides this made to Rome before the year 1245 2 , appears for that, though there was much com- plaint and controversy about our paYluents, we find the Oluission of no payment instanced in, but of that duty only; neither do the body of our kingdom in their renlOnstrance 3 to Innocent IV., 1246, mention any other as claimed from hence to Rome. Yet this payment, as it was not from the begin- ning, and as it was at first but an alms; so it was not continued without some interruptions 4, when Rome had given arguments of sufficient provocation, both in the timcs of 'Villian1 the First, and IIenry his son, and Henry the Second 'fhis latter, during the dis- pute with Becket and Alexander 1 n., commanded the 1 Vide Twysdcn, [po 95.] 2 [Vid. Mat. Paris, Hist. .Major, A.D. 121,';, p. (,fi7, I. 3().] 3 [Apu(l Mat. Paris, p. 69R, I. 51, etc.] " [TwysrIen, p. 95.] 2. Fir:st- .Fruits. 172 POSSES IO . [CUAP. XIII. sheriftis through .England, that Peter-pence should be gathcred and kept, quousque iude dominus Rex volunta- tem Sllarn præcepe'l'it I . Historians observe that .Edward Ill. during the Frcnch war gave command, that no Peter-pcnce should be gathered or paid to Home 2; and the rc- straint continued all that Prince's tÎlne; for his suc- cessor Richard II., at the beginning' of his reign, caused John 'Vicklift> to con::;iùer the point,-who concludes 3 , those payments being no other than alms. the kingdom was not obliged to continue them longcr than it stood with its conveniencc, and not to it-; dctrÏ1nent or ruin,-according to the rule in diyinity, e.l'lra ca,c;u. npccssitatis et s1lper.1lllitatis eleem.osyua non est 'in jJræcepto. Indecd, in t.he Parliament held the same year, the question was made, and a petition 4 prcferrcd (which surely was some kind of disturbance of thc payment) against them, with no effect:-the IGng restored thcm, and the payment of thcn1 continued till Hcnry VIII. II. So I111lCh for Peter-pence ;-for the other payments, viz. First-fruits and Tenths, and the casual }Jayments for Bulls, &c., they so evidently dcpend on the Pope's supremacy for legislation, jurisdiction, anù dispensation, that they are justly dcnicd with it. lIowcver, we shall bricfly examinc thc risc and thc IJu::,ses:,ion of thcm. For the Annatc::, and Tenth:5, which the Pope rc- ("ciycd from our Archhishops and Bishops, the his- I [1\lat. Paris, A.H. 116-1, p. 1II: , I. 45.J 2 Stow's Chrunicle, A. n. 1365. p. 266, [cd. Lund. 1614.] ;3 [Tw)'sd(,Il, p. 96.] 4 [Rot. ParI. 1 0 Ric. n. f'-t.l t;IIAI'. XIII.] l'U:S:SI ::;:sIO . ]73 torians agrce, that England of all nations neycr sub- mitted to the full extcnt of thc papal commands 01' expectations; which no doubt was occasioned bJ' th good laws made here against them 1. There is difference amongst writers in whose time the }'irst-fruits began to be takcn. Theodoricus à Niem saith 2, Boniface IX., about the tenth year of his go- yernment3, was the first that rcseryed them; with whom Platina 4 agrees, and Polydore VergiP, and many othcrs (as Twysden 6 notes); and "r alsingham 7 reduces them but to 1316. But thequestiOll is, how long thc Pope quieti,) c11Ìoyed them? The kingdom was so intolerably bur- thened with papal taxes before (of which we ::;hall speak hereafter), and these First-fruits and Tenths being a remembrance of those extraordinar) taxc:-" and a way devised to settle and continue them upon us, they were prcsently felt and complained of. The Parliament complained 8 in general of such oppres- sions, 25 0 Edward III. A. D. 1351; and again mure par- ticularly, among other thing's of First-fruits, in the fiftieth of Edward the Third, and desire his J\Iajcsty 'no collector of the Pope may reside in Englalld 9 .' 1 [Twysden, pp. 99, 100.] 2 [De Schismate Universali, Lih. II. c. 27; ed. Argent. 1609.] 3 [i. e. A. D. 1399.] " De Vitis Pontif. in Bonif. IX. [po 527; ed. 16G4.] 5 De Rerum Inventoriùus, Lib. VIII. c. 2, [po -1:63; ed, 1606.] 6 [pp. 106, 107.] 7 [Hist. Angl. AD. 1316, p. lOR, I. 42: inter Angl. Sel'ipt. ed. Camden.] R [Rot. ParI. 25 0 Edw. III. Octavo Pm"if. 13.] 9 Rot.. ParI. 50 0 Ellw. III. 10... 106. 17-t POSSESSION. [CHAP. XIII. The King not complying. they again instance the year folluwing', that · the Pope's collector was as very an enelny to this state as the French themselves'; that he annuall,v sent away twenty thousand mark , and sometimes twenty thousanù pounùs; and that he now raised for the Pope the first-fruits of all dignities. -which in the very beginning; ought to be crushed I. Yet they prevailed not to their minds; and in the next Parliament 2 the Commons preferred three peti- tions; first, touching the payment of First-fruits. not used in the realm before these times: secondly, re- servation of benefices; thirdly, bestowing them on aliens, &c.-praying remedy; as also that the peti- tions of the two last Parliaments Inight be considered, and convenient remedies ordained. The King here- upon refers the matters for remedy to his grand or Privy Council 3 . But neither yet was full satisfaction obtained (as appears), for that the Commons renewed in effect the same suits 4 in the third and fifth of Hichard II., the inconveniences still continuing: after which the next Parliament obtained the statute of Pntll1:ltnire\ which (as Polydore Vergil 6 observes) was a confining the papal authority within the ocean. To which law three years after some additions were made, and none of these laws were repealed by Queen l\Tar'y'. 1 Rot. ParI. 51 0 Edw. III. 78, 79. 2 Rot. ParI. 1 0 Ric. II. 66, 67, fiR. 3 [See Twysden, pp. 108, 109.] 4 Rot. ParI. o Ric. II. 57; [50 Ric. II. in crastina Ani- marum, 9 90.91.] [) 13 0 Ric. II. Stat. II. c. 2 & . IJ [AngI. Rist. Lih. xx. p. 417, l. 32, etc. ; <,d. Basil. 1!i7o.] 'j 16 0 Ric. II. c. 5: [Sf'f' Twysden, p. no.] CIIA('. XII!.] PUSSESSlüX. 17j To say the Bishops were pressed bJ the laity to }.mss that las1 Act, i so muclJ otherwise, as that it is enrolled (a!:; Tw:ysden 1 observes) on the desire of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Seither would the Pope tolerate (as one 2 insinuates) any thing so exceedingly prejudicial to him, upon any reasonable pretence whatsoever. In the :same Parliament, the Commons petition that' the Popc's collector may have forty days for his removal out of the kingdom 3 :' the ICing considers. But in the ixth of Henry IV., upon grievous complaints made by the Commons to the King, 'of the horrible mischiefs and damnable customs which were then introduced of new in the Court of Rome, that none could have provision for an Archbishopric or Bishopric, until he had compounded with the Pope's chamber, to pay great and excessive sums of money, as well for the First-fruits a other lesser fees-it was enacted, that whosoever should pay such sums should forfeit all they had 4.' This statute was made about an hundred years before Henry YIII.,- an inconsiderable time for s() considerable a pre- scription. III. \Ve have notcd that the clergy of England P 3. ayments \\ ere not free from Roman taxations before the pay- extraordi. nary. ment of Annate!:; and Tenths, as they' were afterwards 1 [po Ill, the authority being th(' Rolls of ParI. 16 U Ric. II. 20, in fine.] 2 [Persons, in his Answer to Coke's Reports, p. 335.] 3 [See the 'Rolls,' 13 0 Ric. II. 43. Th(, king's :m8\\,('r is ('quivalent to a r('fusal; 'Ie 1'0)" s'aYisera.'] 4 6 0 Hem'. IV. c. I: [spp Cok("s 'Cawlrpy's Casp,' foJ. 2 . 11.] 176 POSSES IOX. [CHAP. XIII. stated: for there were occasional ehargcs exacted. from us by the Pope, which afterward:, terminated in those constant payments. as before was intimated. The first .extraordinary contribution raised by allowance for the Pope's use in this kingdom, Twys- den observes to have been A. D. 1183 (far enough oft' frm11 the time of St Austin); when Lucius III. (at odd with the citizens of Rome) sent to Henry 11., 'postlllall."J clltxilillrn of him and his clergy 1.' 'Vhere- upon two things considerable are observed, (1) th(" King, in this point concerning the Pope, consulted his own clergy, and follo\\ed their advice ;-(2) the great care the clergy took to avoid ill precedents,- for they advised the I{ing that he would receive thc n10neys as given by then1 to him, and not to the Pope, leaving the King to dispose it as he thought fit 2 . This warine s being perceived, the Pope did not suddenly attempt the like again. \Ve do not find any considerable snm raised from the body of the clergy for the support of the papal designs, till Gregory IX. demanded a tenth of all the moveables both of them and the laity, A.I) 1229 3 . The temporal Lord!' re- fused, and the clergy unwillingly were induced to thc contribution,-for it was no other. The Pope ventured no more upon the laity, but cleven years after 4 he demanded of the clergy a fifth part of their goods; and after many contests and strugglings, and notwithstanding all th(' argumellÍs 5 I R. de Hllvedcn, A. D. 1183, [po 622,1. Ii, etc.] 2 [See Twysdcn, pp. 9, 100.] 3 [!\lat. Paris, Ilist. Major. pp. 3Gl, 3G2.J -t [Ihid. A. n. 1240, p. 526, l. 20.] 5 [ Ia.t. Pal'is. 1'. :;34.] CHAP. XIII.] POSSESSION. 1 ...... " of the poor dcrgJ, bJ the IGng's and Archbishop's means, they wcre forced to paJ" it. But neither that rcluctancy, nor the remonstrance of the kingdom at the Council of Lyons., 12-15, nor that to the Pope himself the year following, could prevail then to change the shoulder or the method of oppression: for Innocent IY., 1246, invents a new 2 way, by charging' every religiou!::! house with finding of soldiers for his service for one year, - which amounted to eleven thousand marks 3 for that year; with many devices for his advantage. But did he go on more quietly than he began? No certainly :-see the petition 4 of the Commons in Parliament, 1376. The two Cardinals Priests' agents 5 were not suf- fered to provide for them a thousand lnarks a-year apiece; but the state chased them out of the king- dom, and the IGng sent through every county, that none henceforth should be admitted per Bullarn, with- out the special licence of the IGng 6 . And a while after, the Parliament held 20 0 Ed- ward III., 13-16, petition 7 more plainly, and mention the matter of the two Cardinals, as an intolerable grievance; in which the King gave them satisfaction. :However, the usurpation grows against all opposi- tion; and it is no longer a tax for one year only, as at 1 [Mat. Paris, p. 666, 1. 51, etc.] 2 [Ibid. p. 701, 1. 56; p. 707, 1. 30; p. iOR.] 3 [Ibid. p. 730, I. 16.] 4 Rot. ParI. 50 0 Edw. III. 107; [Twysden, p. 102.] [) [Rot. ParI. 17 0 Erlw. III. 59: Thorn. Walsingham, p. 161, l. 23.] 6 [Hen. de Knyghton, co1. 2583, I. 50.] 7 Rot. ParI. 20 0 Edw. III. 33. 3;'. 12 17 P() ESSI(JN. [CnAp. XIII first, hut for SIX ,years succcssivcly, pretending war with infidels: so dealt John XX!.l, A.D. 1277, and Clement V. 2 , in the Council of Yienne, 1311. Exactions of this kind were so abominable, that l\Iartin V., at the Council of Constance, 1418, wah constrained to make that remedy 3, 'Nllllaten1J. impo- nantnr,' &c.-upon which decree a supply of the ten1 h being twice demanded. viz. 15V) and 1518, bJ Leo X. against the Turk, the English ('lcrgy denied them both time 4. Thus the l)apacy b;y little and little, and through great opposition, at length brought the taxes to that we now call tenths; and annates proceeded graduaH,y. but b,y n1ilder measures, to a like settlemcnt; yet nei- ther continued without the disturbances before men- tioned. IV. There is nothing rClnains under the head of . 4. money, but the casual and accidental profit!';, accruing Ca!.ual Payments. by Bulls and Licences, and lesser ways and conditions of advantage, which did much help the rest to drain u of our wealth. But the e obtained upon private persons, and many times in methods not cognizable by law; neither were the people so apt to complain in such cases, because they had something (which they unaccountably valued) for their money: and the po es ion of a false opinion in the vulgar (as jugglers and cheats may equally glory in) can never be !:'oberly 1 [W. Thorn, col. 1926, l. 29; inter Scriptores x.] 2 [Thom. \Valsinglmm, p. 99,1. 14.] 3 Concil. Constant. Sess. XLIII., r apud. Labh. Concil. Tom. XII. 255.] 4 [Herbert's Life of Hen. VIII. pp. 5ï.79: pd. 16ï2.] CHAP. XIII.J POSSESSIO1\". 17 interpreted to he a good and sufficient title to the supremacy of the Church of England ;-yet it is not amiss to remember, that the Pope's messenger, John de Obizis, for aet.ing against the King's laws in get- ting money for his master, was cast into prison 1. Neither can ,ve reasonably imagine but that much of that vast sum 2 wa" gathered by those ways, which in the reign of HenrJ III. the Lords and Commons complain of, viz. that above eighty thousand marks yearly wa" carried hence into Hal.)'. I t was some disturbance of :such kind of receipts. that the law 3 forbids 'any :such Bulls to be purchased for the time to COlne upon pain of a P'1 y r;munÙ'e;' and that it was decreed 4 that' the Pope's collector, though he have a Bull for the purpose, hath no jurisdiction within this realm.' And if the ancient law of the realm saith that the Pope cannot aIter the law::; of England, that law con- demns his raising money upon the people in any kind, without special law to that purpose ;-a prerogative the kings of England themselves do not claim. There- fore that standing fundamental law of England always lay in bar against. and was a continual, real, and legal disturbance of the Pope.s possession of power to impose taxes, or by any devices to collect moneJ from the English, either laity or clergy. 1 [ peneer's Life of Archbp. ChichelC', p. 99; Loud. 1';"83: Wilkins' ConcH. Tom. III. p. 486.] 2 [Mat. Paris, A. D. 1246, pp. 715-il 7; Carte's Hist. of Eng- land, Vol. II. p. 87. On the authority of these writers, the text has been corrected from 'four hundred thousand pounds,' the sum stated by Fullwood or his printer.] :1 Stat. 7 0 Hen. IV. c. 6; [see Coke, Reports, Part v. fot. 24, h ] t 1 Hf>u. IV. fol. !); [Coke, Ibid, fot. 22, n.] 12-2 CHAPTER XIV. THE CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT FROl\I PRESCRIPTION-IT IS ON OUR SIDE-NO FORCE FOR THE POPE. W E have seen what the argument from Prescrip- tion is come to,-how far short of nine hundred years, and how unsettled, both in law and practice, it ever was, both as to jurisdiction in the Pope's court at Rome and by his Legates here,-and as to legis- lation by the force of his Canons, and his dispensation by faculties, licences, and any sort of bulls, &c.,-and as to his patronage of, or profits from, the English Church. If a just computation were made, I believe the argument from Possession would really appear to be on our side; our Kings having enjoyed and flourished in the exercise of supremacy over us ever since the Act of Henry VIII. extinguishing the Pope's usurpation here, with far more quiet and less interruption than ever the Pope did for so long a titne. Besides, other qualifications of our IGng's pos- session do mightily strengthen the plea above any thing that can be alleged on the Pope's behalf. (1) Our I{ings had possession from the beginning according to the Canon I, and therefore could never be lawfully divested: ancient histories are evident for I [An allusion probably to the sixth Nicene Canon TtÌ åpxaîa ;(J71 KpOTfíTW, IC.T. .] CHAP. XIV.] POSSESSION. 181 U , and Baronius I determines well, 'what is said by a modern concerning ancient affairs, without the autho- rity of any more ancient, is contemned.' This ancient Possession of our Kings hath ever been continued and declared and confirmed by our laws, and the consent of the whole kingdom signified thercby: and these laws have still been insisted on, and repeated, when there hath been any great occa- sion, and fit opportunity to vindicate our ancient liberties. But the Pope could never obtain any legal settlement of his power here before Queen l\Iary's reign; nor by her neither in thc main branches of it, though indeed shc courted him with the dignity of a grcat name and a verbal title 2. Indeed, the subject of the question being a spi- ritual right, our advcrsaries themselves agree, that Posscssion sufficient to prove it ought to begin near Christ's time; and he that hath begun it later (as certainly the Pope did), unless he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancienter possession (as the Pope can never do), is not to be styled a pos- scssor, but an usurper, an intruder, an invader, diso- bedient, rcbellious, and chismatical; as no doubt by S. "T.'S logic the Pope is, as before was noted 3. I shall conclude with the grave and considerate concession of :Father Barnes (noted by Dr Stillingfleet 4 ), 1 Annal. Tom. I. ad an. 1, },II 2 [See Twysden's Vindication, p. 110.] 3 [See above, p. 114.] .. [Vindication of Archbp. Laud, Vol. II. pp. 171,172. TIlL' whole of Barnes's 'Catholico-Romanus Pacificus' is printed in Brown's Appendix to the' Fasciculus Rerum': for the passa,ge in question, see p. 839.] 18 POSSESSION. [CRA!" XIV. who, after his thorough study of the point, upon clear conviction determined it positively for Ub in the::;c words: "The Britannic Church may plead the Cyprian privilege, that it was subject to no Patriarch; and although this privilege was taken away by force and tumult, yet being restored by the consent of the kingdom in Henry the Eighth's time, and quietly enjoyed since, it ought to be retained for peace' sake, without prejudice of Catholici!:;m, and the brand of schism ;"-by which he grants all that is pertinent to our cause, (I) that the Pope had not posbcssion hcre from the beginning, nor ought to have had: (2) that he took advantage, bellorwn tuntltltiblts ct vi, for his usurpation: (3) that our ancient Cyprian privilege was re!:;tored by Henry thc Eighth, totillS Rcgni consensu, 'with the consent of the whole kingdom': (4) that never since it had been peaceably prcscribed (pac'ijice præscriptum), or quictly enjoyed: (5) and that there- fore it still ought to be retained, sine sclâ8matis ulliw nota, 'without the brand or charge of schism,' -which is the only thing ('ontended for. CHAPTER XV. THE AHHU IENT FROM INFALLIBILITY CON- SIDERED ;-IN ITS CONSEQUENCE UETORTED. r l ' II E two la t argnment for proof of the Pope'H authority arc g'eneral, and not limited to the Church of England. as the three former were; tIle,\' are his Infallibilit ., and hi Universal Pastor hip,- which remain to be examined. From his Infallibility it may be argued thus: \\rhe_ Argument. ther the Pope were the means of our conversion, or have a patriarchal right oyer us, or have had pos- se!;,sion of the government of the English Church heretofore or not, if he be really and absolutely infal- lible, he hath thereby a right to govern us; and we are bound to be ruled and directed by him. nut the Pope is really and absolutely infallible. E'J'[Ju, ctc. The consequence would tempt a denial: indeed, ComiC- f'. 1 . 1 . l . fi . quence. lnlallbi Ity is an excellent qua 1 catIOn for an Uni- vcr:";al Rector, but are not qualification and com- mission two things? Hath God given authority to every man equal to his parts, to hi natural, acquired, or infu ed abilities? If not, what neces ity is there that he hath to the Pope? If all power, as well as all wi dom, is from God (the prime Fountain of them hoth), and If w( pretend to hoth, need we evidence only one? Indecd. we oug-ht to hc guided b,\ onc that is H>4 INFALLIBILITY. [CHAr. XV. infallible (if such a one there be); but the neces ity ari!:;eth from prudence, not immediately from con- science; unless by smne other way of authority God hath given him power to govern us, as well as ability: otherwi:se we ought to submit ourselves to the guid- ance of the Pope, as a good and wise man, or as a friend, as our ancestors did, and not as our lord. The true question is, 'Vhether God hath given the power of government to the Pope, and directly appointed him to be the Universal Pastor of his Church on earth; so that the controversy will bear us down to the last Chapter, whatever can be aid here. And Infallibility is such a Inedium, as infallibly run!:; upon that solecism of argument, obsclt1"mn per obscurius; and indeed, if there be any inseparable connexion betwixt Infallibility and the Universal Pa - tOl"ship (as is pretended), the contrary is a lawfuller way of concluding :-viz. if there be no one man appointed to govern the Church as Supreme Pastor under Christ, then there is no necessity that anyone man should be qualified for it, with this wonderful gTace of Infallibility. But it doth not appear that God hath invested anyone man with that power; therefore not with that grace. But lest this great Homan argument should uftcr too much, let us at pre!:;ent allow the consequence; but then we must expect very fair evidence of the assumption, viz. that the Pope is indeed infallible. I am aware that there are some vexing questions about the manner and subject. of this Infallibility; but if we will put them out of the way, then the evidence of the Pope's or Chu1"ch of Rome's Infallibilit . hreaks CHAP. XV.] INFALLIBILITY. 185 out from three of the grcatest topics we can desire, Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. Let theln be heard in their order. SECTION I. I. ARGUl\1E T FRO)[ SCRIPTURE FOR INFALLIBILITY, viz. EXAMPLE-HIGH PRIEST OF THE JE\VS- APOSTLES. W HETHER it be an excess or defect of charity in me I know not, but I cannot bring my::;elf to believe that the fiercest bigot of popery aliyc can seriow-,Iy think the Pope infallible, in the popish scnse of the word; especially that the Holy Scriptures prove it. I know that sonle fly the absurdity, by hiding the Pope ill the Church: but if the Church be infallible, it is so as it is representative in gencral Councils, or diffusivc in the whole body of Christians; and then what is Infallibility to the Church of Rome nlore than to any other? And how shall that which is comnlon to all give power to one over all? Or what is it to the Pope, above another Bishop or Patriarch? But 'the Pope is the Hcad and Universal Bishop as he is Bishop of ROllle.' That is begging a great question indeed, for the proof of the Pope's Infallibility (which his Infallibility ought to proye), and to prove the nledium by the thing in yucstion, after a new logic. Besides, if the proper seat of Inf:'lllibiIity be the Church, in either of thc senses it concerns our adver- saries to solve Divine Providence; who use to argue (Sf) INFAl.4LIllILITY. [Cn.H'. XY. for this wonderful g.ift in the Church. 'if therc be no Infallibility, God hath not sufficiently provided for thc safety of souls, and the government of his Church.' For seeing the Church difihsive cannot be imagined to govern itself. but as collected; and seeing, as the Christian world is now circumstantiated, it is next to impossible we should have a gcneral and free Coun- cil,-how shall this so necessary infallible grace in the Church be exerted, upon all occasions, for the end aforesaid? It is therefore most consonant to the Papal inte- rest and reason to lodge this infallible gift in the Pope, or Court of Home. However, let. us attend their argUlllents for thc evidence of it, either in the Pope, or Court. or Church of Home, in any aeeeption; which are first drawn from Scripture, both examples and prom iRes. I. I. From Scripture-examples they reason thus: ArgullIcnt from Ex- 'the I-ligh-priest with his clergy in the time of the .lIl1plcs. Law were infallible; therefore the Pope and his clergy I. The High arc so now. The High-priest with his clergy in the Priest. time of the Law were so, as appears from Deuter- onomy xvii. R,-where in doubts the people werc hound to submit and stand to thcir judgment, which mpposeth them infallible in it:' as T. C. argues 1 with .. \rchbishop Laud. ,\nswcr. Dr tillingfleet2 with others hath exposed thi:-: argument beyond all reply. In short, the eOIlse- granted, that we may prove him infallible, to the end we may prove his Headship. 'Vere it ::;aid to tIu' Chri::;tian Church, when any controversy of faith arið- eth, 'Go to Home. and there inquire the judgment of the Bishop, anù believe his determinations to he infal liblc,' there had been no need of this consequence; but seeing we read no ,,;uch thing, the consequencl"' is worth nothing. Besides, the minor affirming the infallibility of the Minor. High-priest from that law of appeal in Deuteronol11,) :'\..vii. 8, is justlJ que::;tionecl. There was indeed an obligation on the J eW8 to submit and stand to the judgment of that high Court, but no obligation nor ground to believe the judgment infallible. The same obligation lies upon Christians, in all juùieiary causes, especially upon the last appeal, to submit in our prac. tices, though not in our judgment or conscience to believe what is determined to be infallibly true :-a, violence that neither the whole world nor a man's self can sometimes do tu the reason of a man. The text is so plain not to concern matters of doctrine, to be decided whether true or false, but matters of justice to he determined, whether right or wrong, that one would think the vcr,) reading of it should put an end for ever to this debate about it. 'The words are, " If then> arise it matter too hard for thee in judgment. bet ween blood and blood, between plea and plea and between stroke alllt stroke, heing matters of eontroH'rs,) \\ ithill tll,) gatcs: thcn shalt. thol1 arise and g'ct 11-1('(' tip into tlw placc whieh the 188 INF ALLIßILITY. [CHAr. XV. Lord thy God shall choose," &c. Thus God estab- lished a court of Appeal, a suprelne court of J udica- ture, to which the la t application was to be luade, both in case of injury and in case of difficulty, called the great Sanhedrim. But note, here is no direction for addrebs to this court, but when the case had been first heard in the lowcr courts, held in the gates of the cities: therefore the law concerned not the mo- nlentous controversies in religion, which never came under the cognizance of those inferior courts. Therefore it is not said, whosoever doth not be- lieve the judgnlent given to be true, but whosoever acts contumaciously in opposition to it: "And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken. even that man shall dic l ." Bcside , God still supposeth a pos ibility of error in the wholc congrcgation of Israel 2, and chargeth the priests with ignorancc and forsaking his way, fre- quently by the Prophets. But alas! whcre was the Infallibility of thc High- priest, &c., when our bles ed Saviour was condemned by him, and by this very court of the Sanhedrim? And whcn 'Israel had heen for a long season without the truc God, without a teaching priest, and without Ia w 3 ? ' 2. II. It is also argued from that example of the The Apo!5- tIes. Apostles under the New Testament, 'that they were assisted with an infallible spirit, and there is the same AIl wer. rca on for the Popc.' But this is to dispose God's I Deut. xvii. 12. 2 JJcvit. iv. 13. 3 2 Chron. :xv. 3: see Dr Stillingflc'ct, [Vindication, Vol. I. p. 3R4.] CHAP. XV.] INFALLIBILITY. lS9 gifts and wisdom by our own reason. The Apostles' Infallibility, attested with miracles, was necessary to the first plantation anù state of the Church; and it no more followeth, that therefore the succeeding Bishops must be infallible because they were so, than that because l\Ioses wrought miracles for the COIl- firmation of the Law, therefore the Sanhedrim should work miracles for the ordinary government of I::;rael, according to the Law. Besides, what reason can be given why this pri- vilege of Infallibility should be entailed upon the Bishops of Rome more than other Bi::;hops, who suc- ceeded the infallible Apostles as well as the Pope? "l1at ground hath he to claim it more than they? Or if thcy have all an interest in it, what becomes of the argument that the Pope is the Universal Head and Govcrnor of the Churh, because hc is infallible? SECTION n. ARGUMENT FROM THE PROMISES OF INFALLIBILITY. , G OD hath promised that his Church Rhall be pre- II. .. ... Argument served, wInch prOI1llSC engageth Ius Infalhble from Pro- . h L' 1 Ch h b 1 . . mise". aSsIstance: t erclore tIe urc y t lat assIstance IS alway::; infallible.' To this mighty purpose T. C. rea- onsl with Archbishop Laud. 'God will certainly and infallibly have a Church, therefore that Church shall not only be, but bc infal- lible in all her decrees de fide.' Is not this strong Answer I [Lahyrinth. Cantuar. p. 99, 3.] l O INFALLJßILTTY. L CHAP. XV. reason? God is infallible, therefore his Church is so ; a Church shall continue, therefore it ::;hall not err. Pray what :-;ecurity doth the promise of the Church s perpetuity, or infallibility as to fundamen- tals, give to any single person or particular Church, that the;y shall continue in the Christian faith, more than it did to seven Churches in Asia? And where arc they now? The argument will conclude as well: God hath promised hi8 Church :-;hall ever exist upon earth; therefore (1) Christian::; (of which the Church consists) shall never die, as well a never fall away-for if the promise be made to the present Church in the Ro- manist's Hense, it is made to the individuals that lnake the Chureh-(2) and that every particular Christian, as well as ever) particular Church, having an equal and connnon interest in the promise of assistance, is infallible. If we should grant the Universal Church to be infallible, not only as to her perpetuity but her testi- nlony,-whieh the argument reacheth not; yet it rest::; to be proved that the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, and then that the. Pop{> is HIP Church of Rome in the same sense that the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, and that in the same consideration as the Catholic Church is in{h.Ilible. But if we consider the particular promises, the argument thence is 80 wide and ineonclusiye. that one would think no considerate man could be abused by it. These promises are such as concern the A po tlcs and Church in general; or such as are pretended to digni y St Peter in special. and abo\"e the rest. CUAI'. XV.l INFALLIBILITY 191 Such as concern the Apostles anli the Church in (;cneralto . .Apostle s . general arc these three: "He that hearcth you hcar- eth me I," &e. True, while .you teach me, that is m doctrine. " I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world 2." True. while you arc faithful, and teach whatsoever I eommand. " The Comforter. the Holy Ghost. shall abide with you for eyer 3 ." True abo, while you love me and keep my comnumdments : -as the condition i., just before the promise. Xow what arc these texts to the Pope or the Church of Rome in pecial? The) certainly that plead the promise :should not neglect the duty; it were well if that was thought on. The Popé's peeial friend!:; insist on other promiseK more peculiarly designed, as they would have them, St. PeteI'. for St Peter's prerogative. They are these: (1) The first is l\latth. xvi. ] 8: "Thou art Peter. Te"-t I. and upon this rock will I build my Church; and tIll' gates of hell shall not prevail against it." But what is this to St Peter's Infallibilit y? The An",wlI". Church shall not be overthrown, therefore St Peter is infallible: what is this to the Pope's Infallibility? The gates of hell shall not preyail against the Church, therefore the Pope is infallible. Can God find no other way to preserve the Church but St Peter's Infallibility and the Pope's Infallibility? Is this promise made to beeure the Church under St Peter and his successors absolutel) from all error? How came St Peter himself to fall then, by denJ ing his master, and to err about the te111poral kingdom 4 I Luke x. IG. .. Af'ts i. 6. 2 Mat. X"\ "iii. 20. 3 ,John xiv. IG. ] 2 INFALLIBILITY. [CIIAp. X\T. of Christ? and Popes to be blasphemers, heretical 1 , atheistical? How came so many particular Churches that were under the Apostolic chair (if all were so at first) to miscarry, as those first Churches in Asia did? But whatever is here promised to St Peter is nothing to the Pope, unless the Pope be indeed St Peter's successor, and sit in his chair,-the grea.t point reserved for the last refuge, and shall there at large be examined. Text 2. The next promise is, John xxi. 16, "Peter, feed my bheep;" therefore the Pope is infallible. But must not others feed Christ's sheep, and are they infallible too? It is acutely said 2, that Peter was to feed the sheep as ordinary pastor, the rest of the Apostles as extraordinary mubassadors. But doth this text say so, or any other text? How came it to pass that the ordinary pastor should be greater than the extraordinary ambassadors? How is it proved that this power of feeding is infallible only as in St Peter? or as such is transluitted to St Peter's successor in a more peculiar manner than to the sue- ec:,sors of other Apostles? and that the Pope is this successor? This must be considered hereafter; their proof is not yet ready. Text 3. Another is Luke xxii. 31: "Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to winnow thee...but I have prayed that thy faith fail not;" viz. that thou perish not in apoiStacy, not that thou be absolutely secured from error, nor thy pretended successors. And had not others the prayer 3 of Christ also, even all that should 1 [See above, p. 92, notes 2,4.] 2 [See Stillingfleet's Vindication, II. 266,2G7.] 3 ,Tohn xvii. 20. CH-\P. xv.] IXFALLIBILITY. 193 believe on him? In a word, what is this to the Pope that Peter should not utterly miscarry in the High- priest's hall, unless it signify that the Popc mayerI' grievousl,y, as St Peter did, though he hath no more the security of not failing in the faith than every ordinary Christian hath. But this trifling with holy Scripture provokes re- buke, and deserves no answer. If any desire further satisfaction, either upon these or other like Scripture urged for the Pope's or the Church's Infallibility, let them peruse Dr StiI- lingfleetl in defence of my Lord of Canterbury, and :\11' Pool's Treatise 2 written on purpose upon thii', subject. 1 [See particularly Part I. c. viii. Part II. c. vii.] 2 [e. g. Matthew Pool's Treatise. entitled 'The Nullity of the Romish Faith; or a Blow at the Root of the Romish Church,' &c. &c.] ]3 CHAPTER XVI. SECOND \RGU::\rENT FOR INFALLIBILITY, nol. TRADITION-CONCESSIONS-FOUR PRO- POSITIONS-TIIREE ARGUl\IENTS- OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. T HAT the difference lllay not seem wider than - indeed it is, wc shall make wa,y for our discussion of this argumcnt by a few but considerable conces- sions. (1) We yield that tradition truly catholic is apostolical. Truly catholic, that is, in all the three known conditions I, ab omnib ts, sempe'ì', et ubique: for we cannot imagine that any thing should be belieyed or practised by all learned Christians at all times and in all places, as a point of Christian Religion, that was not received as such eithcr frOlll Christ himself or his Apostles. (2) 'Ve grant that tradition hath been, and ever will be, both uscful anù ncccssary for the delivering down to the faith of the Church, in all succeeùing ages, both the Canon of the Scripture, and thc fun- damentals of the Christian Rcligion. The necessity hereof ariscth from the distanec of timc and place, and must be supposed, upon thc succcssion of gene- rations in thc Church, aftcr the rcmoval of the first 1 [The rule of Vincent of JJcl'ins, in his 'Commonitorium,' (,:lp. Hi.] (JIIAP. XVl.] 1:'01 FALLUHLITY. 195 prcachcrs . XYI.] INFALLIBILITY 199 the present point to shew us in t;ome good authort;, in every age since the Apostles, this tradition for Infal- libility; then indeed he hath done something which ought to be done. But till that be done we must adhere that there is no :mch ground of the Pope's authority over us a his Infallibility, proved by Scrip- ture or tradition. This proof I think was never yet so much as un- dertaken, and may be expected-(Hoc Oplt8 est.) It is ohserved by Dr Stillillgfleet 1, that there is but one eminent place in antiquity produced on their side in the behalf of traditions, and that is out of St Basil, 'de Ypirit"U Sancto ad Amphilochium.' But the book, with jUtit reason, is suspected 2. Three of the traditions mentioned in the place 3 are, the cont;ecration of the person to be baptized, the standing at the prayers until Pentecost, and above all, the trine immersion in baptism. The two first of these are not acknow- ledged by the present Church of Ron1e; and the last, by the very Council of Trent 4, is pronounced not to he' of apostolical tradition. Here is not one word touching- any tradition for the Infallibility of the Church, but indeed much rea- son against it: for either the present Church at that I [Vindication of Archbp. Laud, Vol. I. p. 386.] 2 [Respecting its genuineness, see Stillingfleet, as above; and Cave, Hist. Literar. sub Basil.] 3 [De Spiritu Sancto, c. xxvii. Opp. Tom. II. p. 351, c; cd. Paris. 1637.] 4 [Catechism. ad Parochos, de Baptismo. pp. 1.38, 159. cd. Lovan. 1567: 'Utrum vero unica, an trina ablutio fiat, nihil referre existimandum cst.' On the history of the practice, see Bingham, Rook XI. chap. xi. s. 6, 7, R.] 200 INFALLIBILITY. [CHAP. XVI. time wa::, actually deceived, and took that to be apo - tolical .which wa not so, or the present Church in the Council of Trent took that not to be apostolical which indeed was so, and was actually deceived in her judgment and determination to the contrary. For those words of that author, "unwritten traditions have equal force to stir up piety with the written word," put the dilem111a beyond exception, as those known words of the true] Basil, that "it is a manifest falling from the faith, and an argument of arrogancy, either to reject any point of those things which are written, or to bring in any of those things which arc not written,"-lnake it ju::;,tIy I:;uspicious that the book extolling unwritten traditions was none of his. Bellarmine's2 three arguments, (1) the Fathers say the sentence of general Councils adnlits of no appeal, (2) such as submit not to them are heretics, (3) such sentence i Divine,-prove their authority, but not their Infallibility; and 'the force of such sentence with the Fathers wad ever taken from Scripture, or reason, or lniracles, or approbation of the whole Church,' as Occhanl and S. Clara 3 after St Augustine affirm. Therefore the }'athers generally allow us liberty of examination, anù derogate faith from all men beside the Apostles. I [De Vera ac Pia Fide; Opp. Tom. II. p. 380. e.: cþall pn ;te1TTWUL!> 1TíUTEW!> Kal v1T P7Jcþallía!> KaT1Jyopía, àB TEíll TL T6>1I y ypa,.,,- ,.,,:IIWII, È1TnuáYELII T II p. yrypap.p.illwlI, Ie. T. . ] 2 [Dc ConcH. Lib. II. c. 3; Disputat. Tom. II. p. 256; erl. Colon. 1628. His arguments are considered at length in Pool's 'Nu11ity of the Romish Faith,' pp. 70, et seqq.] 3 System. Fidei, c. X}.VI. * 2. [where the author cites Occham .lnti St Augustine at, length.] CHAPTER XVII. THIRD ARGUMENT FOR INFALLIBILITY, FRO1\[ REASON-THREE REASONS ANSWERED- POINT ARGUED-RETORTED. I T is confessed, that though Scripture and tradition prove it not, yet if there be indeed any ound reason (which is a kind of Divine law) for the Pope's Infallibility, that will go a great way. But it doubt- le s ought to be very clear and strong reason, that is able to carr;y it in so great a point, without either Scripture or tradition. Let us hearken. Perhaps we have tradition offering its service to Reason I. reason in another form, and the argument may stand thus: tradition is infallible, but the Pope in the Church of Rome is the keeper of tradition; therefore thereby the Pope is infallible. This argument indeed hath countenance from Answers. antiquity: for Irenæus I adviseth his adversaries who pretended tradition to go to Rome, and there they might know .what wa::, true and apostolical tradition, for there it was preserved. But how could that Father as::mre us that Ronle would always be a faithful preserver of true apos- tolical tradition? 'Vhat sccurity could he give to after ages against innovations and addition:; to tradition itself in the Church of Rome? 1 [S('c anon', }I. DfJ.J 202 INFALLIBILIT\ . [CHAP. XVII. Uell1ember what hath been :said, that tradition can be thought infallible only in the sub:stantial of religion; anù consequently cannot protect either itself or the Church from additional errors in other things. Besides, in the sub:stantiab of Religion the pro- testant Churches have the benefit of traùition as well as the Church of Ronle; and if that carry Infallibility with it, our Church is infallible as well as the Church of Rome; and consequently thereby hath a right to govern itself. Reason II. But the great reason alway:s gloried in is from the wisdom and prudence of our blessed Saviour, who had he not intended to afford tbe a8 istance of Infal- libility to the succeeding pastors of his Church, to lead them when assenlbled in a general Council, he had built his Church upon the sand; as T. C. argues with his Grace of Canterbury I. Answer. Admit the necessity of this assistance to the pas- tors of the Church, what is this to prove the govern- ment of the Church in the Pope, because of his infallibility? But if our Saviour should not have assured Ulj that he will thus assist his Church in all ages, (as you cannot shew), how do you know he hath intended it? And how unchristian is your reason, to impeach your Saviour with the inference of folly, and (a::; at other times) with ignorance and imposture, if he hath not? Take heed; hath not our Saviour built his Church upon the foundation 2 of the Prophets and A posHes ? I [Labyrinth. Cantuar. p. 104, 7.] 2 [Eph. ii. 20: Rcy. xxi. 14. ('IIAI'. XVII.] INFALLIBILITY. 203 And is this sand in the Homan sense? J not Christ himself the chief 1 corner-stone? Is He sand too? Doth not he that keepeth His t;a;yings build upon a rock, as firm as the decrees of a general Council ? "\Vhere hath our Saviour given us the least inti- mation that inherent Infallibility is the only rock to secure the Church from error? Is there not sufficient ground to rely on the doctrine of Christ, had there never been a general Council? \Vhat, was the Church built upon the sand only before the Council of Nice? \Vhy did it not then fall in the storms of pert;ecution ? Did not the Apostles commit the doctrine of Christ to writing? Is not tradition the great mean of delivering the Scripturc , and all things needful to Ralvation, by your own arguments? l\Iay not the latter be done by nurses and tutors, &c., without a general Council? And if there be lesser differences in the Church, is the foundation subverted presently? And may not those lesser differences among Chris- tians be healed with argument, or at least quieted; and the peace of the Church preserved by the decrees of Councils, without infallibility? How unreasonable is it to deny it ! " We grant," saith Doctor Stillingfleet 2 , "Infalli- bility in the foundation of faith; we declare th<- owning of that Infallibility is that which makes men Christians, (the body of whom we call a Church); we further grant that Christ hath left in that Church suf- ficient means for the preservation of it in truth and unity:" but 'we cannot discern, either from Scripture, 1 [Eph. ii. 20.] 2 p. 2!"i!); [VinùÎf'ation, Vol. I. p .t) 2: n('w ('(1.1 Reason III. Answer. 20-1- INFALLIBIL ITY. [CHAI'. XVII. reason, or antiquity, that such Infallibility is neceHsary for the Church's preservation, by the Councils of suc- ceeding pastors; much less a living and standing infallible judge, as the Head of the Church.' But they say, 'the infinite dissensions and divisions amongst those that deny it make this necessary.' How is it in the Roman Church I? Are there no divisions there? Or is the sole remedy ineffectual? Yea, are there no differences there about Infallibility 2 itself, the manner and subject of it ? Are not many of yourselves ashamed and weary of it? Do not some of you deny it, and set up tradition instead of it? 'Vas not the ApostIe 3 to blame to say, 'there must be heresies or divisions among ;you,' and not to tell them there must be an infallible judge among :you, and no heresies ?-But now men are wiser, and of another mind. To conclude,-whether we regard the truth or unity of the Church, both reason and sense assures us that this Infallibility signifies nothing: for, as to truth, it is impossible men should give up their :fitith and conscience, and inward apprehension of things, to the sentence of anyone man, or all the men in the world, against their own reason; and for unity, there is no colour or shadow of pretence against it, but that the authority of ecclesiastical government can preserve it, as well with a without InfallibilitJ'. 1 [See Leslie's' Case stated:' \Vorks, Vol. III. pp. 18 et seqq.] 2 [This was the great subject of deha.te between thc UJtramon- tanists anrl the Ga1Ji('a.ns during the sixtc<,nth amI seventeenth centuries. See Mr Palmer's 'Trcatise on the Church,' Part HI. chap. v. sect. 1.] 3 [1 COI'. xi. 19.] CHAP. XVII.] INFALLIBILITY. :W5 But if there be any sense in the argument, 11le- thinks it is better thus: the Head and Governor of . the Christian Church lllust of necessity be infallible; bul the Pope is not infallible, either b,} Scripture, tradition, or reason; therefore the Pope is not the Head and Governor of the Christian Church. 11' CHAPTER XVIII. OF THE POPE'S UNIYERSAL PASTOHSIIIP-ITS RIGHT, DIVINE OR HUMAN-THIS CIVIL, OR ECCLESIASTICAL-ALL EXAMINED -CONSTANTINE-KING JOI-IN- JUSTINIAN-PHOCAS, &c. W E have found some flaws in the pretended title of the Pope, as our Converter, Patriarch, Po - sessor, and as the ubjeet of Infallibilit.r. His Ia t and greatest argument is his Universal Pastorship; and indeed, if it be proved that he is the Pastor of the whole Church of Christ on earth, he is ours also; anù we cannot withdraw our obedience fron1 him. without the guilt of that which is charged upon us, viz. schism, (if hiR commands be justifiable): but if the proof of this fail also, we are acquitted. This right of the Pope's 1" niversal Pastorship is Divine or hUll1an (if at all): both are pretended, and arc to be exan1ined. The Bishop of Chalcedol1 I is very indifferent and reasonable as to the original: if the right be granted, it is not (Ie fide to believe whether it come from God or no. If the Popc be Universal Pastor jure humano only, his title is either from civil or frOln ecclesiastical power; and, lest we should err fundamentally, we shall consider the prctenccs from both. .". 1 [' Survey of t\w J.Jord of l>erry his Trentise of Sehif;m.' chap. v. sect. 3.] CHAP. XVIII.] UXl\'EHB.U. PASTOH. 207 If it be :-\aiù that the ci,"il PO\\ er hath cOllfl'lTCtl this honour upon the Pope, ma) it not be 4uestionctl ",hether the chil powers of the world extend so far. a either to dispose of the government of the Church, or to Rul{ject all the Churches under one Pastor? However, de facto, when was this done? 'Vhen did the Kings of Englanù, in conjunction with the ruler of the whole world. make such a grant to the Pope? I think the world hath been ashamed of the Donation D t . f C t t . , I t h t of ('onstan- , ona IOn 0 ons an Ine ong agon; ;ye , t a no tine. shadow Inay remain unscattered, we hall briefly tal\o.e an account of it. They say, 'Constantine the third day after he "as baptized left all the \Vest part of the empirc to Pope Sylvester, and went himself to dwell at Con- stantinople; and gave the whole imperial and civil dominion of Rome, and all the ,V cstern kingdoms, to the Pope and his mccessors for ever.' A large boon indeed. This looks as if it was intended that the Pope should be an Emperor, but who ma1..es him Universal 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 1\[1' Harding) throws off all these little ca\ils, anù with sufficient evidence out of ]\[atthæus IIiero- monachus, a Grcek author, shews the very words of the decree which carry it for the Pope, as wcll in ecclesiastical as civil advantages. They are these 2 : I [Bp. Jewel's Dcfcncc of thp Apology, p. 5R9; CI1. 1570.] 2 [Ihiel.] 20 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XVIII. .r 'Ve decree, and give in charge to alllorùs, and to the senate of our EUlpire, that the Bishop of Ron1c, 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 wherebJ" some think the' Pope hath power (saith John of ParisI) as Lord of the whole world to et up and pull down Kings.' It is confessed this grant is not pleaded lately with any confidence. Indeed Bishop J ewel 2 did check it early, when he shewed Harding the wisest and best among the Papists have openly disproved it: such as Platina, Cusanus, Patavinus, Laurentius Valla, Anto- ninus Florentinus, and a great many more a . Carùinal Cusanus hath these words: "Carefully weighing this grant of Constantinc, even in the very penning thereof I find manifest arguments of forgery and falsehood i." It is not found in the Register of Gratian, (that. is, in the allowed original text), though it be indeed in the Palea of some hooks; yet that Palea is not read in the schools :-and of it Pope Pius II. himself 1 [Tractatus de Regia Potest. et Papali, c. XXII; apud Goldast. de Monarch. Tom. 11. ; and in Bp. Jewel, p. 590.] 2 [Ibid.] 3 [Ibid. The Treatise of Laurentius ValIa gave the death-blow to this forgery. The title is 'De ementita Constantini Donatione Declamatio.' It is printed in the' Fasciculus Rerum,' etc., pp. 132 et seqq. ed. 1690.] 4 De Catholica Concordantia., Lih. Ill. c. 2. [in thE' 'Fasciculus Rerum,' p. 158.] t'IL\J'. XVIII] Ul'\IYEns.\L P.\STOIL O!) said, Dicta PaltJ(l . Constantinus' fals(" est. and inveighs against the Canonists that dispute An valucJ"it l:d, quod nunquam fuit; and those that speak most fayourably of it confess that it is as true that, at the bamc time, the voice of angels was heard in the air, saying. Hodie venellll1n tf1.lS1.l1IL cst in Ecclelriam I. ::\1 ueh more to the diseoUJnenanee of this vain story you have in Bishop Jewel's 'Defence,' which to my observation wa!', never bince answered: to him therefore I refer my reader. But alas! if Constantine had made such a grant, Pope Pius 2 tells us it was a question among the very Canonists an valum'it; and the whole world besides must judge the grant void in itself. especiall;y after Constantine's time. Had Satan's grant been good to our Saviour, if He had fallen down and worshipped him ? No more had Constantine's (pardon the comparison); for in other things he shewed great and worthy zeal for the flou- rishing grandeur of the Church of Christ, though by this he had (as was said) given nothing but poison to it; for the empire of the world, and the universal Pastorship of the Church, was not Constantine's to give to the Pope and his successors for ever. But it is urged nearer home, that King John deli- KingJohn. ycrcd up his crown to the Pope, and received it again as his gift. It is truc 3 ; hut this act of preRcnt fear could not 1 [See these and other similar particulars in Bp. .fewel's De- fenc<" pp. 590, 591 ; also pp. 453, 454.] 2 [i. e. ",Eneas Sylvius, Pius II., as above.] 3 [Mat. Paris, A. n. 1212. 121 , pp. 232, ct se'll). ('d. 1639.] 14 210 UNIVERSAL PASTOR [CHAP. XVIII. 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 pnwer, but pretended not to give him such power to confer the crown for ever; n1uch less to 111ake him supreme disposer of our English Church. But if our constitution be considered, how incon- siderable 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 in- herent 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 public act, transfer the government of this Church to the Bishop of Rome, or so much as recog- nize it to be in him, before Henry VIII. ;-and what John did was protested against by the three states then in Parliament I. And although Queen Mary since made a highcr acknowledgment of his J[oliness than ever we read was done here before; yet it is evident she gave him rather the compliment of the title of that uncertain word 'Supreme Head' than any real power, (as we observed 2 before); and yet her new act to that pur- pose was endured to remain in force but a very short time, about four or five 'years. 1 IIarpsfic1d, Hist. Ecd. A ngl. Sæc. XI\'o C. 5. 2 íSN' ahov(', p. 123.] HAI'. XVIII.] UNIVERSAl. PASTOR. 2]1 But although neither Constantine for the whole Justinian. world, nor King John for England, did or could dcvisc the supremacJ to the Pope, it is confessed the Em- peror Justinian endeavoured somewhat that looked like it. Justinian was a great friend of the Roman Bishop: he saith 1, Properanut8 lwnorem et altctoritatem Cl'escere sedis vestræ; 'we labour to subject and unite all the Eastern priests to the See of your Holiness 2 .' 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 3, 'the Chief and Head of all the Churches,' must carry a qualified sense, and was only a title of honour befit- ting the Bishop of the chief and most eminent Church, as the Roman Church then was, (and indeed Justinian was a courtier, and styles the Bishop of Constantin- ople 4 universal Patriarch too); or at most can only signify 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. 1 [In Codice, l.ib. I., de Summa Trinitate, p. 21, col. 2; cd. Antverp. 1575.] 2 [" Ideoque OInnes sacerdotos universi orientalis tractus ct Bubjicere et unirc sedi vestræ sanctitatis propcravimus.'1 Ibid.] 3 [. . . "ut non ctiam vcstræ innotescat sanctitati, quæ caput fist omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum. I ' Ibid.] 4 [Justin. Cod. Lib. I. Tit. ii. c. 2-1. See Bingham, Antiq. Book II. c. xvii. * 21.] 14-2 212 UXIYEU:;::AL PASTOH LCUAP. XYIII. '1'hi'3 IS all that call be inferred, if these Epistles betwixt the Emperor and the Pope be not forged ;- as learned Papists 1 suspect, because in the eldest and allowed books they are not to be found. However, if Justinian did design an.) thing in favour of the l>ope, it was onl the suhjecting of the clergJ to him as an ecclesiastical ruler; and yet that no further than might well enough consist with t]l(' suprenlacy of the elnpire, in causes ecclesiastical as wen as civi],-which memento spoils all the argument. For we find the same Justinian 2 under this impe- ria] style, "V e command the n10st holy Archbishops anù Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople. Alexandria, A ntioch, and Hierusalem.' 'Ve find him making laws 3 upon l\lonks, Priests, Rishops, and all kind of Churchmen, to enforce them to their duty. 'Ve find him putting forth his power and autho- rity for the sanction of the Canons of Councils, and making them to have the force of laws 4 . 'Ve find him punishing the Clergy and the Pope themselves; yea it is well known and confessed by 1 [This is stated on the authority of TIp. Jewel, (Defence of the Apology, p. 754), who refers to Gregory Haloander (or II01f- mann, an eminent lawyer): see also Comber's 'Roman Forgeril's', Part II. p. 251, Lond. 1689.] 2 [N ovc1. Constit. CXXIII.; p. Ill, co!. 2; cd. Antverp. 157:;: "Jubcmus igitur, ut beatiss. quidem archiepiscopi et patriarchæ, hoc cst, sl'nioris Romæ, Constantinopolis, Alexamlriro, Theopolis ct Hierosolymarum," l'tc.] 3 LSee a summary of his ecclesiastical laws in Fleury, liv. XXXlI. 50.] 4 [Codl'x, Lib. I., de Summa T.'initatl', passim; and more par- ticularly Novel. Cons tit. CXXXI.] CUM'. XVIII.] UXIYEnSAL PASTOH. 213 Humani:-;1:-; that he dcprivcd two Popcs, Syh'crius I and Vlgilius 2 . Indccd l\Ir Hanling 3 saith, that was donc bJ T'hcodora thc Empress, but it is otherwisc recordcd in their own Pontifical; thc Emperor demanded of Dclisarius, what he had done with the Romans, and how he had deposed Sylverius, and placed Vigilius in hi:-; stead? Upon hi:i answer, both thc Emperor and Emprcss gave him thanks". Now it is a rule in law, RatUtabitio 'j'ctrotJ"alâtur, et mandato comparatur. Zabarella dccIares 5 it to be law, that' the Pope in any notorious crime nmy be accused before the Enl- pCl.or; and thc Emperor may rcquire of thc Pope an account of his faith.' And' the Empcror ought to proceed,' saith John of Paris, 'against the I)ope upon thc requc"t of the Cardinals 6.' And it \\ as thc judgment of the ame Justinian himself. that thcre i"i no kind of thing but it may be thoroughly examincd by thc Emperor; for he hath a principaIitJ from God over all men, the Clcrgy as well as Laity 7. But his erecting of Jl1stiniana P'dma, and giving I [Platina, in Vito Sylver. p. 1-1-1: ed. 1ûû-1.] 2 rThis pope was summoned hy tho emperor to Constantin. ople, and though well receivetl ill the first instance, wns aftct.- wanls treatetl with the greatest ignominy. Platillit ill Vito Vigil. I. pp. 1-:Iû, H7. XiCt'phorus gives it similnr acconnt, Ecel. Ilist. Lih. :UII. c. 26: Tom. II. p. 77-1.] 3 [In Jew<,l's Def('lIce, p. 75.3.] .. [See the Life of Vigilius in Labbe, Concil. Tom. ". 306, H.] :> Elk Schismate et Concil. quoted by Dp. .Tewe1, ubi supra, p. 756.] (; [De Potestate Regia et Papali, cap. xÏ\'.; itl'ud Golda:;t. de )lonan'hia, Tom. n.] 7 l C(' tÌle imperial edict rcad lH'f"r(' t1w Council of f'ollf'tan- fillflplt.. A II, ;);;; . ill ),a1.1.('. ('nlll"ii. Tom.' Hfi. <,t :;:f'fJ'l.l 214 UNI\TERSAL PASTOR. [CHAr. XVIII. the Bishop I locum Apostolicæ sedis, to which all the provinces should Inake their last appeal; whereby (as Nicephorus 2 affirms) 'the Emperor made it a free city, a head to itself, with full power independent from all others' -and as it is in the imperial consti- tutions 3 , the Primate thereof should have all power of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the supreme priesthood, su- preme honour and dignity-this is such an instance, both of Justinian's judgment and power, contrary to the Pope's pretensions of supremacy (as granted or acknowledged by the Emperor Justinian), that all other argulnents of it are ex abundanti; and there is no great need of subjoining that other great and like instance of his restoring Carthage to its primacy after the Vandals were driven out 4, and annexing two new provinces, that were not so before, to its jurisdiction. without the proviso of submitting itself to ROlne; though before Carthage had ever refused to do it. Phocas the Emperor and Pope Boniface no doubt understood one another 5 , and were well enough agreed upon the point: but we shall never yield that these 1 [Authent. Collat. IX. Novel. CXXXI. Tit. xiv. c. 3; cf. Authent. Collat. II. Novel. XI.] 2 [The reference is probably to Nicephorus Callisto Eccl. Hist. Lib. XVI. c. 37; Tom. II. p. 716, A. A minute account of Justi- niana Prima is given by Dr Hammond, 'Answer to Schism Dis- armC(.1,' chap. iv. sect. vii.] 3 [As above, note 1.] 1 [Novel. CXXXI. c.4; and see Fleury, Hist. Eccl. live XXXII. 48, 49.] :; [In allusion to the title 'universal bishop' which Phocas the usurper gave Boniface III. The circumstances arc narrated by Paulus Diaconus, (Ie Gestis Longobard, Lib. IV. c. II.] CnA!'. XVIII.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR 215 two did legally represent the Church and the world, or that the grant of the one, and the greedy accept- ance on the other part, could bind all Christians and all mankind in subjection to his Holiness's chair for ever. Valentinian said 1, 'All antiquity hath given the principality of priesthood to the Bishop of ROll1C:' but no antiquity ever gave hin} a principality of power ;-no doubt he, as well as the other Emperors, kept the political supremacy in his own hands. Charles the Great 2 might compliment Adrian, and call him universal Pope, and say he gave 8t 'Vilihade a bishopric at his command: but he kept the power of convocating 8ynods 3 every year, and sat in them a a judge 4 himself ;-auditor et arbiter adsedi. He made ecclesiastical decrees in his own name ;-to whom this very Pope Adrian acquitted all claim in the election of succeeding Popes for ever 5 . A great deal more in answer to both these you have in Arch- bishop Bramhall 6 , and l{ing James's' Defence 7.' 1 [i. e. Valentinian III. in a letter to Theodosius the younger; in Labbe, ConcH. Tom. IV. 52, E.] 2 [This is one of Richm'd Smith's objections, in his 'Survey' of Bramhall's Treatise of Schism, pp. 106, 107.] 3 [Carol. Magni et Ludov. Pii Capito Lib. v. c. 2,] 4 [Vide Carol. Mag. Epist. apud Goldast. Constit. Imperial. Part I. p. 3.] 5 [Apud Goldast. ubi supra, p. 1.] 6 pp. 235, 236 ; [Vol. II. pp. 231, 232, new cd.] 7 p. 50; [Works, pp. 408,409; ed. 1616.] CHAPTRH XIX. TIlE POPE'S PRETENDED ECCLESIASTICAL lUG lIT NOT BY GENERAL COUNC] LS-I"IRST EIGIIT- TO 'VUICII s"rORK -JUSTINL\N'S S,\NC- TION-CANONS APOSTOLICAL ALLO'VEI> BY COUNCILS o.F NICE ANn EPHESUS. T JIOUGII it seem belo\\ his Holiness's pl"eSellt grandeur to ground his right upon the ci\'il PO\\ er, espeeiall ' when that faib him; yet nwt.hil1l\.s the jll8 ecclesiasticum is not at all unheeoming his pre- tences, who is sworn to govern the Church according' to the Canons, as they saJ the Pope isle If it be pleaded that the Canons of the Vathers 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 tbe Church of Eng- land to that his power,' viz., that the Canon Law i binding and of force in England as such, or without our own consent or allowance. Aud it is impo8sibh this should be proved while our Kings arc supreme, and the constitution of the kingdom stands as it hath al ways stood, IIowever, we decline not the examination or the plea, viz. that the Pope's supremae,y 0\ er the whole Church is granted by the Canons of Coun('i1 . ,iz. General But when this is said, it is hut rl'asollable to demand "hieh, 01' in "hat Ca.nons. 1 rl w(' ahm (', p () I 1 ("HAP. XIX] F IYEn .\L l)A TOrr. 217 It i:-; ..;aid, thL' POP{> )"ceei\"es his office with an oath to observe the Canons of the fir t eight geIwra] Councils :-in which of these is the grant to be found? Sure so great a conveJanee should be very legible and intelligible. ,r e find it \ cry plain that in Ollle of those Coun- cil . and tho:-;c the mo t ancient, this power is ex- pressly denied him, and that upon such reason as i eternal; and might justly and effcctuaU,Y prevent an) such rant or usurpation of such power for eyer, if future grants were to he JURt and reasonable, or future Popes were to he governed hy ri tht or equit..', -bJ the Canon of the Fathers, or fidclit) to the Church, to God, or their own solemn oaths at their inauguration . But we are prepared for the examination of the Council::; in this matter by a very strong presumption: that seeing Justinian made the Ca.nons to have the force of la" , and he had eyer shewed himself so careful to maintain the rights of the empire in all causes, as well as over all persons ecclesiastical. and even Popes themsehes, it is not credible that he would suflèr anJ thing in those Canons to pass into the body of the laws, that ,;;hould be agreeable to t1l( pretcnded donation of Constantine. or to the pre- j udiee of the Emperor's said supremacy; and couse- qucntlJ not mueh in fQ\-our of the supremaeJ claimed hy later Pope:-; .Tustinian's anetion c1\.tended to the four gTeat JLI timan':, Sanction (1f ('oulleils. or Ni('c, ('oll:-;tantinople, Ephesus I. and first linn .. Venerc\l (l1al('('(1011.-111 these "ords 1 , "Sflllc1mu,ç; ';!litllr. 111 ('onndI.. 1 [Nmd COIlHit l'\\\I r I (), eoJ 2: cIl Antn'.-p.Iii75.1 218 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XIX. sancti ecclesiastici canones, qui a sanctis quatlwr co'n- ciliis (hoc est Nicæno,... Constantino politano, .. . Ephesino primo, . . . et Chalcedonensi,...) expositi et conjirmati sunt, vicem legum obtineant. Prædictorum etenim sanctorum conciliorwn deC1'eta perinde 'll,t sacras Scripturas s'llscipi- mus, et canones 'lft leges custodÙnus." Al'ostl(;s' Perhaps it lTIay be doubted why he did not con- Canons not mentioned. firn1 those Canons which were then well known by thc Reason. title of the Canons of the Apostles; whethcr 1 because their authority was suspected, especially many of them; or because they were not made by a truly general Council; or because they were confirmed in and with thc Council of Nice and Ephesus, &c.; or lastly, whethcr because the first fifty had before a greater sanction from the general reception of the whole Church, or the greatcr authority of the sacred nalTIeS of the authors, the Apostles or apostolical mcn,- I venture not to declare my opinion. But truly there seems something considerable for the latter, for that the Council of Nice do not prctend to confirm the Apostles' Canons, but their own, by thc quotation of them; taking authority from them, as laws founded in the Church before, to build their own and aU future Canons and decrees of Councils upon, in such matters as were found there determined. A great instance of the probability of this con- jccture wc have, full to our prcsent purpose, given us by Binius 2 : "The Niccne and Ephesine Synods fol- 1 Vide Bin. COllcH. Tom. I. p. 17, A. [On the character and authority of thesc Canons, sce Bp. Beveridge's 'Codex CanOllum Eccles. Primitivæ Vindicatus'.] 2 In ConcH Nit'æn. (" m. n.; Tom. I. r 20. CUAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 219 lowed these Canons of the Apostles: appointing that every Bishop acknowledge S'ltU'in primum their Chicf Canons. A postohcal and Metropolitan, and do nothing without their own allowed by Councils of Diocese; but rather, the Bishop of Alexandria, ac- Nice and d d . h B .. h Ephesus. cording to the Canons (un erstan , salt Inlus, t ose thirty-fivc and thirty-six of the Apostlcs), lllUSt govcrn thc 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 Cy- prus,' &c." Hence it is plain, that according to the Apostlcs' Canons, interprcted and allowed as authentic (so far at least) by the Synods of Nice and Ephesus, the l\Ictropolitan was Primate or chief over the Churches within his provinces, and that he as such (exclusive of all foreign superior power) was to govern and ordain within his own provinccs ;-not consonant to, but directly against, the pretcnded supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. nut let us consult the Canons to which Binius rcfers, and the matter is plainer. I. CANONS APOSTOLICAL. r ] 'HERE is nothing in the Canons of the Apostles to our purpose, but what we find in Canons 35 and 36; or in the reddition (as Binius gives it), Canons 33 and 34. ToùS' Ë7rLUKÓ7rOUfi, K.r.A. l 'Let the Bishops of 1 [Tov È1TLUKÓ1TOV!> ileáUTOV ;(}1I01'!> lllÉllaL xP TÒII ÈII aÌIToÎ!> TrpWTOII, leal YEÎu6a& aVTòlI W }(Ecþa" II, Kal p.'18ÈII TL 1TpáTTnll 1T pLTTÒII 220 UNIVERSAL PASTOR [ClIAI'. XIX. every nation know.' (or thc,y ought to know), 'who mnong thcm is accounted (or is) chicf; and cstecm him wç KEtþa.")I.lì,', 'ilt caput; and do nothing difHcuIt. ttut ma!Jni 'i1umlCnti, prætc1 0 e}us conscicntiam vel scntCIl- timn.' But what if the matter were too hard for the Primate, is no direction given to go to the infallible ehair at Rome? Here waR indeed a propcr place for it. hut not a word of that. In the thirt)'-Rixth (ab.as thirty-fourth), it is addcd I, , that a llishop "hould not dare to ordain any beyond the hound:-; of his own jurisdiction;' but neither of thcse Canons concern the Pope. unless they signi(y that the Pope i not Head of all ChurchcR, amI hath not power in an place but within tII(' Diocese of Home; or that Binius was not faithful in leaving' out thc '\ord lH;cþaÀ1ì (or Ilcad), in hi!; Note upon thcse Ca nons. * II. ICENE COUNCIL-Fn ST GENERAL-DELLAUl\lINE':;; EV ASIO . W E find nothing in thc true Canons of the Niecnc 8."110d that looks our way. except Canons (, and 7. They arc thus 2 : Td åpxuln, K. T.")I.. " Let ( IIEV Tij!> ÈK íll()lI -YIIWP.1J!>, te. T. À. Patrcs .Apostol. cd. Votc1er. Tom. J. 1'. 442; c,l. \Il\.t('rp. Hif.lR. Thc silclIcc of thc early church l"C- f.;]lcctiug the Papal Supremacy is vcry forcibly stated hy l1arl"O\\, lIppos. \.; Worb, \'01. I. pr. GIG, ct SC(N. cd. lilG.] 1 [A I. can. .\. 'Hill. 'E1TíUKIJ1TOII P.)} ToÀp.âll E W TWII iCWTOV 8pw,' \ HfJOTOllím 1TOLÚuOm Eì ' nh. p.'} V1fvteUP.illflS; aVTff 1ToÀ í!>, te. T. À.] 2 [T(ì àf}xnía Ee'l te/JnníTw, T(ì /11 AìYV7TT O} Kill ALrJÍ'!l teal IIf/! TfI1flíÀCI, (;}UTE nill '^Àr fl/'f'1jf'(Î(I!> (1fÎcrtelJ1TOII 1fCíllrWl' TflvrWII EXfLII n},. r'/""'TÎCl/' (7Tf/lhì Knì 7 if èr' r!J . Pfli/"I è7TIfTlCÓ1fCfJ 7o'....TfI cr{'II,,l'n; f"TLl'. ('HAP. XIX.] uxnrERS.\.L P.\.F:TOH. i21 ancient customs be kept through EgYVi, Lib.' a, and l'lI1OI1 \ r. Pentapolis; so as the Rishop of .....\lexandria Inay have power over all these, because also (t7l"HTa Kl".(;) the like eustom is for the Bishop of the city of Rome (TOVTO uvvrJ8/s UTLJI); as likewise at Antioch and other provinces let the privileges be kept in their own Churches." Rut suppose diHcrences arise, is no liberty or remedy provided b)O going to Home? No more than, if differences arise in the Homan Church, the,r may have remedy from any other :-a remcdy is indecd providcù b,r the Canon I, , If two or three do contradict, KPUTÚTlV ñ TlVV 7r^Et( VlVV tiìcþos (not go to nome, but 'let the n1ajor vote carry it.') In the seventh Canon, custom and tradition both Canoll v I r are the grounds upon which the Council confirm cd the like privilege of the Church of Hierusalem 2 : "Bc- cause CUSt01l1 and ancient tradition obtain that the Bishop of ..lElia should be honoured, lct him have the consequence of honour," with a salvo 'for the propcr dignity of thc )Ietropolis ;'-but not a word of Rome. Notc that in Canon VI. the power of the .Alcx- :tllllrian Bishop is grounded upon ancient custom- . ant'Ïqlla consz1ctudu servetw',' and not upon the con- ccssion of the Roman Bishop. as Bcllarminc woulù op.nLW 8i teal teuTà TrIll AIITU XELall KUt II Taî!> ã m!> È1Tapx{m!>, Tà 1Tp UßEÎCl uw(;mBm mî!> Ètete rJUím!>, te. T. . Concil. cd. LaLb. TOlll. II. 32.] I ['Eàll P.(II Tot Tf1 teOLIlf11TáIlTWII 'Ý CÞcr v ÓYcr OVUr/, Kal KaTà Kallólla Ètete ULUUTLteÙII, 8-úo TpEÎ!> 8ì oìK íall cþL OIl Lteíall åIlTL É')IWUL, KpCl- TEíTW TWII 1T ELÓIIWII 'Ý cþo!>. Ibid.] 2 ['E1TEL8 U1JJI BELCl K tepâT1Jte teal 1Tapá8ouL!> åpxaía, WfTTE TÒIl /11 ' AL íg. È1TíUK01TOJI TLp.âuBm, ÈXÉTW T II àteo ovBíall Tij!> TLP.ij!>, Tjì P.'7Tp01TOÂ. L UW(;OP.ÉIIOV TOV ()ìK í01J à LC.)p.aTo!>. Can. VII. Ibid.] 222 UNIVERSAL PASTOR [CIIAP. XIX. force it; and that the like manner or custom of Rome is but another example of the same thing, as Antioch was and the rest of the provinces :-but this ungrammatical and illogical evasion was put off before 1. III. COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE-SECOND GENERAL- A. D. 381. T HE next Council, admired by Justinian 2 as one of the Gospels, is that famous Council of Con- stantinople adorned with one hundred and fifty Fa- thers. Hath this made any better provision for the Canon I. Pope's supremacy? Certainly no: for the very first Canon 3 chargeth us not to despise the faith of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers in the Synod of Nice, which ought to be held firm and inviolate. Canon II. The second Canon 4 forbids the confusion of Dio- ceses, and therefore enjoins (Ku'Tà 70VÇ KUVÓVUS') the rules of the Apostles and Nicene Fathers to be kept: "the Bishop of Alexandria must govern them in Egypt only;" and so the rest, as are there mentioned more particularly than in the Nicene Canons. Canon III. In the third is reinforced the Canon of the former Council against ordinations by Bishops out of their own jurisdictions; a d adds this reason, that casts no countenance upon any foreign jurisdiction 5: "It is I [See abovc, p. 37.] 2 [See above, p. 218.] 3 ConcH. ed. Bin. Tom. I. p. 660 ; [cd. Labb. Tom. II. 946, E. ] 4 LConcil. ed, Labb. Tom. II. 947, A: TÙII P.fll 'A).. uIl8p ía i1Tt- UK01TOII Tà ill ' ALyv1TTCf P.ÓIIOII oìteoIlOP.EÍII, K. T. )...] 5 [... ciJ8'1)..OV W!> Tà I 11TflpXla!> UVII- 0 0!> 8LOLte UEL, teuTà Tà Èv NLteaíçx wpwp.illa. This is in Labbe a por- tion of Canon n. ubi supra, n.] CUAP. XIX.) UNIVERSAL PASTOR 223 manifest that the proper provincial Synod ought to administer and govern all things within their peculiar prm inces, according as was defined at Nicæa." This third Canon honours the Bishop of Constan- tinople next after the Bishop of Rome, as Binius renders Td 7rpEußEîa TijS' 7L,uijÇ ,uETå TJV T Ç · p(J,ur]S' È7ríUK07rOV. But Binius is very angry that such a Canon is found there, and urgeth many reasonl:ì 1 against it; and therefore we shall conclude that, as none of the rest, so neither doth this Canon, confer the univerl:ìal government of the Church upon the Bishop of Home. IV. COUNCIL OF EPHESUS-THIRD GEKERAL-A. D. 431. ' l 'HE third General Council, whose Canons Jus- tinian 2 pasl:ìed into Laws, is that of Ephesus; and thi::i so far abhors frOlll the grant, that it is a plain and zealous contradicter of the Pope's pretensions. In Act the seventh, it is agreed 3 against the invasion of the Bishop of Antioch, that the Cyprian Prelates shall hold their rights untouched and unvio- lated, according to the Canons of the holy :Fathers (before Inentioned) and the ancient custom, ordaining their own Bishops. 'And let the same be observed in other dioceses, and in all provinces, that no Bishop occupy anothcr province (or subject it by force), which formerly and from the beginning was not under hil:ì power or his predecessors': or if he have done so 1 Concil. Tom. I. p. 672. [Lahhe, Tom. II. 94i, c.) 2 [Above, p. 218.] 3 [S('c the decree at length in Labhe, Tom. UI. 802.1 224 UNIYERSAL P A TOn [Cn.\l'. XIX. let him restore it, that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, nor the pride of worldlJ power creep into the Chureh,...nor Christian liberty be lost. Therefore it hath pleased the holy Synod, that every province enjoy its rights and customs unviolated, which it had fron1 the beginning;' -È åpxijç ({vevÐ(;", twice repeated, whereby we are to learn a verJ grea1 rule, that the bounds of primacies were settled vcr,} early, before this Councilor an,}' other general Coun- cil before this, evcn at the beginning; and that those bounds ought to be observed to the end, according to the Canons of the Father and ancient custom; and consequently, that such a:-; are invaders of others' rights are bound to make restitution. ow it is evi- dent we were a rree province in England in the bcgin- ning, and when St Augustine came from Home to invade our liberties, it is evident this Council gave the Pope no powcr or privilege to invade us ;-yea, that what power the Pope got over us in after times. was a manifest violation of the rights we had from the beginning, as also of the Canons of the ancient Fathers, in the three mentioned sacred and general Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus,-all grounded upon the aneienter Canom. called the Apos- tles' . Lastly, such usurpers were always under the obliga- tion of the Canon to restore and quit their ineroaeh- ments; and consequentlJ the Britannic Churches werc alwaJs free to vindicate and reassume their rights and liberties. as they worthily did in lIenry V 111. CHAP. XIX.] L'SIYER:sAT.J rA:sTOn i25 v. COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON-FOUR.TH GEXRRAT.J- A.D. 451-S. 'V.'s GLOSS. 1 'HERE is little hope that this Council should afforù the Pope any advantage, seeing it begins with 'the confirmation of all the Canons made by the Canon I. Fathers in every Synod before that time 1;' and con- sequently of those that we have founù in prejudice to his pretensions among the rest. The Ninth Canon enjoins, · upon differences be- Canon IX. twixt clerks, that the cause be heard before the proper Bishop; betwixt a Bishop and a clerk, before the provincial Synod; betwixt a Bishop or clerk and the )Ietropolitan, before 'TÒV apxov 'Tijç tcJtK';Uew , or the See of the royal city of Constantinople 2.' To the same effect we read in Canon 17, 'If anyone be injured Canon XVII. by his Bishop or l\Ietropolitan, 7rapà 'Tip 7r&pX o 'Tij tOtK Uews, 'Tip KWI'u'Tav'Twou7f'J^ew epóvtp tKar:(J'ew3,' K. 'T. X. But where is any provision made for remedy at Rome? Indeed that could not consist with the 8ens{" of this Synod, who would not endure the supremacy. or so much as the superiority of Rome above Con- stantinople. This is evident in Canon 28: 'The Fathers gave Canon . . 1 h S f d 1;\" , XXVIII. pnVl ege to t e ce 0 01 Rome, ma 'TO ßUUtÀfWEW 'T V 7róXW ÈKelvJ]v, (saith the Canon), and for the same 1 [Tov!> 1Tapà TÔJII ayíwII 1TaTÉpwII KaB' ÉKáuT1JII uVll08011 åXPL TOV IIÛIl ÈKu8ÉllTa!> Kallólla!> KpauLII È8LKULwuap. II' Can. I.; apud Labb. Concil., Tom. IV. 755.] 2 [Ihid. 7:;9. D.] :1 [Ibid. 7G3. ('.] 15 226 UNIVEHSAL PASTOH. [CHAP. XIX. reason an hundred and fifty Bishops gave Td 1(]"(1 7rpe(]"ßeîa, equal privileges to the seat of new Rome; eú^Ó-YwS' KplvavTeS', rightly judging that that city, that hath the empire and the senate, should enjoy equal privileges with old royal Rome, Ka: ëv Toî<:., KKÀrWta(]"- · , , '\., e ' 1:1' , TLKOLS', WS' fiKeLvrw, p.e-ya^Ullfi(]" at 7rpa-yp..a(]"L, ofiUTfipav P.ET " ., l' fiKfiU''1V U7rep e x ou (]"av . s. "r.,s Now to what purpose doth S. 'V. (to Dr Hanunond) G]oss. trifle on the Canon, and tell us that these privileges were only 'honorary pomps2;' when the Canon adds 'in ecclesiastical matters,' and naInes one, 'the ordination of Bishops and l\Ietropolitans within themselves, as before was declared by the divine Canons 3 .' "T e con- clude that this bar against the Pope's universal Pas- torship will never be removed. These are the first four general Councils, honoured by Justinian as the four Gm;pcls, to which he gave the title and force of Laws 4 . By which all Popes are bound'\ by solemn oath, to rule the Church; yet we find not one word in any of them for the Pope's pre- tended universal Pastorship: yea in everyone of them we have found so much and so directly against it, that as they give him no power to govern the whole Church; so by swearing to observe them in such goyermllent as the Canons deny him, he swears to a contradiction as well as to the ruin of his own pretensions. 1 [Can. I. apud Labb. ConcH. Tom. IV. no, n.] 2 [See Hammond's 'Answer to Schism Disarmed,' chap. IV. sect. IV. ; \V orks, Vol. II. 11p. 89, 90.] 3 [Lahbe, uhi supra, 770, c.] 4 [See above, p. 218.] . [) [See ahove, p. Gl.] CHAP. XIX.) UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 227 'Ve conclude from the prClllises, that now, seeing Argument. all future Councils seem to build upon the Kicene Canons (as that upon the Apostles'), if the Canons of Nice do indeed limit the power of the Bishop of Rome, or suppose it to have limits, if his cause be tried by the Councils, it must needs be desperate. K ow if those Canons suppose bounds to belong to every Patriarchate, they suppose the like to Rome: but it is plain, that the bounds are given by those Canons to the Bishop of Alexandria, and the reason is, because this is also customary to the nishop of Rome. Now it is not reasonable to say, Alexandria Inust have limits because Rome hath, if Ronle have no limits. Pope Nicolas himself so understood it, whatever S. 'V. did: "The Nicene Synod," saith he, "conferred no increase on Rome, but rather took from Rome an cXaIllplc particularl r what to give to the Church of Alexandria I." 'Vhence Dr Hammond strongl,y concludes, that , if at the making of the Nicene Canons Rome had bounds, it must need.., follow by the Ephesinc Canon, that those bounds must be at all times observed, in contradiction to the universal Pastorship of that See 2.' The matter is ended, if we compare the other Latin version of the Niccne Canon with the Canon as before noted :- 1 ['Nicæna synodus R.omanæ ecc1esiæ nullum contulit incre- mentum, sed potius ex ejus forma quod Alexamlrinæ ecc1csiæ tri- hueret, particulariter sumpsit exemplum.' Nichol. T. Epist. viii.] 2 [' Answer to Schism Disarnwll,' chap. IY. sect. vi.; 'Yorks, Y()1. n. p. 95.) J 5-'2 228 UNIVERSAL P ASTOn. [UII.\P. XIX. "Antiqui moris est ut urbis Romæ Episcopu habeat principatum, ut suburbicana loca, et onlnenl provinciatll sua sollicitudine gubernet; quæ vero apud Egyptum sunt, Alexandrinæ Episcopus omnenl habeat sollicitudinem: similiter autem et circa Antiochianl et in cæteris provinciis privilegia propria senrentur metropolitanis Ecclesiis." 'Vhence it is evident, that the Bishop of Rome then had a distinct Patriarchate as the rest had; and that what eyer primacy might be allowed hinl be- yond his province, it could not have any real power over the ot?er provinces of Alexandria, &c. And it is against the plain sense of the rule, that the antiqllltS 1110S should signify the custOlll of the Bishop of Rome's perIllission of government to the other Patriarchs, as Bellarmine feigneth 1. This edition we have in the , Bibliotlteca Juris Canonici' of Christopher Justel and V oel, Tom. I. p. 284. VI. SECOND COUNCIT... OF CONSTANTIXOPJ..E-TIlE FIFTH GENERAL-165 BISHOPS-A.D. 553. B ARONIUS and Binius 2 both affirm that this was a general Council, and so approved by all Popes, predecessors and successors of St Gregory, and St Gregory himself. The cause was, Pope Agapetus had condemned Anthimus 3 ; the matter was afterwards ventilated in 1 [See above, p. 37.] 2 Baron. ad an. 553, CCXXIV. Bin. Not. in Concil. Const. [Tom. IV. p. 374.] 3 [For the particulars, see Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. XXXII. spct. 52, 54.] CHAI'. XIX.] UNIVER AL PASTOR. 229 the Council. N ow where was the Pope's ::;upremacy? 'Ve shall see Ï1nmediately. After Agapetus succeeded Vigilius: when the Council condemned the Tria Capitula l , Pope Yigilius would defend them; but how did he carry it, in faith or fact? Did the Council submit to his judglnent or authority? No such thing, but quite contrary; the Council condemned the Tria Capitula, and ended. The Pope for not consenting, but opposing the Coun- cil, is banished by the Emperor Justinian. Then Vigilius sublnitd and confirms the sentence of the Council, and so is released from banishment. This is cnough, out of both Baronius 2 and Binius 3 . The sum is, "we condemn (say they 4, as is ex- pressed in the very text) all that have defended the Tria Capitula:" but Vigilius (say the historians) de- fended the T'ì'ia Capitula; therefore was Vigilius the Pope condemned by this Council :-such authority they gave him. VII. THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE, OF 289 BISHOPS -SIXTH GENERAL-A. D. 680-SECOND NICENE COUNCIL-SEVENTH GENERAL5-of 375 BISHOPS-A. D. 787. B ELLAU IINE acknowledgeth these to be the sixth and seventh general Councils; and both 1 [These were certain writings of Thcodorus ofl\Iopsuestia, Ibas ofEdessa, and Theodoret, which supported the errors of Nestorius.] 2 Ad an. 553, CCXXIII. 3 [ubi supra.] 4 [Vid. ConcH. ell. Labb. Tom. v. 568, c.] 5 [That this Council cannot properly be cant'll æcumenica.l, is proved by 1\11' Palmer, 'Treatise on the Church,' Part IV. chap. x. Fcd. iv.] 280 UNIVEHSAL PASTOR. [CUAP. XIx. these he acknowledgeth did condClnn Pópe Honorius for an heretic 1. For Bellarmine to urge that these Council::; werc deceived in t.heir judgment touching his opinion, is not to the point; we are not disputing now, whether a Pope lUay be a heretic in a private or public capa- city, in which the Council::; now condemned him,- though he seems to be a bold man, to prefer his own bare conjecture a thousand years after, about a matter of fact, before the judgment of two general Councils, consisting of 664 Bishops, whell the causc was fresh, witnes::;es living, and all circulllstances visibly before their eyes.-But our question is, whether these Coun- cils did either give to the Pope as such, or acknow- ledge in hinI, an uncontrollable authority oyer the whole Church? The answer is short; they took that power to thel11sclrcs,. and condemned the Pope for hcresy as they also 2 did Scrgius of Constantinople. * VIII. COUNCIl.. OF CONSTANTINOPLE-EIGHTH GENERAL- 383 BISHOPS-A.D. 869. L: J O'V did this eighth general Council rccoglli7.e th 1-_ Pope's suprenlacy? Binius himself tells us 3 , 'this Council condemned a custom of thc Sabbath-fast in Lent, and the practice of it in the Church of Rome:' I [De Romano Pontif. Lib. IV. c. xi.] 2 [See Fleury, IIist. Eccl. liv. XL. s. 22.] 3 [Tom. v. p. 338, F; cd. Paris. 1636. Yet the Canon here ml'ution('d is not one of the Council recognized in the Roman Church as the eighth General, but of the Council 'in Tmllo,' held at Constantinople, A. D. 691. The original is as follows: 'E1THlhl IUIWfltjKnlulI Iv Tn 'Pwp.níwII 7TOAH /11 TOÎÇ nYlCt/!> TijÇ TrfT/Tn('nKOfTTij!> CfIM. XIX] UNIVERSAL PASTOR 231 and the word is, "Ve will that the Canon be observed in the Church of Rome; inconcltsse vÙ'CS habcat.' It is boldly determined against the lllother Church; -Rome concerned, reproved, commanded! "There is the authority of the Bishop of Rome? Rome would be even with this Council, and there- fore (saith Surius 1) , she receives not this 55th Canon.' But why must this Canon only be rejected? Oh ! it is not to be endured: that is all the reason we can have. But was not this a general Council? Is it not one of the eight sworn to by every Pope? Is not this Canon of the same authority (as of the Council) with all the rest? Or is it tolerable to say, it i::) not authentic, because the Pope doth not receive it, and he doth not receive it because it is against hin1self? , Qlti matrem Ecclcsiarum omnium Romanam Ecclcsia1n rcprelwndit, non rccipitll'l",' saith Surius 2. These are the first eight general Councils, allowed by the Roman Church at thið day. 'Vhat little excep- tions they would defend their supremacy with, against all that hath appeared, are answered in the 'Post- script' at the latter end of the book, whither I refer my readers for fuller satisfaction. In the mean time we cannot but eonclude,- Conclu- sion from (1) That the Fathers, during eight hundred and all. seventy years after Christ, knew no such thing as the .I1WTEía!> Toî!> TavT1J!> uáßßauL II1JUTEVHII 1Tapà T II 1Tapa806Ûuall ÈKKX,,- mUUTLK'l11 åKOX01J6íall, Ê80 Tf1 áyíg u1Jlló8c:> tJUT Kpanîll Kal È1Tl Tll 'Pwp.aíwII ÈKK)':'W:g à1TapauaX vTw!> TÒIl Kallólla. K. T. X. Can. LV.] 1 [Quoted by Binius, ConciJ. Tum. v. p. 421, col. 2, E.] 2 [Ihifl.] 232 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XIX. Pope's Supremacy by Divine 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 Supren1acy or Infallibility. (4) That it is vain to plead antiquity in the Fa- thers, or Council , or Priu1itive Church, for either. (5) That the judgn1ent of those eight general Councils was at least the judgment and faith of the Church, not only during their own tillles, but till the contrary should be decreed by a following Council of as grcat authority; and how long that was after, I leave to themselves to answer. (6) That the Canons of those first eight general Councils, being the sense both of the ancient and the profes:,ed faith of the present Church of Rome, the Pope's authority stands condeluned by the Catholic Church at this day, by the ancient Church and the present Church of Rome herself, as she holds com- munion (at least in profession) with the ancient. (7) That this was the faith of the Catholic Church, in opposition to the pretended Supremacy of the Pope. long after the first eight general Councils, is evident, hy the plain sense 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. CHAl'. XIX.] U IVERSAL PA TOR. 233 IX. THE LA TIN CHURCH-COUNCILS OF CONSTANCE AND BASLE. r r HE Council of Constance in Germany, long after, Constance. of almost a thousand Fathers, A. D. 1414-1418, say 1, 'they were inspired by the Holy Ghost, and a general Council, representing the whole Church, and having immediate power fron1 Christ, whereunto obe- dience is due from all persons, both for faith and reforn1ation, whether in the head or members.' This was expressl,}' confirmed by Pope l\Iartin V. to be held inviolable in matters of faith 2. Their great reason was, 'the Pope is not Head of the Church by Divine ordinance;' as the Council of Chalcedon said 3, a thousand years before. Now where was neees8ar y union and subjection to the Pope? 'Vherê was his supren1acy iure Divino? Where was tradition, infallibility, or the faith of the present Church, for the Pope's authority? The Council of BasIe, A. D. 1431, deeree(P a:.:; the Ba lc. Council of Constance; Pope Eugenius 5 would dissolve them; the Council commands the contrary, and sus- 1 [Vill. Concil. ed. Labb. Tom. XII. 19, et alib. The fullest history of this Council is that of Von der Hardt, Magnum mcum. Constant. Concil. ed. Francfort, 1700.] 2 [The bun of Martin V. confirming the acts of the Council was issued between the forty-second and forty-third sessions.] 3 [See above, p. 225.] 4 [Apud Labb. Concil. Tom. XII. -177,478,619.] [) [See the particulars in Fleury, Hist. Eccles. A. D. l.J.31. In H37 Eugellius ath'mpted by a bull to translate the Council to Ferrara; this attl:'mpt was, however, ineffectual, anò the Ressiolls were contimH'ò at Baf'h,till 14-13.] 234 UNIVERSAL PASTOR.. [CHAP. XIX. pend the Pope; concluding, that whoever shall ques- tion their power therein is an heretic. The Pope pronounccth thClll schismatics; in the cnd, the Pope did yield, and not dissolve the Council. This was the judgment of the Latin Church above 1400 years after Christ, and indeed to this day, of the true Church of France 1; and in Henry the Eighth's time, of England,-n,s Gardiner said 2, 'the Pope is not a Head by dOlllinion, but order; his authority is none with us; we ought not to have to do with Rome,' -the COlll1l10n sense of all in England. Bellarmine saith 3, that 'the Pope's subjection to general Councils is inconsistent with the Supreme Pastors hip.' ,It is repugnant to the Primacy of Saint Peter,' saith Gregory de ,r alentia 4; yet nothing is more evident than that general Councils did exercise authority oyer Popes, deposing the , and disposing of their Sees, as the Council of Constance did three 5 together; and alwa;ys made Canons in opposition to t heir pretensions. Yea, it is certain that a very great number 6 , if not the greater, of the Roman Church itself were ever of 1 [i. e. of the Ga11ican school as represented by Bossuet.] 2 [See his Treatise, 'de Vera Obedientia,' in Brown's Append. to the' Fasciculus Rerum,' p. 812.] 3 De Conciliorum Auctor. Lib. II. c. 17. 4 Analys. Fillei Cathol. Lib. VIII. c. 14. 5 [viz. John XXIII., Gregory XII., Benedict XIII.] 6 [e. g. It was detennined in the Articles of 1682, by the geneml assembly of the GaIlican Church, that the decr<'es of the synod of Constance, concerning the superiority of a general Council to tlw Pope, shall remain in full force. See Ml' Palmer's 'Treatise on the Church,' Vol. II. p. 207. 3rd cd. A summary of the' Ga11ican Liberties,' is giv('n by Archhp. Bramha1J, 'Vol'kf:, Vol. I. pro 22fi. <'t f:('f]fJ.] CHAI'. XIX.] UNIVERSAL P ASTOIL 235 thi!; faith, that general Councils are superior, have authority over, give laws unto, and may justly cemmre, the Bishop of Rome. Pope Adrian VI.!, and very many other learned Romanists, declared this to be their judgment, just before or near upon the time that Henry VIII. wa:-: declared supreme in England. So nUlCh for the Latin Church. 9 x. TIlE GREEK CHURCH-AFRICAN CANONS-SYNOD 01" CARTHAGE-OF AXTIOCH-THE FAITH OF THE GREEK CHURCH SINCE. T HAT the Greek Church understood the first general Councils directly contrary to the Pope's Supremacy, is written with a sunbeam in several other Councils: c. g. I. By tlte ' Canons of the Aft'ican Chwrch.' The 28th Canon 2 forbids 'all transmarille appeals,' Canon threatens such as make thelTI with excomnulnication, XXVIlJ. makes order 'that the last appeal be to the proper Primate, or a general Council.' To the same effect is the 125th Canon 3 ; and the Notes of Voel. t upon these ('anon Canons put it beyond question, that in the trans- cxxv. marine appeals they n1eant those to Rome; as it is I [The rffcrcncc is most probably to his Quæst. dc Confir- mationc, quotcd by Hammond, 'Vorks, Vol. II. p. 197.] 2 [Vid. Cod. Canon. Eccl. African., can. XX\'III. apml IJahh Concil. Tom. II. 106: , B.] 3 [Can. ('XXV.; iLitl, Ll31, A.] .J [Riblioth. Juris Canon.] Tom. I, p. -125. 236 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XIX. expressed, 'the Church of Rome and the priests of the Roman Church. II. Council qf .Antioch. This Council is more plain: it saith 1, '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; con- trary to the great pretence of Bellarmine. III. The Synods qf Carthage. These Synods 2 confirmed the twenty Canons of Nice, and the Canons of the African Councils: and then in particular they decreed, ab unive1'sis Episcopis dictum est, si criminosus est, non adntittatwr. Again, if anyone, whether Bishop or Presbyter, that is driven frOlTI the Church, be received into com- Canon IX. munion (by another), even he that receives him is held guilty of the like crime, rifugientes sui Episcopi re[Julare judicium. Again, 'if a Bishop be guilty, when there is no Synod, let him be judged by twelve Bishops, secundum Canon xx. stat uta veterum Conciliorwrn.' -The statutes of the an- cients knew no reserve for the Pope in that case. Further, 'no clergyman might go beyond the seas' Canon VIII. Canon XII. Canon XXIII. I [Concil. Antioch. A. D. 341, can. xv.; apud Labb. Tom. II. 585. This council was asscmbled by thc EuseLians, or Semi- Arians. ] 2 [The decrees amI canons arc in the Codex Can. EccJ. African., apud Labb. Com'il., Tom. II. 10-19, ct scqq.] Cn.\P. XIX.] rrXI\TEIU Ur... PA TOR. 2:37 (viz. to Rome), without the advice of his .:\Ictropolitan, and taking his 'jo'rmataru vel cO'ìnmendationem.' The 28th Canon is positive, 'that Priests and Canon . XXVIII. Deacons shall not appeal, ad transmarina judicia' (VIZ. to Ron1e), 'but to the Primates of their own provinces :' and they add, 'SiC'lJt et de episcopis sæpe constitut'ltm est;' and if any shall do so, none in Africa shall receive them. And in Canon 125 it is renewed; adding, 'the Canon African Councils,' to which appeals are allowed as well ex xv. as to the Primates; but still Rome is barred. The Sense oj tlte Greek Church since. Now when did that Church subject itself to Rome in any case? Our adversaries acknowledge the early contests betwixt the Eastern and 'Vestern Churches, in the point of Supremacy 1; where then is the consent of Fathers, or universality of time and place, they use to boast of? Bellarmine confesseth 2, that from 381 to the time of the Council of Florence, viz. 1058 years, the Greek Church disclaÍ1ned 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 sub- mitted itself to Rome in the Council of Florence, A. D. 1439; for the contrary is evident in that they would not yield that the Pope should choose them a Patri- arch, as Surius himself observes 3 . 1 [On the final interruption of communion in 1054, see 1\Ir Palmer's 'Treatise on the Church,' Part I. chap. ix. s. 2.] 2 [Disputat. Tom. I. p. 129, G; in Præfat. de Romano Pontif.] 3 [ConcH.] Tom. IV. p. 489. [A defence of the Greek Church touching the council of FlorPIlc{' may he spen in Bp. Stillingfteet's Vind. Vol. I. pp. 37-70.] 23 UNIVERSAL P ASTOn. [CHAP. XIX. So true it is, that l\Ialdonate I and Prateolus 2 acknowledge and record, the Greek Church always disliked the supreme dignity of the Pope, and would never obey his decrees. To conclude,-the law of the Greeks hath always been against the Pope's Supremacy; the fundamental law was a prohibition of appeals to Ron1e; therefore that Church acknowledged no absolute subjection to Rome. (2) They excommunicate all African priests appealing to Rome; therefore they held no necessity of union with ROll1e. (3) They excommunicate all such as should but think it lawful to appeal to Rome; therefore they had no faith of the necessity of either union or subjection to the Church of Rome. Enough, to the Pope's prejudice, fron1 the Coun- cils of an sorts. 'Ve n1ust, in the foot of the account, 111ind our adversaries that we have found no colour for the pretence of a grant, from anyone general Council, of the Pope's authority; much less over the Church of England: which their plea from the Canons expressly requires at their hand. For my Lord Bramhall 3, with invincible reason, affirnls, "V e were once a free Patriarchate, inde- pendent on any other, and according to the Council of Ephesus, every province should enjoy its ancient rights, pure and inviolate; and that no Bishop should occupy any province which did not belong to him frOll1 thp beginning; and if no true general Council 1 Maldonatus, Comment. in Matth. x. 2; [Tom. I. p. 298; cd. Mogunt. 1840.] 2 Prateolus, de Vitis, Sectis etc. Hæreticorum, [pp. 19R, 199 cd. Colon. 1569.] :1 [Just VimHcation, Part I. Disc. ii.: 'Yorks, Vol. J. p. 158.J CUAP. XIX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 239 hath ever since subjected Britain under the Homan Court,-then (saith he) the case is clear, that Rome can pretend no right over Britain, without their own consent, nor any further, nor for any longer time, than they are pleased to oblige themselves.' 'Ve must expect, therefore, soine better eviùence of such grant to the Pope, and such obligation upon England, by the Canons of some truly general Coun- cil; and we may stilJ expect it, notwithstanding the Canons of Sardica :-which yet shall be considered, for it is their faint colour of antiquity. XI. THE SARDICAN CANONS-NO GRANT FROM TilE MAT- TER, MA NER, OR AUTHORITY-NO APPENDIX TO COUNCIL OF NICE-ZOSIMUS IllS FORGERY NEVER RATIFIED, NOR THOUGHT UNIVERSAL-AFTER CON- TRADICTED BY COUNCILS. T HE Pope at length usurped the title, and pre- tended the power of Supreme, and the Canons in time obtained the name of the Pope's decrees; but the question is, what general Council gave him either? Doctor Stillingfleet observes 1, that 'nothing' is more apparent, than that when Popes began to perk up, they pleaded nothing but some Canons of the Church for what they did,-then their best and only plea, when nothing of Divine right was heard of; as Julius to the Oriental Bishops; Zosimus to the African, and so others :' -but still what Canons? 1 [Vindication, Vol. II. p. 20i.] Answer. 1. For the matter of these Ca- nons. 2. fal1ner. 240 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAr. XIX. The Romanistl, against Archbishop Laud. argues thus: ,It was ever held lawful to appeal to Rome from all parts; therefore the Pope n1ust be supreme .Judge. This (saith he) is evidenced by the Sardican Canons, accounted anciently an Appendix to the Council of Nice.' This he calls an unanswerable argument. But it is n10re than answered, if we consider either the matter, or the manner, or the authority, of these Canons. I. The matter said to be granted appears in the words themselves. It is said 2, 'If it seem good to you, let us honour the memory of Saint Peter, and by those Bishops that are judges, let it be written to Julius Bishop of Rome, and by the next Bishops of the province, if need be, let the judgment be re- voked.' But (1) here is no grant so much as of appeal. only of a review, (2) It is not pretended to be according to any former Canons. (3) The judgment is to be revoked by a Council of Bishops chosen for the purpose. (4) The request seems to terminate in the person of Julius, and not to extend to his succes- SOl'S; for else why should it be said to Julius Bishop of Rome, and not to the Bishop of Ron1e absolutely? II. The manner of the motion spoils all, 'if it please you.' Did the Universal Pastorship then lie at the feet, or depend upon the pleasure, of this Coun- cil? Did no Canons evidence the Pope's power, and 1 [i. e. T. C. in the Labyrinthus Cantuar., p. 193.] 2 [Concil. Sardic. can. III., apud Labb. Tom. 62!:1, A. The l"anon is quoted at l('ugth, p. 6 . note 1.] CHAP. XIX.] UXI VEn.: L\L p A TOR. 2-11 righi till then, eleven years after the death of Con- stantine? Besides how unworthily was it said, 'let us honour the memory of Saint Peter ;'-did the Pope's succession of Saint Peter depend upon their pleasure too? III. But lastly, the main exception is against the 3.. Authontv. authority of this Council; or, at least, of this Canon, as Cusanus questions 1. (1) It is certain these Canons are no Appendix to oAppcn- . T. .. . dlx to the the Council of Ice, whereIn theIr strength IS pre- l\'ïccne . ,,". fj I I Canon!'. tended to cOnsIst; though ZOS1l11US raudu ent y sent theill 2 under that name to the African Bishops- which can never be excused ;-for they are now known to have been made twenty-two years after that Council. -cpon that pretence of Zosimus, indeed, a teIll- porary order was made in the Council of Africk, that 'appeals might be made to the Pope, till the true Canon of lce 'were produced 3 ;' which afterwards being done, the argument was spoiled, and that Popc, if possible, was put to .shame. Hereupon that excel- lent Epistle was written to Pope Cælestine, of which ,you had account before 4 . (2) This Council was never ratified by the recep- Not re- tion of the Catholic Church; for the Canons of it ceived, were not known by the African Bishops when Zosimus 1 De Catholica Concordantia, Lib. II. c. 15. 2 [See above, p. 108; and for a fuller exposure of the forgery, compare Bp Carleton's' Jurisdiction,' pp. 69-76. ed. 1610, antI Comber's 'Roman Forgeries,' Part II. pp. 35, et seqq.] 3 [Epist. ad Bonif. apud Labb. Concil. Tom. II. 1140, 1141.] 4 [P1>. 109, 1l0.] 16 or thought Universal. 242 UNIVERSAL P ASTO R.. [CHAP. XIX. sent them, and St Augustine discredits them, saying), they were made by a Synod of Arians. (3) It is evident that this Council was never accounted truly universal, though Constans and Con- stantius intended 2 it should be so: for but seventy of the Eastern Bishops appeared to three hundred of the 'Vestern, and those Eastern Bishops soon withdrew from the other, and decreed things directly contrary to them: so that Babmnon and Zonaras, as well as the elder Greeks, say it can only bind the 'Vestern Churches; and indeed it ,vas a long tin1e before the Canons of it wcre received in the 'Vestern Churéh, which is the supposed reason why Zosimus sent them as the Nicene, and not as the Sardican, Canons 3. (4) After the Eastern Bishops were departed, there were not Patriarchs enough to make a general Council, according to Bellarmine's own rule 4 . Conse- quently, Venerable Bede leaves it out of the number; the Eastern Churches do not reckon it among their seven, nor the 'Vestern a1110ng their eight, first gene- ral Councils. The English Church, in their Synod at IIedtfcld, A. D. ô80, lcft it out of their nU111ber, and cmbrace only the Council of Nice, the first of Con- :-;tantinople, the first of Ephesus, the first and sccond of Chalcedon, to this da}5. ) [Ep. CLXIII. ; sec TIp StiJIingtlect's 'ViIH]ication,' Y 01. II. p. 209.] 2 [It wa.s ass{'mbled by them in order to cstablish union between thc castern anù wcstern Churches; sec Socrates, lIist. Ecc1. Lih. II. c. 20.] 3 [Sce Sti11ingfleet's 'Vindication,' Vol. II. pp. 209, 210.] 4 De ConcH., Lib. I. c. Ii. :; [Archbp. Bramhall, 'Yorks, Vol. n. p. 5 , w)wre tJ)(' aut)uH'i- tips may be s{'cn at len t}l.] CHAP. XIX.] UNIVEH .AL PASTOR. 243 Therefore Archbishop Bramhall had reason to a) that 'this CounciJ was never incorporated into the English laws, and consequently hath no force in Eng- land; especially, being urged in a matter contrary to the famous memorial of Clarendon, a fundamental Jaw of this land. All appeals in England must proceed regularly, from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and from him to the K.ing to give order for redress I.' But to wipe away all colour of argument, whatever authority these Canons may be thought to have in other matters, it is certain they have none in this matter of appeals; for as to this point the undoubted general Councils afterward decreed quite otherwise; reducing' and limiting appeal ultimately to the Pri- mate of the province, or a Council, as hath been made to appear 2 . 'Vhen I hear any thing of moment urged from any other Council, ad a grant of the pretended Su- premacy to the Pope, I shall consider what may be answered: till then, I think there is an end of his claim, jU1'e humano, either by a civil or canonical grant, by Emperors, or general Councils. So much hath been said against, and so little to purpose, for the Council of Trent, that I shall excuse n1yself and my reader from any trouble about it 3 . But ] must conclude, that the Canons of the Council of Trent wcre never acknowledged or re- ceived by the kingdom of England a the Council of 1 [Archbp. Bramhall, Works, Vol. II. p. 533.] 2 [See above, p. 225.] 3 [Bp. Rtillingflcf't considers the charactf'r of this synod in his · Vindication.' Part IT. ('hap. viii.] 16-2 :244 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CRAP. XIX. Basle w ts, which confirmed the act of the Council of Constance; which Council of Constance, without the presence or concurrence of the Pope, did decree themselves to be a lawful complete general Council superior to the Pope, and that he was subject to their censures; and deposed three Pope!; at a time. The words of the Council are ren1arkable: 'The Pope is subject to a general Council, as well in matters of faith as of manners, so as he n1ay not only be cor- rected, but if he be incorrigible, be deposed 1.' To say this decree was not conciliarly made 2 , and consequently not confirlned by Pope l\Iartin V., signi- fies nothing, if that l\Iartin were Pope; because his title to the Papacy depended Inerely upon the autllo- rity of that decree. But indeed the word ' cOllciliw'i- ter' was spoken by the Pope upon a particular occa- sion, after the Council was ended and the Fathers were dismissed; a!S appears in the history. 1 [See authorities above, IX., and Labbe, Concil., Tom. XII. pp. 19, 23.] 2 [See Bramhall's 'Just Vindication,' Part. I. Disc. ii.; Works, Vol. I. pp. 250-252: Replication to the Bp. of Chalcedon, Part I. Disc. iii.; Works, Vol. II. pp. 250, et seqq.] CHAPTER XX. OF THE POPE'S TITLE BY DIVI E RIGHT-TIlE QUESTION, 'VHY KOT SOOXER ?-IT IS THE LAST REFFGE. l ' HE nlodern champions of the Church of Rome slight all that hath been said, and judge it beneath their master and hi::, cause to plead any thing but a 'Jus Divinurn' for his pretended Supremacy; and indeed will hardly endl1re and tolerate the question, 'Vhether the Pope be universal ::\Ionarch, or Bishop of the whole Church as 8t Peter's successor, jure Divino? But if this point be So very plain, may I have leave to ask why it was not urged sooner? 'Vhy "ere lesser inconsistent pleas so long insisted on? "Thy do not many of their own great men discern it to this day? The truth is, if the Inanagery of the cOInbat all along be seriously reflected on, this plea of Divine right Reems to be the last refuge, when they have been driven by dint of argument out of all other holds, as no longer to be defended. \.nd Jet give me leave to observe, that this last ground of theirs seems to me to be the weakest, and the least able to secure them; which looks like an argument of a sinking cause. However, they mightily labour to support it by these two pillars. (1) That the government of the whole Church is monarchical. (2) That the Pope is 246 UNIVERSAL PASTOR [CHAP. XX. the -"Ionarch; and both these are jlt1'e Dit,Ùw. But these pillars also must be supported, and how that iö performed we shall examine. SECTION I. WHETHER THE GOVERNMENT OF THE WHOLE CHURCH BE MONARCHICAL BY DIVINE RIGHT? -BELLARl\IINE-REASON-SCRIPTURE. B ELLARl\II El hath flourished with this argu- ment through no less than eight whole chapters, and indeed hath industriously and learnedly beaten it as far it would go,-and no wonder if he have left it. thin. "That solidity is in it, we are to weigh both from Reason and Scripture. I. Not from Reason, in Three .LlrglwlCnt8. Argumcnt From reason they argue thus: God hath appointed I. the best and most profitable government, (for He is most wise and good); but monarchical government is the best and 1110st profitable. Answers. (1) It iö plainly amnvered that to know which is the best government, the state of that which is to be govel'ned must be considered, the end of government being the profit and good of the state governed; so that unleös it appear that this kind of government be the Inost convenient for thc state of the Church. nothing is concluded. 1 [De Romano Pontifiec, Lib. I. c. I.-n.] CHAP. XX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR 247 (2) 'Ve believe that God hath the care of the world, and not only of the Church; therefore in Hi::; wise and good Providence He ought to have settled the world undcr the bcst and 1110st profitablc govern- ment, viz. under one universal l\Ionarch. (3) Bellarmine himself grants, that' if particular Churchcs should not be gathered, intm' se, ::;0 as to make one visible, political body, their own proper rector would suffice for everyone, and there should be no need of one l\Ionarch I.' But all particular Churches arc not one visible political body, but as particular bodies are cOlnplete in themselves, enjoying all partö of ordinary worship and government singly; neither is there any part of worship or government proper to the illcu1l1enical Church, qua taUs. (4) The argun1ent seems stronger the contrary way: God is good and wise, and hath appointed the best government for His own Church; but He hath not appointed that it sholùd be monarchical: therefore that kind of government seems not to be the best for His Church. Christ luight. foresee the great incon- veniences of His Church's being governed by one ecclesiastieall\Ionarch, when divided under the several secular powers of the world, though the ambition of men overlook it and consider it not. Yet that the govermnent of the Church appointed by God, as bcst for it, is monarchical, is not believed by all 'Catholics.' The Sorbonne Doctors doubt not to affirm, that aristocratical government is the bø,t 1 [Ihiò.. c. viii.; Disputat. Tom. I. p. 13fj, .\.] 248 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [t::IIAl'. XX. of all, and most agreeable to the nature of the Church 1. (6) But what if we yield the whole argument? As the gOyernn1ent of the Church is imperial, it is in Christ, the universall\Ionareh over it; but He being in a far country, He governs the several parts of his Church in distinct countries by visible Ininisterial monarchs or primates, proper to each. The distinc- tion of imperial and ministerial power is given us in this very case by our adyersaries; there is nothing unreasonable, unpraeticable, or contrary to the prac- tice of the world in the assertion. 'Ve grant that 11lonarchy is the best kind of government in a due sphere; the world is wide enough for many n10narch::" and the Church too. The argument concludes for Primates over Provinces, not for an universall\Ionarch, either over the world or the whole Church. Argument 'The Church cannot be P ropagated (as llellarmine 2 II. argues) without a universal l11onarel1, to send preach- ers into other provinces,' &e. Answer. 'Vho can doubt but that the governors of any Church have as much power to send any of her mem- bers, and have as nluch power in pagan and infidel countries, as the supposed universal Bishop? And if 1 [This was tlw affirmation of Antonius dc Dominis in his Treatise 'de R.epublica Ecclt'siastie<1, ;' where he furtht'r (}uot('d the Doctors of the orhonne s holding the same view. In lû17, how- mer, they disclaimed all sympathy ,vith him, declaring his pJ"Opn- sition 'heretique et schismatique, f'n tant qu'elle insiniie om'erte- ment que Ie pape n'a point d'autorité de droit divin sur les mItres égIises.' See Du Pin, I-J ist. Ec('I. flu 17 ffi f' sit>('lf', Tom. I. rr. 447, et seqq. à Paris, 171-1.] 2 [np Rom no Pontif Lih. I. e. ix.: Tom. I. p. UR, n.1 CHAP. XX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 249 heretie::, can propagate their errors, why should not the orthodox the truth without the Pope? ,It is necessary (saith Bellarmine I) that all the Argument Ill. f tithful should have one fhith, which cannot be with- out one chief Judge.' In neces aries they may, in other thing's they need Amwcr. not; as appears sufficiently among the UOlnanists about thii; as well a other points; neither could Peter himself, with the help of the rest of the Apo - t1e , in their time prevent heresie and schisms. These things are too weak to bear up the great power and universal l\Ionarehy pretended, and indeed an iUl- peachment of the wisdom and goodness of Christ, if He have not provided such a government for his Church as they plead a necessity of, for the said ends :-the thing next to be inquired- II. Not j '01n Scriptw'e Prophecies, Pr01fLises, l1Ieta- plwJ>s, 01' Example of IIi!Jh-priest. They affirm that 'the Scriptures CVlllce an 11111- versal l\Ionarchy over the Church:' but how is it proved? The prophecies and pronlises and sundry llleta- Argument phors (of a house, kingdom, body, flock, &c.) prove I. the Church to be one in itself; and consequently it must have one Impremc Governor 2 . ,,-r C arc agreed, that the Church is but one, and Answer. that it hath one supreme Governor; and we are 1 [De Romano Pontif. Lih I. c. ix.: Tom. I. p. 138, c.] 2 [This argument is stated at Icngth hy Bellarmine, ihid. p. 138. Fnt" a fuller reply see Hr. Overall's 'Convo('ation Book,' Pl'. 202, ct F;l'f)IJ, C(l. Oxf. IRH.] 250 UNIVERSAL PASTOR [CUAl'. XX. agreed, that Christ hath the supreme government of it, and that those Scriptures too signify that He is such, if we consider the government to be imperial, (as Hartl confesseth to Dr. Rainolds). And thus the argument passeth without any harm; but it s-till rests to be proved that the ministerial governor is but one, or that the Scriptures intend so, or St Peter, or the Pope, as his successor, is that one governor over the whole Church. It is t.rue, as our Saviour saith, there is one flock and one shepherd; but it is as true which he saith in the same place,-' I am that good shepherd;' but as that one principal Pastor had many vicars, not Peter only, hut twelve Apostles, to gather and feed the :-;heep, who were t.herefore sent to preach to all na- tions,-and did, as it is said, divide the world into twelve provinces respectively,-so that one great )Ionarch might have many viceroys, if we may so call the future Bishops to govern the Church; though in faith but one, yet in site and place divided. It is no unreasonable thing, that the King of Britain and Ire- land should govern Scotland and lreland, wl1Ïch lie at sonIC distance from him, by his deputations, as before was hinted. Argument 'There was one High-priest over the Church of II. the Jews, and by analogy it ought to be so in the Christian Church.' Ano;wer. l\Iany things were in that Church which ought not to be in this. 1 [See' The Sum of the Confercnc(' between John Raillolds nd John Hart,' p. 9. London, 1609.] CHAl'. XX.J UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 251 They were one nation as well as one Church; and if every Christian nation have one High-priest, the analogy holds well enough. The making the nations of the world Christian hath, as experience shews, rendered the government of the Church by one person. that cannot reside in all places, very inconvenient, if not impracticable. Now if our Saviour foresaw thi::;, and hath ordered the government of the Christian Church otherwise than 1\loses had that of the Jews, who shall say, 'Vhat hast thou done? It can never be proved that the High-priest over the Jews was either called the Judge, or had such power over that Church as the Pope pretends over the Christian 1. Lastly, it is not doubted but 1\loses was faithful, and Christ as faithful, in appointing a fit government for these great and distinct states of the Church; but what kind of government 1\Ioses appointed is nothing to the question, unless it appear that Christ hath appointed the same. The proper question is, whether Christ hath appointed that the Christian Church should be governed by one universal l\lonarch ;-let us apply to that. The great issue is, the instance of St Peter. It is Argument III. affirmed that our Lord committed the government of the Christian Church to St Peter, and his successors, the Popes of Rome, for ever. A grant of so great consequence ought to be very plain; the whole world is concerncd, and may expect evidence very clear, (1) That Christ gave this universal 1 See Confcrcnce hctwccn Rainolds and Hart, pr. 202, 203. 1st f'aipture. .An wer. 252 UNIVERSAL P ASTOn. [CUAl'. XX. Supremacy to St Peter; and (2) to the Pope, as his successor. If either fail, Bonta '1"ztÜ. SECTION II. OF 81' PETER'S l\IONARCHY-'TU F:S PETRUS'- FATHERS ABUSED. W Eare now come to the quick. The first great question is, 'Yhether Christ gave his Apostle St Peter the government of his whole Church? Thi would be proved frOlTI 1\Iatthew xvi. 18, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.' The argument is, 'Vhat Chribt promised He gave; but in these words Christ promised to 111ake l>eter the Supreme Head and Governor of his Church; there- fore this po\vcr was given him. If this argument conclude, by 'this rock' must bc meant Rt Peter; and the words, 'I will build my Church upon it,' nlust signify the comn1itting the supreme power of the Church to him. For the first, it is at least a controversy among the ancient Fathers; and many of them do dcny thai by this rock we are to understand any thing but that confession which wab cvidently the occa- sion of this promise, and was made by Peter just heforc,---as 8t C,yril 1 , Jlil ary 2. Chrysostom 3 , Am- 1 [8. Cyril. Alexand. de Sancta Trinitate, Dial. IV.; Opp. Tom. Y. Part. I. p. 50i, E; cd. Paris. Iû38.] 2 [c. g. de Trinitatc, Lib. II.; Opp. p. 17, col. I. ('; cd. Paris. I fi3 I.] 3 [c. g. in l\Iatth. Homil. J.IV. a1. LV.; Ol'p. Tom. \'11, p. 5-18, A: N1. Pm-is. li27.] CHAP. XX.] U IVERS \L PASTOR. -.) _..J.) bro el, and St Augustine 2 , who e l(lp. W; IUlInaIlU."I in it is reproved by Stapleton 3. But I am willing to agree as fill' as we may, and therefore shall not deny but something peculiar to 5t Peter's person was here promised, (though I be- lieve it was a point of honour, not a supremacy of power): what that was will appear by the thing pro- mised, 'I will build my Church,' that i:-;, 'upon my doctrine preached by thee.' 'I will build my Church ;' thou shalt have the honour of being a prime and principal author of the world's conversion; or (as Dr Rainolds 4 against Hart) Peter was in order with the first who believed, and among those first he had a mark of honour in that he was named' Stone' above his brethren. Yet as he, so the rest are called founda- tions, and indeed so were in both these senses: for the twelve were all prinle converts, and converters of others. and were foundations in their respective pro- vinces on which others were built; but they were not built one upon another, and they had no other founda- tion on which they themselves were built, but Christ him!i\elf. 1 [e. g. in Epist. ad Ephes. cap. II.; Opp. Tom. III. col. 4 8, E; ell. Paris. 1614.] 2 [St. Augustine held that the 'rock' might in one sense mean St. Peter, and in another our Lord himself. In his 'Retracta- tions,' Lib. I. c. 21, he says "Harum autem duarum sententiarum, quæ sit probahilior eligat lector."] 3 De Princip Doctrin. Lib. VI. C. 3. [A synopsis of the yarious interpretations of this text of Scripture is given in Mr. Palmer's , Treatise on the Church,' Part VII. chap. I.] 4 [pp. 3U. 31. The same view is taken of our Lord's declaration by Bishop Pearson, On the Creed, Art. ix. p. ::>08; ed. T.ond. 18-l2; anll hy Bp. Horsley, Sermon on fatt. xvi. 18, 19.] 2nd cripture. 2.")4 UNIVERSAL r ASTOR. [CUAt>. XX. \Ve are willing to any thing that the sense of the words will convenicntly bear; but that they should signify power and govermnent over the whole Church, and the rest of the Apostles, we cannot understand: for the Rock iR supposed before the building upon it, and thc building before the government of the house; and the govenllncnt of the Church cannot tolerably be thought to be of the foundation or first building of the Church, but for the preservation or augmcntation of it after its existence is supposeù. Perhaps therc is ground to allow that Peter's foundation was the first, as his name was first among the Apostles; and that this was thc reason of that primacy of ordcr and dignity which some of the aneicnts in thejr writings acknowledged in St Peter I ; but certainly there is nccd of a plainer text to argue this text to signify that supremacy of power over the rcst of the Apostles and the wholc Church, which is so hotly contended for by our Ron1Ìsh alhersaries to be given Saint Peter. IIowcver, after the resurrection of Christ, 'all were made equal, both in honour and power,' as Saint Cyprian 2 saith. But it is urged that the other part of the promise is most clear, "To thee will I give the ke.)'s of the kingdom of hcaven," viz. 'the fulneRs of ecclesiastical powcr,' as HarV expres:sed it. I Paul had th(' same primacy ov('r Barnabas, that Peter had ovcr the apostles. Sep 8t. Amhrose in Epist. ad Gal. c. II.: [Opp. Tom. Ill. co!. 4il, G; cd. Paris. 1614.] 2 De T.;nitate Eccles. [ 3: "Hoc <'rant utique et cæteri apos- toli, quod fnit Petms, pari consortio præ,liti f't honoris et potestatis; sed cxordium ah unitatt' prnflt'iscitur, ut ('celosia Christi una mon- strptur."] :1 [Cnnf('}"('J)('I'. p. ?2.] CHAP. XX.J UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 2:')5 Our answer is, that Christ here promised no more An8wer. power to Peter than he performed to all the Apostles: Peter's confession was Iuade in the name of all, and Christ's prOluise was made to Peter in the name of all; and nothing can be clearer, either in the text or in fact. The text is plain, both in itself and in the judg- ment of the Fathers, that Peter stood in the room of the rest, both when he made the confession and received the promise I. And that it did equally concern the rest of the Apostles is eviùent by the performance of it. A pro- mise is of something de futuro; our Saviour saith to Peter, 'I will give thee the keys,' but when did He do it ? And how did He do it? Certainly at the time when He delivered those words recorded John xx. 21, 23, and after the manner there expressed, and by that form of words. How are not those words spoken by Christ equall) to all the Apostles? "As my Father sent me, so do I send you; whose soever sins ye remit," &c.-nothing plainer. To say that Christ gave not the keJs to all, but only the power of remitting and retaining sins, seems pitiful, unless '"'ome other proof be offered, that Christ did actually perform this promi:-;e to St Peter apart, I Vide S. Augustin. in Juhan. cap. xix. Tractat. ('ÀVIII.; [Opp. Tom. HI. Part II. co1. 583, F; ed. Antverp. 1700]: S. Amuros. En- narat. in Ps. XXXVIII.; (Opp. Tom. II. Co1. B-1, E; ell. Paris. 1614]: Ilieronym. adv. Jovinian. Lib. I.; [Opp. Tum. IV. Part ii. CoI. 168; ed. Paris. 1706]: Origen. Comment. in l\latth.; [Orp. Tom. HI. pp. 523, 52..1,: ed. Paris. 1740]: Hilar. Pictav. de Trinitate, Lih. n. ; [Orp. col. 77, if!; ('11. Paris. 1631J. Cardinal de Cusa is plnin 011 this point al,,;o. Vic1. ell' Catllol. COllC"ordalltia. Lilt. IT e. I : . yo 256 UKIVEHSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XX. and give him the keys at some othel' time, in distinc- tion to the power given in the twentieth of .r ohn to all together. · Remitting and retaining sins,' is certainly the power of the keys, anù so called by the Council of Trent 1 itself. And it is not the keeping, but the power of the keys is the question; and indeed Bellar- mine 2 proves, that the whole power of the keys, and not a part only, as Stapleton 3 supposed, was granted to all the Apostles in the words John XX., to be the general interpretation of the Fathers. Stapleton 4 from Turrecremata distinguisheth be- twixt the apostolic anù the episcopal Power; and they grant, that the apostolic power was equal in all the Apostles, and received immediately from Christ, but the episcopal power was given to St. Peter with the keys, and immediately and by him to the rest. This is a new shift; else why is the title 'apos- tolical' given to the Pope, to his See, to all acts, &c.; seeing the Pope, according to the fineness of this dis- tinction, doth not succeed Peter, as an Apostle, but as a Bishop. It is as strange as new; seeing the power of the keys must as well denote the epi::,copal power of the rest of the Apostles as of Peter; and the power of using them, by remitting, &c., was given, generally and immediately, by Christ to them all alike. 1 Catechism. ad Parochos, [po 257, ed. Lovan. 156ï.] 2 In Prælect. Homan. Contl'Overs. IV. Quæst. III. de Summo Pontifice. 3 [De Pl'illcip. Doctrin. Lib. VI. c. 1.] 4 [Ihid. cappo 1, ß, 7, 8.] '10 CHAP. XX.] U"\IYERSAL PASTOR. 257 This distinction of Turrecremata was (as Rainolùs I against Hart sheweth) spoiled, before Doctor Staple- ton new vamped it, by two learned friars, Sixtus Senensis and Franciscus à Yietoria; evidencing both out of the Scriptures, that the Apostles received all their power immediately of Christ; and the Fathers, that in the power of apostleship and order (so the two powers were called), Paul was equal to Peter, and the rest to them both. Therefore, this distinction failing, another is in- vented, and a third kind of power is set up, viz. the power of the kingdom; and now fronl the threefold power of Saint Peter, Apostolatlls, Ordinis, Regni, it is strongly affirmed 2, (1) touching the Apostleship, 'Paul (as Jerome 3 saith) was not inferior to Peter; for he was chosen to preach the Gospel, not by Peter, but by God, a Peter was': (2) touching the power given in the sacrament of Orders, Jerome4. saith well too, that' all the Apostles received the keys equally, and that they all, as Bishops, were equal in the degree of Priesthood, and the spiritual power of that ùe- gree :'-thu the first distinction is gone. But, thirdIJ', touching the power of kingdom, Saint Jerome 5 ::saith best of all, that 'Peter was chosen among the twelve, and made the head of all, that all occasion of schisn1 might be removed.. These are fancies of the Schoolmcll, but where are 1 [Conference, p. 81.] 2 [See Rainolds against Hart. ibid.] 3 In f'omment. ad Oalat. [cap. Y.: Opp. Tom. IV. Part i. col. 22;{. ] 4 AdV(,l"f;. .Tovinian. rLih. 1.: Opp. Torn. IV. p[lrt ii. ('01. WH.] ,j [Ihid.] 17 25ts UNIVER AL PASTOR. [CIIAP. xx. they grounùed"! \Ve are seeking' for Saint Peter's supremacy in the Scripture; where do we there find this power of the kingdom given him by Christ? Or what ancient }'ather ever so expounded this text of the keys? ",Ve grant. many expre!S:::îions are found in the Fathers in honour of Saint Peter. Saint Augustine affirms his 'primacy is conspicuous and pre-eminent with excellent grace:' Saint Chrysostom caneth him 'the lllouth,' 'the chief,' 'the top of the company;' Theodoret styles him. 'the prince;' Epiphanims 'the highest;' Saint Augustine 'the head, president anù first of the Apostles;' which he provetll out of Saint Cyprian, who saith, 't.he Lord chose Peter first;' mIll Saint Jerome saith, 'he was the hcad, that occasion of schism might be taken away,' and gives hin1 the honour of great authority ;-all these were useù by Hart 1 against Rainolds. To thelll all Doctor Rainolds 2 gives clear and satisfactory answers, shewing largely that they signi(y nothing but a primacy of election, or order, or dignity. or esteem, and authority in that sense; or a primacy in grace and gifts, viz. a principality or chiefness in worth; or a primacy of presidentship in assemblies, as the lllouth and moderator; or the head of unity and order, as Jerome 3 means: but it is not to be proved from any or all of these encomiums, that the Fathers believed that the other Apostles were under Saint Peter as their governor, or that he had allY real power given him by Christ more than they. 1 [COlûerence, p. 172.] 2 [Ibid. pp. 172, et seqq.] 3 [Quoted ahove, p. 257, note 5.] CHAP. XX.] L IYERSAL. PASTOR. 2.1)9 The words of Saint Cyprian 1 are plain and full. "Albeit Christ," r-,aith he, "g-ave equal power to all the Apostles after his resurrection, and said. As my Father, &c. ; yet to declare unity, He disposed by his authority the original of that unity, beginning in one. K 0 doubt," aith he, "the rest were the same thai Peter wa::;, endued with tlw like fellow hip (pari con- so'plio) of honour and power; but the beginning doth come from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shewed to be but one." Thus this topic of the }'athers' expounding the text being found to fail. another device, and such a one as the very detection both answers and shames the authors, is fled unto, viz. to corrupt instead of purging the Fathers, and to make them speak home indeed. The place of Saint CJ'priall just now set, is a very clear instance of this black art, allowed by the Popes themselves; the place which in the former prints was thought to make rather for an equality of all the Apostles in power, as it is set down in the Roman- purged Cyprian, is thus altered by addition of these words, 'and the primacy is given to Peter.' Again He appointed one Church, 'and the chair to be one;' and to make all ::,ure, the Antwerp Cyprian addeth con- veniently Peter's chair: and then, saith he, who for- saketh 'Peter's' chair, on which the Church was founded, &c. And by this time Peter's primacy is the Pope's supreluacy2. 1 De U nitate Eccles. 3. 2 See Dr. Rainolrls [againf1t Hart], pp. Hì6-171. 17-2 260 eXIVERS.U PASTOR. [CHAP. XX. But Thomas Aquinas 1 hath dealt worse with St Cyril, fathering a 'treasure' upon him which he never owned, beyond all tolerable defence. To the Grecians 8t Cyril is brought in speaking thus: 'Christ did coml11it a full and ample power both to Peter and his successors'... 'the Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed (in every doctrine) Peter and his Church to be in stead of God; and to him, even to Peter, all do bow by the Law of God, and the Princes of the world are obedient to hiIp., even as to the Lord Jesus; and we as being members lllUSt cleave unto our head, the Pope and the Apostolic See,' &c. Now either 8t C,yril said thus, or not. If he did. who will believe him that shall make ::;uch stories, and father thenl upon every doctrine in the New Testa- luent, contrary to common sense and the knowledge of all; or trust his cause to the interpretation of such Fathers? But if this Book called St Cyril's' Trea- sure' be none of St Cyril's,-as certainly it is not,- then, though I am provoked, I shall say no more, but that we should weigh the reasons, but not the autho- rity, of such a schoohnan, especially in his master's cause. It is certain, the words are not to be found in those parts of Cyril's' Treasure' which are extant, as Hart 2 acknowledged to Dr Rainolds. Yet the abuse of single Fathers is not so heinous a thing as Thomas committed against six hundred Bishops, even the general Council of Chalcedon, when 1 [In Opusculo contra En'ores Græcorum ad Urban IV., quoted at length ùy Rainolds, ubi supra, p. 159.] 2 [Ibid. p. 160.] CHAP. XX.] UKIVERSAL r ASTOR. 261 he saith they decreed tlul:;: "If any Bi hop be ac- cused, let him appeal freely to the Pope of Rome, because we have Peter for a rock of refuge; and he alone hath right with freedonl of power, in the stead of God, to judge and try the crime of a Bishop, according to the keys which the Lord did give him;" calling the Pope 'the mos holy, apostolic, and uni- versal Patriarch of the whole world I: Now in that Council there is not a word of all this; and they answer, heretics have razed it out, if you will believe it, but neither Surius nor Carranza find any thing wanting 2. I shall onl y make this note, that seeing the Fathers have been o long in the hands of those men that stick at nothing that may advance the power of their master, it is no wonder that their learned adver- saries are unwilling to trust their cause with such judges, but rather appeal to the true Canon, and call for Scripture. One would think this were enough: but this opinion of the equality of power among the Apostles was not only the concurrent judgment of the ancients, but even of learned later men in the Church of ROllle, evcn fro111 these words, Tlt es Petrus, etc., upon unan- swerable rea on,-Lyra3, Durand à 5t POl'ciano4, both in the fourteenth century, and Abulensis 5 in the fif- teenth century. The latter argues earnestly, 'that none of the Apostles did understand those words of 1 [See Rainolds, ibid. p. 163.] 2 [Ibid.] 3 [Nicol. de Lyra, Postil. in Mat. xvi. 18, 19.] 4 [Commcntal.. supm' IV. Sentent. Distinct. XVIII. (luæst. II.] :> In :\IaUh. xviii. Quæst. vn.; in Matth. xx. Quæst. LXXXIII. L lY. 3rd Scripture. An wer. 262 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CRAI'. XX. Christ to give any supremacy to Peter; for after- wards they contended for superiority, l\Iatthew xviii., and after that, the two sons of Zebedee desire it, Iatthew xx., and at the last supper the question is put again, Luke xxii.' Therefore he concludes, 'they thought themselves equal till Christ's death, when they knew not which of them should be greatestl.' This It was the common interpretation of the Doctors of Paris, and of Adolphus Archbishop of Cologne, and of the Bishops of his province; the decrees of whose Synod, with this interpretation, were ratified in every point by Charles the Fifth, and enjoined to be ob- served 2. Thus the -chief gronnd of St Peter's supremacy is sunk, and there is little hopes that any other text will hold up that weighty superstructure. Another Scripture much insisted on for the sup- port of St Peter's supremacy, is John xxi. 14-17: "Peter, lovest thou 1ne? Feed my sheep, feed my lambs:" wherein is committed to Peter the power of the whole Church. It is answered, this text gives not any commis::;ion or power to St Peter; it gives him charge and eom- Inandment to execute his commission received before. .Now it hath appeared sufficiently, that the conunission was given equally to all the A postle::; in those words, "as my Father sent me, 1:10 send I you," &c.; so that the power of feeding, and the duty of pastors, was I See Cusanus his contemporary, de Concord. UathoJ. Lib. JII. c. 13, c. 3-1, and Franciscus à Victoria. [both quoted at lcugth hy Dr. Hammoud, 'Dispatchcr Dispatcht: ('hap. 11. scct. ii. * 2.] 2 ^IJUll COß('i1. cd. Bin. \.. It. IMD: [Tom. IX. p. 30 , ('01. 2, B.] CUAl'. XX.] UNIYERSAL PASTOR. 263 alike to them all. Though this charge wa:-; given to Peter by name here, with so many item perhaps intimating his repeated "prevarications, yet were they all sent, and all charged with a larger province than these words to Peter import: 'Teach all nations,'- . Preach the Gospel to every creature,'-are our Saviour's charge to them all. 'In the apostolic power all were equal' (saith Objeclion. lIart 1), 'not in the pastoral charge.' 'Ve answer with a distinction (allowed by Staple- Answer. t01l 2 ) of the name Pastor; it is special and distinct ii.om Apostle ;-" some Apostles...some .Pastors 3 ;"- or general and common to all commissioned to preach the Gospe1. So Christ is called Pastor 4 , and all the .\.postIes were Pastors as well as Peter. nut'St Peter was the Pastor over the rest; for Objcclinn. he is charged to feed all the sheep, the whole Church. Xow the rest of the Apostles were Christ's sheep, and members of his Church 5 .' Christ saith not to Peter, Feed all my sheep, but .Answer. he doth say to then1 all, 'Preach thc Gospel to every creature 6.' And if Peter have power over the rest, becausc they are bheep, and he is to feed the shecp; then cvery onc of the rest have power over Peter becausc he is a creaturc, and they are to preach to evcry crcature. But this is trifling; so is all that is further argued fron1 this text; though by feeding we understand ruling', ruling of pastor , or what you will, 1 [Conference, p. Ri.] 2 [De Prineip. Dodrin. Lil.. ,I. e. i.J :\ Eph. iv. [11.] 1 [John x. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 2;'í.] . Ihrt. [[IS ahoy!'. p. !}O.' 6 [)Iark xvi. I.'n 264 L"NIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XX. while whatsoever was charged on Petcr here is within the same commission, wherein Peter and all the rest of the Apostles are equally empowered as before; and that of Bellm'mine 1, , that Peter ,"vas to feed the sheep as ordinary pastor, the Apostles as extraordinary am- bassadors,' is altogether as groundless ;-as if there were any colour of reason that an ordinary pastor should have more power than an extraordinary am- bassador. Dr Hammond observes, 'Bellarmine was not the author of that artifice; Cajetan and Yictoria had used it before him, and obtained it the honour of coming into the Council of Trent, where the Bishop of Gra- nada derided it, and the authors of it; and soon after the Bishop of Paris expressly affirmed that Cajetan was (about fifty years before) the first deviser of it. The Bishop of Granada confutes it by Scripture, as understood by all the Fathers and Schoolmen,-as he affirmed 2.' To conclude this matter, 'Feed my sheep' are not a ground for the Pope's presidency, which are found not to bc so of Peter's above the body of the uni- versal Church; as was publicly pronounced in the Convent of thc Friars-l\1inors, (as appears by the Opnsculum 3 of John, Patriarch of Antioch). And Car- dinal Cusanus., who lived at the same time, makcs 1 [Dc Romano Pontif. Lib. I. c. n.] 2 [' Dispatcher Dispatcht,' chap. II. sect. ii. 15: 'V orks, Vol. II. p. H)7.] 3 [This was a treatise 'de Superil)I'itate Concilii supra Pa}Jam,' puhlicly recited at Basle as above mentioned. It is printcll among thn Acts of the Council of BasIl'. Virl. ('oneil. cd. Lahh. Tom. XII. p. Dl:!.l t DC' Concorrl. Cath. l..ih. II. f'. 2 . CHAP. XX.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 265 them word of precept, not of institution; and both are agreeable to the interpretation of the ancients I. It is time to look further. The third great place Luke xxii. 3'> of argument is Luke xxii. 32: "Thou being con- M. verted, strengthen thy brethren." 'Vhence Hart 2 rea- sons thus: 'Christ commands Peter to strengthen his brethren, and his brethren were the Apostles; there- fore he was to strengthen the Apostles, and by conse- quence he must be their Supreme Head.' 'Vhen Hart urged this argument with all his wit Answer. and might, anù Dr Rainolds had Inade it evident, there is no authority given by the words, nor carried in the word ' strengthen,' that equals and inferiors arc not capable of it as well as superiors-much less can it necessarily imply a supremacy over the whole Church-he confes'ieth with Stapleton, that Christ gave the power to Peter after his resurrection, when he said to him, 'Feed my lambs,' (which we have weighed before), but those words of strengthening, &c., he spake before his death, and did but flltllrarn in8inuaverat, 'insinuate therein," and (as Hart's worcP is) give an inkling that he would make him Supreme Head; then if he diù not make him so afterward, he did it not at all. That Peter had power over the rest of the Apos- Acts i. 15. ties, would be proved (as before) from the pro111ise and commi ion of Christ, so at last by Peter's execu- 1 [See Dr. Hammond, as above, p. 196, and for a great numher of othC'r authorities, Mr. PalmC1 s 'Trcatise on the Chureh/ Part VIT. d1ap. 1.] 2 [C'onfl'1"enCC, p. 103.J 3 rp. 110.] 2(;f) PNIVER.S.\.JJ P ASTOn.. [Cn.\l', XX. tion; he propo ed the election of a ncw Apostle in the room of Judas. Answer. Therefore he was speaker (at least p'j'O tempo'ì'e) in thc asseInbly, but not a prince or supreme l\Ionarch. Objection. But St Chrysostom saith, 'that though Peter's modesty was commendable for doing all things by common advice and consent, anù nothing by hi own authority'; yet addeth, that' no doubt it wa::) lawful for Peter to have chosen l\Iatthias himselfl.' Y ct the same Father calls this seat given him bJ thc rest' a Primacy2,' not a Supremacy. Again, hc derives this PrÌ1nacy from the modcsty of the Apos- tles (not the ùonation of Christ), as HarP confcsseth. Rut indeed the Father exceeded in his charity; and it is hc that said that Peter might have chosen one himself; the Scripture saith not that he Iuig-ht, Jea it ::;aith he did not. And the argument from Pcter' cxecution of this power is come to this, that he did not execute it. Besides, Iuany Fathers (and in Council too) toge- thcr with St Cyprian pronounce, that Peter propo::;ing' the Inatter, to the cnd it might bc carried by com- mon advice and voice, did according to the lessons and preccpts of God; thcrefore, Jure Divino, they thought Peter had no such power, as Dr Rainolds 4 shews. .\l't!'\xv.7. But '"hen Pcter had been heard, all the multi- ef('. ] [This is the objection of Hart aga.inst Rainolds, p. 1I5. lIe is referring to St. Chrysostom, in Al't. Apostol. JImll. III.; Orr. Tom. IX. p. 25, B; cd. Paris. 1731.] 2 [In l\latt. Hom. L. (a1. LJ.); 0)11" Tom. '"II. p. ,')13, 1:. The original is TWII 1Tflwníc.'I'. te.T. .] I Ihi(1. p. L Hi.] t rp. ] I !I.l CHAP. XX.] UNIVER L\L PASTOR. 267 tude held their peace, and James and all thc Elders did agree unto Peter's sentence.' " hat is this to prove his supremacy? Because Answer. the Council, having heard GamalieP, agreed to him, was therefore Gamaliel (a Pharisee, a doctor of the law, whom all the people honoured,) Suprelne Head, and superior to the High-priest and Council? And if Jerome 2 say, Peter wa::, 'princeps dec'reti,' he acknow- ledged perhaps the reason, the motion, and the de- livery or declaration of it, principally to Peter, the first author of the sentence, as the same J erOllle 3 calls him, and explains himself. So was Tully called 4 , viz. 'prince of decrees,' when he was neither president nor prince of the Senate. 'Ve conclude that Peter had no superiority of power or gOyernnlent over the rest of the Apostles, or the whole Church; because it neither was promised him, nor given him, nor executed by him, notwith- standing Bellarminc's5 twenty-eight prerogatives of St Peter ;-from which I presume none can be so hardy as to venture to argue, 111any of them being uncertain, :::;ome vain and trifling, and some common with the rest of the Apo:::;t1cs, but neither divisim or conjunctÙn sufficient to make or to evince any real supremacy of power in St Petcr. 1 [Acts v. 3-1.] 2 [Epist. ad Augustin. L "{xv. (a1. XI.) Upp. Augustin. Tom. II. ('01. 130, A; cd. .Antvcrp. 1700.] 3 [Ibid. c.] -I Pro Corn. Balbo [c. 'u. YlI.: "HaruIll l'gO scntcntiarul11 prin- ('eps ct auctor fui."] ,'j [Se(' following I'h.lptcr, :::l'('t. i.] 268 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CIlAI'. XX. It i:3 indeed said by some of the Fathers, that the governnlent of the world and the care of the whole Church wa committed to Peter; but it is plain they speak of his Apostleship,-for they say the same of Paull, and the like of Timothy2, who was never re- puted universal monarch. 'Paul and Peter had two different primacies 3,' had the 'same dignity,' 'were equal 4.' 1 [Dr. Barrow (Treatise on the Pope's Supremacy; Works, Vol. I. p. 587; ed. 1716) gives five instances of this usage from St. Chrysostom only.] 2 [The words are, T II Tij!> OlKOtlP.ÉII1}!> 1TpouTauíall lYK XHPLUP.ÉIIO!>. Homil. VI. adv. Judæos: Opp. Tom. I. p. 142.] 3 S. Ambros. [The following seems to be the passage referred to: "Petrum solum nominat, et sibi comparat, quia primatum ipse acceperat ad fundandam ecclesiam; se quoque pari modo electum, ut primatum habeat in fundandis gentium ecc1esiis." In Epist. ad Galat. cap. iÏ.: Opp. Tom. III. co1. 470,411; ed. Paris. 1614.] 4 Chrysost. [Kal 8 íKII1JUL aVToî!> ÓP.ÓTLP.OIl óllTa 'AOL1TÒIl, Kal OV Toî!> êD..XOL!> ÉatlT )JI, àXXà Tcf KOP1Jcþaíce UVytepíllH, 8nKllv!> ôn Tij!> avrijç Kau- TO!> à1TÉ'Aa1JU 1I ùgía!>. In cap. II. Epist. ad Galat. Opp. Tom. x. pp. 684, 685; ed. Paris. 1732. See also St. Chrysostom and CEcu- menius, on 2 Cor. xii. n.] CIL\PTEH XXI. OF THE POPE'S SUCCESSIO . I HAVE laboured the more to scatter the pretences of Saint Peter's supremacy, because (though the consequence be not good from that to the Pope's, yet) it is a demonstration, that if Saint Petcr had it not, the Pope cannot have it, as his Successor, jure Divino. We must leave Saint Peter's supremacy to stand or fall to the reason of the discourse before, and must now examine the plea of Successor, and the Pope's Authority over the Church, as he is Successor to Saint Peter. X ow that it may appear we love not quarrelling, we shall not dispute whether Peter was a Bishop of a particular See? 'Vhether he was ever at Rome? 'Vhether ROlne was at first converted by him? 'Vhe- ther he was Bishop of Rome? 'Vhether he resided there for any considerable time? 'Vhether he died there? 'Vhether the Pope had any honour as his Successor? Or lastly, whether the Pope had the primacy of all Bishops in the former ages of the Church? It is well known that few adversaries would let you run away quietly with all or anyone of these. Yet there are two things that I shrewdly ques- tion: (1) 'Vhether the Pope had at first the Primacy itself, as Successor of Saint Peter. (2) Much more, Reason I. Before. Not as Bishop. 270 UNIYER AL l'ASTOH. [CITAP. XXI. whethcr by that succcssion hc J'ccciveù suprcme power over the whole Church, jm'e Divino. The main point to be proyed is the last, yet it may be worth the while to examine the first. SECTION I. WHETHER THE PRIMACY OF PETEU DESCENDED TO THE nISHOP OF ROME ?-NEG. I T <.loth Hot appear that Saint Peter had his Pri- Jnacy over the rcst of thc Apostles, as Bishop, Hluch less as Bishop of Rome; but the contrary dot.h appear. (1) Because he was Primate long before he was Bishop, if he ,vas so at all; and therefore, if he was Primatc, ratione munc'l'is, or with respect to any office, it was that of his Apostleship, and not of his Episco- pacy: the consequence then is evident, that the Pope could not succeed Saint Peter in the Primacy, as Bishop of Ronle, or indeed in any sense; for the apostolical office was extraordinary, and did not de- scend by succession, as the Romanists ;yicld. That Saint Peter was Primate, not as Bishop, but was antecedently so, it i:::; most apparent upon the grounds of it allowed and pleaded by our adversaries; because he was first called to the Apostleship; he was nmned 'the first' of the Apostles; he had the first promise of the keys; hc was the first converter of the Gcntilcs, &c, 'PrÙ 1 l"le,qilllll penwnale Cllm persona e,-rtin,f!ui t ll1'.' CIIAI'. XXL] LXIYEHSAL l'A TOH 271 (2) fndeed the Primacy of Saint Peter arose from Hea on II. such personal rcspccts and grounds I, that rendered it : : Je:;_ . bl f . 1 tl L' II speets. lllcapa C 0 succeSSIOn; ane lerClore none cou ( deriye that prerogatiyc, though they had succeeded him both as Bishop anù Apostle. These prerogatives of Saint Peter, which Bellar- mine 2 himsclf lays down as the grounds and argu- ments of his Primacy, are generally such-at least all of them that appcar in the Scriptures, all of thClu but such-as beg the qucstion, while the others depend on notorious fables :-a8 appears at first view. (1) Saint Peter wa Primate, because his name 21 )\'ero- gatIves, ac- was changed by Christ. (2) Because he was alway corrlin to Bellal'- first namcd. (3) He alone walked on the waters. (4) mine. He hall peculiar revelation. (5) He paid tribute with Christ. (6) He was the chief in the miraculous fish- ing. (7) He is commanded to strengthen his brcthren. (8) He was the first of the Apostles that saw Christ riRen from the dead. (9). His feet Christ first washed. (10) Christ foretold his death to him alone. (11) He was president at the election of .l\Iatthias. (12) He first preached after the Holy Ghost was given. (13) He did the first miracle. (14) He condemned the hypocrisy of Ananias, &c. (15) He passed through all quarters, Acts ix. 32. (16) He first preached to thc Gentiles. (17) He was lniraculously delivered out of prison. (18) Paul envied him. (19) Christ bap- tized him alone. (20) He detected and condemned 1 [See, on the pe"t's01tltl pre-eminence of St. Peter, ß:.lrrow's Trca- tise 011 the Pope's Suprcmacy, SUppOSe I.] 2 [De Romano Pontif. Lib. I., cap. >..vii. ct sCtjq. 272 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI. Simon .:\[agu . (21) Hc spake first in thc Council, Acts xv. These are twcnty-one of the prerogatives of Saint Peter, which Bcllarmine makes grounds and argu- Inents of his Primacy; which, if one say them over, and endeavour to apply theln to any but Saint Petcr's Argument. (individual) person, it will appear impossible; the rea- sons of this Primacy cannot be supposed out of Pc- ter's person; therefore the Primacy cannot pass to his Successor. l\Iark them, and you will find they are all either acts done by Saint Peter, or graces received by him; and so personally in him, that whatsoever depends on them Inust needs die with Saint Peter's person, and cannot be inherited by his Successor. Indecd, this Primacy rose of such grounds, and was in Saint Peter by consequcnce of thcm; had the Primacy bcen an office, or a grace given, of or in or for itself, without respect to any of thcse grounds, there had been some shadow (and but a shadow) for its :succession; but it having an essential dependencc on those reasons which were peculiar and proper to Saint Peter's person, they cease together. Other se- But, lest it should be thought, that there is more ven Prero- gatives. of argument in the other seven prerogatives which Bellarmine mentioned I, I beg my reader's pardon to :set ;then1 down also. The first is, perpetual stability is promised to Peter and his See. (2) He alonc was ordained Bishop by Christ, and the rest by him 2 . 1 [De Romano Pontif. Lib. I. c. xxiii. xxiv.] 2 [The authority annexed by Fulwood is an epistle ascribed to Anac1ctus, fourth hishop of Rome, where it is asserted, 'In No\"o CH \1'. XXI] FNIVEHS.\ T. P A:.;TOn 273 He placed his seat at Rome. (4) Christ appeared to him a little before he died; therefore Primate? and his successor too? (5) The Churches which he founded were always counted patriarchal. (6) The feast of hi chair was celebrated. (7) And his name added to the nanle of the Trinity, in literis form a tis. 'Vhat then was he not yet Primate before all this? 'Vas not his Primacy founded upon the reasons above? 'ViII you sa.y he was not. Primate, or by virtue of his Primacy was not Presidcnt in the two Councils men- tioned ? And if that be more than confessed, (even pleadcd by you), must not the former personal re- spects be the groundR of that Primacy? And iR it possible for such a PrÏ1nacy by succe:-;sion to descend to any other perRon ?-N one, that consider, will say it. The Fathers acknowledge a Primacy in St Pcter, Fathers. but upon such personal grounds as are mentioned. Saint Peter was 'called a rock, saith Saint Ambrose 1 (if the book be his), 'because he was the first that laid the foundation of faith among t.he nations.' Ce- rameus 2 gives him likewise, prirnu8 aditus ædificat1.onÙ .piritualis. Testamento post Christum Dominum a Petro sacerdotalis cæl'it ordo,' &c. Vide Gratian. Decret., Part. I.: Distinct. XXI. c. ii. That the epistle is spurious was demonstrated by Bp. Jewel, 'Controversy with Harding,' PI'. 341,342; ed. Parker Soc. IR43.] 1 [" Petra enim dicitur eò quod primus in nationibus fidei fun- damellta posuerit/' Concio 11., de SanctiR. According to Cave, (His tor. Liter. sub Ambros.) these Sermons are by SOID(' attribut<,d to Maximus of Turin.] 2 [This writer was Th.fopha'fl.(Js Cerameus. a Sicilian archbishop of the llth Century. He wrote numerous homilies, which Wf'I"f' printed at PariR. 164-t: th(' pass3!!:(' to whi('n Fulh\oorl r('f('r , lR ., Objection. Answer. Objection. Answer. I nter- enee 1. of 274 UNIYER SAT.. PASTOR. [CHAI'. XXI. ChristianOrllìn Pontifex pì"'imus Pet,'us, et reliquorulIl Apostolm'wn Princeps, propte'J' virtutis amplitudinem, l. He was Prince, 'for the greatness of his virtue.' Yirtue is a personal gift, and cannot pass by succession. Saint Chrysostom, indeed, is urged against us, 'Cm'am, turn Petro, tum Petri sllccessm'iblls cO'Jmnit- tebat 2 . It is granted, Peter had his succes:;or in time and place, and that is all the words, Kat TOL5; f1ET' ËhEÎVOV (to be rendered 'those which followed him '), will conclude. However, admit the Bishop of Rome did succeed aint Peter in his 'care', aR the word is; rriTP':) Kaì TOÎÇ P. T' IKf'ÎIIOII 'II X ;pLlT lI]. CH.\P. XXI.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR 275 ancient Church, a of great caution and use in this controversy, The grounds are known to be such a!". these, beca:use Rome was the imperial city, because the Church of Rome was then most famous for the Christian faith, because she was the most noted seat of true tradition, because her BishopA were most eminent for piety. learning, and a charitable care for other Churches; and lastly, perhaps, because Saint Peter had been Bishop there his memory might de- flect some honour, at least by way of motive, on the Bishop of Rome ;-as the Council of Sardica moveth I, , If it please you, let us honour the memory of Saint Peter:' but though the memory of Saint Peter might be used as an argument of the Pope's priority, it is far from concluding his inheriting Saint Peter's Pri- macy; though he had honour by being his successor. (2) It further follows, that the Primacy of that Inference II. see heretofore was not jll'ì'f' Divino. but. from the Primacy not Jure civility of the world, and the courtesy of princes, and Divino. the gratitude of the Church. Indeed, thiR Primacy wa not an office, but an honour; and that honour was not given by any solemn grant of God or man, but seems to have gained upon the world insensibly, and bJ degrees, till it became a custom, as the Council of Nice 2 intimates. (3) Lastly, it follows that this Primacy was not Inference III. derived to the succeeding Bishops of Rome; it stand- ot in . succeedlllg ing upon such temporary groundb as too soon failed: Popes. for when that which was the cause of it ceased, no wonder if the honour was denied. 'Vhen the faith of the see was turned to infidelity. and blasphemy, and I [See ahOYP, p. 6 .] 2 [ (,f' ahove, p. 3-1.] 1 -2 27G UNIVERSAL PA TOR. [CHAP. XXI. atheism, and sorcery, (as their own mcn sa,y): when their pie(y was turned into such villanies of pride, simony, uncleanness, and n10nstrous lewdness, (as themselves report); when their care and vigilance waH turned into n1Cthods of wasting and destroying the Churches I; when the exo'/'(liu:rn unitati/il was turned into a head of Schism and division; no wonder that the Primacy and honour of the Sce of Rome, which was raiscd and stood npon the ('ontrary grounds, was at lcngth di:;covercd to be grounllless, and thc former Primac;)' which stood on courtesy, and was exalted by an IBurpcd suprcmacy and t,yranny, was thrown off by us, and our ancient libert,)' is reposscsscd, and the glory of Rome is so far departed. SECTION II. WHETHER TIlE POPE BE SUPREME AS SUCCESSUR UF PETER BY DIVINE RIGHT?-NEG. NOT PRIMATE AS SUCH-PETER HIMSELF XOT SUPREME-POPE DID NOT SPCCEED HIM AT ALL. ' I 'HIS is thc last rcfuge, and the Incaning of it is, - that our Saviour made Saint Peter univer ;al ]\[0- narch of the whole Church, and intended the Pope of Home should succeed him in that power. All possible defence herein hath been prevented; for if the Bishop of Rome did not succeed him in his Primacy, how should he succecd him in his Supre- macy? Again, if Saint Peter had no such Suprcmacy, I [8ee a collcction of papal cnurmitit's in Rainolds' 'Conf('f(,IH'O with IIat,t,' pp. 2ï5, ct seqq.] CU.\.l'. XXI.] UNIVERSAL p.\.STOn '277 as hath appeared, how should the Pope reCCIVC it as his successor? Besides, whatever power Saint Peter had, it doth no way appear that the Pope should suc- ceed him in it; much less in our Saviour's intention, or by Divine right. IIoweyer, let us tr,)" their colours. 'ViII the,)" maintain it, that Christ appointed the Bishops of Rome to succeed St Peter in so great a power? The claim is considerable; the whole world in all ages is concerned; none could give this privilege of suc- cession but the giver of the power. But where diù He do it? 'Vhere or how, when or by whOln, was it expressed? Should 110t the grant of so great an empire, whcrein all are so highly concerncd, espe- cially when it is disputed anù pretended, be pro- duced ? Instead of plain proof we arc put off with obscure and vanishing- shadows, such as follow. SECTIO III. ARGU IENT I.-PETER ASSIGNED IT. I STEAD of proving that Christ did, they say that Argu- St Peter, when he died, bestowed the Supremacy ment 1. upon the Bishops of Home, in words to this effect, as Hartl expresseth them: "I ordain this Clement to be your Bishop, unto whom alone I commit the chair of my preaching and doctrine; and I give to him that 1 [' Conference with Rainolr1s,' p. 220, on the authority of thl' Epistlo 'ad Jacohum, Fratrcm Domini.'] 278 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI. power of binding and loo ing, which Christ gave to nle. " Answer. And what then? '1 ordain '-then he had it not, as Peter's successor by Divine right, but as a gift and legacy of St Peter. (2) 'This Clement' -a foul blot to the story; for it is plain in records 1, that Linus continued Bishop eleven years after Peter's death, and Cletus twelve after Linus, before Clemens had the chair. 'Your Bishop'-that is the Bishop of Rome; what is this to the Universal Bishop? 'And I give to him' -what? The chair of preaching and doctrine, and the power of the keys, viz. no more than is given to every Bishop at his Ordination. Now it is observable, though this pitiful story signify just nothing, yet what strange arts and stretchc8 of in- vention are forced to support it 2 , and to render it possible, though all in vain. 8ECTIO IY. ARGUMENT II.-BISHOP OF ANTIOCH DID NOT SUCCEED-ERGO, OF ROME. Argu- B ELLARl\IINE3 argues Inore subtilly, ;yet sup- ment II. poseth In ore strongly than he argues. Pontifex Romanus, 'the High-priest of Rome,' succeeded 8t Peter (dying at Rome) in his whole dignity and power; for there was never any that affirmed himself to be St Peter's successor any way, or was accounted for 1 [See Bp. Pearson's 'Dissertation;' Minor Theological Works, Vol. II. pp. 436, et seqq.] 2 Vid. Rainolds and Hart, [pp. 220, et scqq.] 3 [Do Romano Pontif. Lib. II. cap. iv.] CHAP. XXI.] LTNIYERSAL PASTOR. 279 such, besides the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Antioch; but the Bishop of Antioch did not succeed St Peter, in pontificatlt Ecclesiæ tot ius ; therefore the Bishop of Home did. (1) He supposeth that St Peter's successor suc- Answers cecded him in all dignity and power, but it is ac- knowledged by his friends, there was no succession of the apostolic, but only of the episcopal power. (2) If so, then Linus. Cletus, and Clemens, shoulù have had dignity and power ovcr John and tlH' other Apostles (who lived after St Peter), as their Pastor and Head, according to their own way of arguing. (3) Resides, St Peter had power of casting out of devils, &c., and doing such miracles as the Pope pretends not to do. Lastly, what if the Pope affirms that he is, and others account him to be, St Peter's successor? The point requires the truth thereof to hc shewn, jll'J"e Divino. SECTIO Y. ARGUME T IlI.-ST. PETER DIED AT ROME-THEN DE FACTO, NOT DE FIDE. B ELL.ARl\IIXE saith 1, the succession itself is jw'e Argu- ment II I. Divino, but the ratio successionis arose out of the fact of St Peter planting his see and dying at Home, and not fron1 Christ's first institution. He then doubts whether this succession be so according to his own position, (licet fortè non sit de jure Divino); but neither shews the succession itself to be Christ's institution at all, nor proves the traùition of Peter, on which he 1 [Dc Romano Pontif. Lih. II. c. xii.] 280 UNIVEUSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI. seems to lay his stress; and we may guess "h.}' he doth not. Answer. In short, if the ::mcce8sion of the Bi hop of Rome be of Faith, it is so either in jure or in facto; but neither is proved. Yea the contrary is acknowledged by Bellarmine himself. Not in right, because that is not cm'to D1..vtn1lm, as Bellarmine confesseth: nor in fact, because before Peter's death, which introduced no change in the Faith, as llellatmine also confesseth, this Succession was not of Faith. Indeed it is well observed 1, that the whole weight of Bellarmine's reasoning is founded in fact; then where is the }1.t8 Divinum f (2) In such fact of Peter as i not found in Scripture, or can be proved any way. (3) In such fact as cannot constitute a right either Divine or human. (4) In such fact as cannot conclude a right, in the sense of the most learned Uomanists 2; who contend, that the union of the bishopric of the City and the \V orld, is only per acc.i- dens, and not jltre Divino, 1.1cl Ùnperio Christi. But when the uncertainty of that fact, on which the right of so great and vast an empire is raised, is considered, what further answer can be expected? For is it not uncertain whether Peter were ever at Rome 3 ? Or whether he was ever Bishop of Home? Or whether he died at Rome? Or whether Christ called him back that he might die at Rome? Or 1 [Th(' allusion hR not h('en di!il('overl'd.] 2 Scotus, in Lib. IV. Sontent. Distinct. XXIV.; Cordubensis [Antonius], [Tmctat Vcnet. 1569], Lib. IV. Quæst. I.; Cajctan, de Primate Papæ, c. xxiii.; Bannes, in II. [i. e. in Partem secundam S. Thomæ.] Quæst. I. * 10. [Duaci, 1615.] 8 [Thcsc points are di emscd l,y Rair1úlfls and Hart, 'Conference,' pro 217, ct scqq.] CHAI>. XXI.] UXIV EU AL PASTOR. 281 whether he ordained Clement to succeeù him at Rome? Inùeeù thcre i8 little el5e certain about the matter but this, that Peter did not derive to him that suc- ceeded him, and his successors for ever, his whole dignity and power, and a greatcr authority than he had himself, jure Divino. But if we allow all the uncertainties mentioneù to be m08t certain, we need not fear to look the argu- luent, with all its attendallt:s and strcngth, in the face. Peter was Bishop of nome, was warncd by Chri.st immediatel) to place his seat at Rome, to stay and die at Rome, and before he died, he appointed one to succeed him in his bishopric at ROlne; therefore the Bishops of Rome successively are .Universal Pastors. and have Supreme Power over the whole Church, y"U'J'e Divino. Is not the cause rendered suspicious by such arguments? and indeed desperate, that needs them, and has no hettcr? SECTION YI. ARGUMENT IV.-COUNCILS-POPES-F ATHER::,. B ELLAIC\llSE 1 tells us boldly that the Primacy Argument. of the Roman High-priest i:s proveù out of the Councils, the testÏ1nonies of Pope::;, by the consent of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin. The::ie great words are no arguments; the matter Answer. hath been examined unùer all these topics, and not one of them proves a Supremacy of power over the 1 [De Romano Polltif. Lib. 11. c. 13.] 282 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CUAP. XXI. whole Church to have been anciently III the Pope. much less from the beginning and jure Diî1'ino; espe- cially when St Augustine and the Greek }'athers directly opposed it as an usurpation 1. A primacy of order is not in the question. though that also was obtained by the ancient Popes only mm'e humano, and on temporary reasons, as hath before appeared. But as a learned man saith, the Primacy of a monarchical power in the ni::;hop of Rome was never affirmed by an.} ancient Council, or by anyone of the ancient Fathers, or so much aô dreamt of; and at what time aftcrwards the Pope took upon him to be a monarch, it should be inquired quo jure, 'by what right' he did so,-whether by Di- vine, human, or altogether by his own, i. e, 110 right. SECTION VII. ARGUMENT V.-TIlE PREVENTIO:\T OF SCHIS I- ST. JEROME. Argu- ' A PRIl\IACY was given to l eter for preventing mcnt v. Schism,' as St Hierome saith 2. Now hence they urge that a mere precedency of order is not sufficient for that. Answer. The inference is not Divine; it is not St Hierome's; it is only for St Peter, and reacheth not the Pope. Besides it plainly argues a mi::;take of 8t Jerome's assertion, anù would force him to a contradiction. For immediately before, he teacheth that the Church is 1 [Seo above, p. 77.] 2 [Ad,.. Jovinian. qU(lted above, p. 257.] CHAP. XXI.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 283 built equally on all the Apo tles, and that they all reccive the keys, and that the firmness of the Church is equally grounded on them all; so that what Primacy he 111eant, it consisted with equality, as monarchy cannot. Therefore St Hierome 1110re plainly in another place affirms 1, that' wherever there is a Bishop, whe- ther at Rome, or at Eugubium, ejusdem 'f1teriti est, ejw - d m est et sacerdotii.' Again,' it is neither riches nor poyerty which makes Bishops higher or lower,' but 'they are all the Apostles' successors.' SECTIO VIII. ARGUMENT VI.-CHURCH COM:\HTTED TO HIM S T Chrysoston1 saith 2 , 'the care of the Church was Argu- committed, as to Peter so to his Successors;' ment VI. therefore the Bishops of Rome, being Succe sors of St Peter in that chair, have the care, and consequently the power comluitted to them, which was committed to Peter. True; the care and power of a Bishop, not of an Answer. Apostle or Universal l\Ionarch; the cOlumib ion of all other Bishops carried care and power also. But indeed this place proves not so much as that the Pope is Peter's Successor in either, luuch les þ.n'e Divino (which was the thing to be proved): Ka; Toî 1 Epist. ad Evagrium, [LXXXV.] 2 (Dc Saccrdotio, Lib. II. c. 1.] 284 U IVERSAL P _\.STOR. [CUAt'. XXI. I1-(;T' ÈKeLVOf', 'those which followcd' in timc and place not other\Vi e ;-as bcfore I. SECTIOX IX. ARGUMENT VII.-' ONE CHAIR'-OPTATUf'-CYPRIAN- AMBROSE-ACACIeS. Argu- ' T HERE is one chair' (saith Optatus 2) qllæ C8t prima ment VII. de dotiblts, in which Pcter sat first; Linu::; ::iUC- cceded him, and Clcmens Linu3.' Optatus. Optatus bpeaks nothing against the title 01' powcr of other chairs, or for the pre-emincnce of power in thi one chair above the rcst. He intcnded not to exclude the other apostolical seats from the honour or power of chairs; for hc saith as well that James &'l.t at Jerusalem, and John at Ephesu , as that Peter ::;at at Ronlt: ,-which Ter- tullian calls 'apostolicas cathedras, all presiding in their own places 3 .' It is mo t evident that Optatus calls the chair of Peter one, not because of any superiority over other apostolical chairs, but because of the unity of the Catholic Church, in opposition to the Donatists, who set up another chair in opposition (altære contra alta'J"e) to the Catholic Church. Bellarmine 4 well observes, that 'Optatus folJowed I [Sect. r.] 2 [De Schismat. Donatist. Lih. II. c. 2. On this passago ami tho context, see Mr. Palmer's 'Jurisdiction of the British Episco- pacy,' pp. 217, et seqq.] 3 De Præscript. IIærct. c. .xxxvi. -& [De Romano Pontif. Lih. II. c. xvi.] CrrAP. XXI.] UXIVERSAL P ASTOI . 285 the doctrine of 8t CJprian. who said, there is but one Cyprian. Church, one chair,' &e. And out of St Cyprian hinl- self, his Ineaning therein is manifest to be no other than a specifical, not nUlnerical unity. He tells us plainly in the same place], 'that the other Apostles were the same with Peter, equal in honour and power.' He teacheth that 'the one bishopric is dispel'sed...con- sisting of tIle unanimous multitude of many Bishops 2 ; ihat the bishopric is but one, a portion whereof is wholly and fully held of every ßishop.' So' there ought to be but one nishop in the Cathulic Church 4,' i. e. all Bishops ought to be one in faith and fellow- ship. But is it not prodigious that men should build the Pope's dominion upon the doctrine of Saint Cyprian and Optatus? The latter tells us roundly, that' who- soever is without (the communion of) seven Churches of Asia is an alien, in effcct, calling the pope infidels; and St Cyprian is well known to have always styled pope Cornelius 'Brother 6 ;' to have sevel'ly censured his successor Pope Stephcn, contradicting his de- crees, opposing the Roman Councils, disclaiming the ] [i. e. De U nitate Eccl. 3.] 2 [Ep. LV. 16: "Cum sit a Christo una ecclesia per totum mundum in multa membra divisa, item episcopatus unus episcopo- rum multorum concordi numerositatc diffusus."] 3 [De Unit ate Eccl. 4 ] 4 Epist. Lib. III. ep. XI. [al. XLVI. 2. For St. Cyprian's own explanation, see Epist. XL. 4.] 5 [i. e. on the Romish hypothesis of unity. Dr. Hammond ('An- swer to Schism Disarmed,' Chap. v. s<,ct x.) shews the true mean- ing of this languagc.] 6 [e.1!. Epist. LV. TIll' Roman cl('rgy style Cyprian' benedictus papa.' cp. II.] 286 UNI\TEHS.AL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI. Pope's power of appeals. am} contemning his excom- munications 1. _J\. Council in Africk under St Cyprian, as another wherein St Augustine sate, rejected and conden1ned the jurisdiction of the Pope over then1, as is fre- quently observed 2 ; and why do men endeavour to blind the world with a few words of these great Fa- thers, contrary to the known language of their actions and course of life? The sense of the words may be diðputed, but when it came to a trial, their deeds are known to ha ve shewed their mind beyond all dispute. Ambrose. -For instance 3 , Ambrose calls Pope Damasus 'Rec- tor of the Church;' yet it is known that he would never yield his senses to the law of Rome about Easter-for which the Church of l\Iilan was called the 'Church of An1brose' 670 years after his death, when the clergy of l\Iilan withstood the legate of Nichola::, II., saying, 'the Church of Ambrose had been always free, and never yet ubject to the laws of the Pope of Rome;' as Baronius notes 4. l\Iany other airy titles and courtly addresses, given to the Pope in the writings of the Fathers, we have observed before to carry S01l1e colour for a primacy of order; but no wise man can in1agine that they are an evidence or ground, much less a formal grant, of 1 [On these subjects, see the Rev. G. A. Poole's, 'Testimony of St. Cyprian against Rome.'] 2 [Sce above, pp. 76, 77.] 3 [This is one of Bellarmine's examples; de Romano Pontif. Lib. II. c. xvi.] 4 Ad an. 1059, XI,VI. [Sc>e also Twysden's Hist. Vind. p. 14, note 6, n('w ('fl.] CHAP. XXI.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 287 universal dominion: seeing scarce one of theul but is in some of the Fathers (and usually by the same Fa- thers) given as well to the other Apostles, and to other Bishops, as to Peter and the Pope; and so unfortunate is Bellarmine in his instances, that usually the very same place carries its confutation. It is strange, that so great a wit I should so egrc- Acacius. giollsly bcwray itself, to bring in Acacius, Bishop of Constantinople, subulitting, as it wcre, the Eastern Church to the See of Rome, because in his Epistle to Popc Simplicius he tclls him, 'he hath the care of all thc Churches:' for what onc Bishop of those times could have bcen worse pitched upon for his purpose? 'Yho ever opposed himself more fiercely against the jurisdiction of the Pope than Acacius? 'Vho nlore boldly rejected his conlmands than this Patriarch? or stands in greater opposition to Rome 2 in all history? Yet Acacius must be the instance of an Eastern Pa- triarch's recognition of the see of Rome. Acacius, phJ'enesi quadal1t abreptus (as Baronius:l hath it) adve1'- sus Romanurn Pontificern violentus insZlrgit-Acacius, that received 4 those WhOlll the Pope damncd-Aca- cius, excOlumunicated 5 by the Pope, and the very head of the Eastern schislll; this is the man that nlust witness the Pope's supremacy against himself, and his own and his Church's famous cause: and this, b,r saying in a letter to the Pope himself, that he ha(l the care of all Churches-a title given to Saint Paul 6 in the days of Peter-to Athanasius 7 , in the time of I [De Romano Pontif. Lib. II. c. xv.] 2 [See above, p. 92.] 3 Ad an. 478, YI. .. All an. 483, J,x vnT. 5 Ad an. 484. XVII. 6 [2 Cor. xi. 2S.] 7 [8('(' ahovf'. p. 94. note .] 288 u n"ER!':AL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXL Pope Juliu:s-to the Bishops of Ji'rancc I , in the time of Pope Eleutherius-and to Zecharias 2 an Archbishop, by Pope John I. ;-but conferred no monarchy upon any of theine I do not remember that I have yet mentioned the titles of Swnmus Pontifeæ and Pontifex ftIaxifJ1us, which are also said 3 to carry the Pope's supremacy in them; but it is impossible any wise man can think so. Azorius 4 , a Jesuit, acknowledgeth these terms 11lay have a negative sense only, and Baronius 5 saith, they do admit equality. In this sense, Pope Clemem,6 called Saint Jan1es 'Bishop of Bishops;' and Pope Le0 7 styled all Bishops' Sunww8 Puntifices;' and the Bishops of the East write to the Patriarch of Constan- tinople under the title of 'Universal Patriarch,' and call thell1:selve:s 'chief priests 8.' 1 [Epist. Decretal. Eleuther. apud Labb. ConcH. Tom. 1.590, D.] 2 [Apud Labb. COllcH. Tom. IV. 1603, B. For other examples of this uniVl'rsal care, see Bingham, Book II. Chap. v. sect. I.] 3 [Vide Bellarmin. de Romano Pontif. Lih. II. ('. xxxi]. 4 [The reference is to his Instit. Moral. Part. II. Lib. n. c. 4. 5 [Annal. Eccl. ad an. 397, L, where several instances are given.] 6 [In the title of the pSt>udo-epist1f' 'ad Jaco1:mm Fratr('m Do- mini.'] 7 Ep. LXXXVIII.: [Opp. p. 159, col. l. A; cd. Paris. 1639.] 8 Epist. ad Tarasium. [The title of this letter, written A. D. 787, is as follows: Trp áYLWTáTCf teal p.U/ /(al oì./(01JP. IILKéi> 1TaTptápXll, oi Tij!> '-cpa!> âPXL pEÎ.!> ;11 K1JpíCf xaípnll. Apud Labb. Concil. Tom. VII. 169.] CIIAl>. XXI.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR 289 SECTIOX X. THE CONCLUSION TOUCHING THE FATHERS. REASONS WHY NO MORE OF THEM-A CHALLENGE TOUCHING THEM-NO CONSENT OF FATHERS IN THE POINT-EVIDENT , IN GENERAL COUNCILS-REASONS OF IT-ROME S CONTRA- DICTION OF PAITH-POPE'S SCHISM, PERJURY, &C. I 'v AS almost tempted to have gone through with a particular examination of all the titles and phrases, which nellarminc hath with too 111uch vanity gathered out of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin, on behalf of the Pope's Supremacy; but considering they are most of then} very frivolous and impertinent, and that I conceive I have not on1itted anyone that can be soberly thought material, and that all of them have been frequently answered by learned Protestants, and very few of them (so answered) thought fit to be replied to by our adversaries,-l thought it prudent to excu c that very needless exercise, and I hope none will account me blanleworthy for it; but if any do so, I offer compensation by this humble challenge, upon mature deliberation :- If anyone or more places in any of the ancient A Chal- lenge. I athers, Greek or Latin, shall be chosen by any sober adversary, and argued from, as evidence of the Pope's Supremacy, as successor to Saint Peter, (God giving l11e life and health,) I shall appear and undertake the combat, with weapons extant in our English writers; -though they n1ay not think that one or two, or n10re, passages out of single Fathers are sufficient to bear away the cause in so great a point; seeing they themselves will not suffer the testimony of many of 19 290 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI. the !"-alue Fathers to carr)' it for us in a point of the least concernment. In the mean time, I Inost confidently conclude, that the Pope's Supren1acy hath not the consent of the primitive Fathers, as Bellarn1ine boasts, and that whatever he would have then1 say, they did not believe, and therefore not intend to say, that thc Pope was absolute l\Ionarch of the Catholic Church; and consequently, that thcre was no such tradition in the primitive ages, either before or during the time of the first eight general Councils, is to me a demon- stration, evident for these reasons :- Rea on I. Thc first eight general Councils, being all called and convened by the authority of Emperors, stand upon record as a notable monument of the forn1er ages of the Catholic Church, in prejudice to the papal .:\Ionarch, as Saint Peter's successor, in those tÍ1nes. "The first eight general Councils (saith Cusal1us 1) were gathered by authority of Emperors, and not of Popes; insomuch that Pope Leo was glad to entreat the Em- peror Theodosius the younger for the gathering of a Council in Italy, and could not obtain it, (non obtinllit)." Reaf'on II. Everyone of these Councils opposed this pre- tended l\Ionarchy of the Pope; thc first, by stating the limits of the ROlnan Diocese, a well as other Patriarchates; the second, by concluding the Roman Primacy not to be grounded upon Divine authority, and setting up a Patriarch of Constantinople, against the Pope's will; the third by inhibiting any Bishop whatsoever to ordain Bishops within the Isle of Cy- prus; the fourth, by advancing the Bishop of Con- 1 De Concordant. Cathol. Lih. n. c. xxv. CHAP. XX!.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 291 :-;tantinople to equal privileges with the Bishop of Rome, notwithstanding the Pope's earnest opposition against it; the fifth, in eondeuu1Ïng the sentence of Pope Vigilius, although very vehement in the cause; the sixth and seventh, in condenll1Íng Pope Honorius of heresy; and the eighth and last, by imposing a Canon upon the Church of Rome, and challenging obedience thereunto 1. This must pass for the unquestionable sense of Reason III. the Catholic Church in those ages, viz. for the space of above 540 years together, frmn the first general Council of Nice; for our adversaries themselves style everyone of the general Councils the Catholic Church; and what was their belief was the faith of the whole Church; and what was their belief hath appcared, viz., that the Pope had not absolute power over the Church, jure Divino,-an opinion abhorred by their contrary sentences and practices. It is observed by a learned man 2, that the Fathers Reason IV. which flourished in all those eight Councils were in lUl1l1ber 2280. How few fricnds had the Pope left to equal and countermand them! Or what authority had they to do it? Yea, name one eminent Father, either Greek or Latin, that you count a friend to the Pope, and in those ages, whose name we cannot shew you in one of those Councils. If so, 'fleal' the Church;' the judgment of single Fathers is not to be received, against their joint sentences and acts in Councils: it is your own Law. Now where is the argu1l1ent for the 1 [This, however, was the Council in Tmllo; see above, p. 230.] 2 [i. e. Bp. )Iorton, Grand Imposture, chap. viii. sect. 8; ed. Lond. 1 ß28.] 19-2 Reason v. Rome" contradic_ tion of }'aith. Rome"s Heresy. 292 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI. Pope's authority from the Fathers? They are not to be believed against Councils; they spake their sense in this very point, as you have heard, in the Councils; and in all the Councils rejected and condemned it. The belief of these eight general Councils is the professed faith of the Ron1an Church 1. Therefore, the Roman Church hath been involved and entangled, at least ever since the Council of Trent, in the con- fusion and contra(liction of faith; and that in points necessary to salvation. For the Rom l1 Church holds it necessary to salva- tion, to believe all the eight general Councils, as the very faith of the Catholic Church; and we have found all these Councils have one way or other declared plainly against the Pope's Supremacy; and yet the same Church holds it necessary to salvation to believe the contrary, by the Council of Trent; viz. that the Pope is supren1e Bishop and absolute Monarch of the Catholic Church. Some adversaries would deal more severely with the Church of Rome upon this point, and charge her with heresy in this, as well as in many other articles: for there is a repugnancy in the Roman faith, that seems to infer no less than heresy, in one way or other. He that believes the article of the Pope's Supremacy, denies, in effect, the first cight general Councils, at least in that point; and that is heresy. And he that believes the Council of Trent, believes the article of the Pope's Supremacy: therefore, he that believes the Council of Trent does not bclieve the first eight general Councils, and is guilty of heresy. I [See Gratian, Dccrct., Part I. Distinct. XVI. c. viii.] CHAP. XXI.] UNIVERSAL P ASTOU. 293 Again, he that believes that the Pope is not su- preme, denies the Council of Trent and the faith of the present Church,_'tnd that is heresy: and he that believes the first eight general Councils, believes that the Pope is not Supren1e; therefore, he denies the Council of Trent and the faith of the present Church, and is an heretic, with a witness. It is well if the argument conclude here, and Infidelity. extcnd not its consequences to the charge of infi- delity, as well as heresy, upon the present Roman Church; seeing this repugnancy in the Ron1an faith seems to destroy it altogether: for He that believes the Pope's Supremacy, in the sell::;e of the modern Church of Ron1e, denies the faith of the ancient Church in that point; and he that believes it not, denies the faith of the present Church; and the present Church of Rome, that pro- fesseth both, believes neither. These contrary faiths put together, like two contrary salts, n1utually destroy one anot.her. lIe that believes that, cloth not believe this; he that believes this, doth not believe that. Therefore he that professéth to believe both, doth plainly profess he believes neither. Load not others with the crimes of heresy and infidelity, but 'pull the beams out of your own eye.' But the charge falls heavier upon the head of the POIJe's Schism present Roman Church: for not only heresy and infi- nd Per- Jury. delity, but schism, and the foulest that ever the Church groaned under, and such as the greatest wit can hardly distinguish froll1 apostacy, and all aggra- vated with the horrid crin1e of direct and self-con- demning peljury, fasten themselves to his Holiness's chair, from the ver.r constitution of the Papacy itself. 294 UNIVERSAL PASTOR. [CHAP. XXI. For the Pope, as such, professeth to believe and sweareth to govern the Church according to the Canons of the first eight general Councils; yet openly clahus and professedly practiseth a power condemned by theln all. Thus (quatenus Pope) he stand guilty of separa- tion fron1 the ancient Church; and, as head of a new and strange Church, draws tile body of his faction after hin1 into the same schism; in flat contradiction to the essential profession, both of the ancient and present Church of ROllle, and to that sulemn oath, by which also the Pope, as Pope, binds himself at his inauguration to maintain and cOll1municate with. Hence, not only usurpation, innovations, and tyranny, are the fruits of his pride, ambition, and pmjury, but if possible, the guilt is ll1ade more scarlet by his cruelty to souls, intended by his formal curses of exconl1llunications, against all that OWll not his usurped authority, viz. the primitive Churches, the first eight general Councils, all the Fathers of the Latin and Greek Churches for ll1any hundred years, the greater part of the present Catholic Church, anù even the apostles of Christ, and our Lord hÍ1nself. TIlE SUM OF THE WHOI.E l\lATl'ER-A TOUCH OF ANOTHER TREA TISE-'l'IIE MA TERIAL CAUSE OF SEI> A RA 'l'lON . r r HE sum of our defence is thi : If tllC Pope have no right to govern the Church of Englanù, as our apostle or patriarch, or as infallible; if his supremacy over us was never grounded in, but ever renounced by, our laws and customs, and the very constitution of the kingdom; if his supremacy he neither of civil, ecclesiastical, or Divine right; if it he fli"'owncd h) CHAP. XXI.] UNIVERSAL PASTOR. 295 the Scriptures and Fathers, and condemned by thc ancient Councils, the essential profession of the pre- sent Roman Church, and the solemn oaths of the Bishops of Rome themselves :-if, I say, all be cer- tainly so as hath appeared, what reason rell1ains for the necessity of the Church of England's readmi!:ision of, or submission to, the papal authority, usurped contrary to all this? Or what reason is lcft to charge us with Schisnl for rejecting' it? But it remains to be shown, that ab the elaim of the Pope's authority in England cannot be allowed, so there is cause enough otherwise of our denial of obcdience actually to it, from reasons inherent in the usurpation itself, and the nature of many things re- quired by his laws. This is the second branch of our defence, pro- posed at first to be the subject of another treatise. For who can think it necessary to communicate with error, heresy, schism, infidelity, and apostacy; to conspire in damning the primitive. Church, the ancient Fathers, general Council::;, and the better and greater part of the Christian world at this day? or willingly at least, to return to the infinite super- stitions and idolatries, which we have escaped, and from which our blessed ancestors (through the infinite mercy and providence of God) wonderfully delivered us? Yet the!:ie horrid things cannot be avoided, if we shall again subnlÍt ourselves, and enslavc our nation to the pretended powers and laws of Rome ;-from which, Libera nos, Domine. THE POSTSCRIPT. OBJECTIONS TOUCHING TIlE FIRST GENERAL COUNCILS, AND OUR ARGUl\IENTS FROM THEM, ANSWEUED )10RE FULL Y. SECTIO I. THE ARGUMENT FROM COUNCILS DRAWN UP, AND CONCLUSIVE OF THE FATHERS, AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. I N this Treatise I have considered the Canons of the ancient Councils two ways, as evidence and law. As evidence, they give us the undoubted scnse and faith, both of the Catholic Church, and of single Fathers in those times; and nothing can be said against that. As law, we have plainly found that none of them confer the supremacy pleaded for, but everyone of them in special Canons condemn it. Now this latter is so great a proof of the former, that it admits of no possible reply; except circum- AtanceH, on the bye, shall be set in opposition and contradiction to the plain text in the body of the law. And if neither the Church nor single Fathers had any such faith of the Pope's suprcmacy, during the first General Councils, then neither did they believe it from the bcginning: for if it had been the L'tith of the Church before, the Councils would not have rejectcd it; and indeed the very form and method of POSTSCRIPT. 297 proceeùing in thosc ancient Council is bufficient evi- dence that it was not. However, why is it not shown by some colour of argument at least, that the Church did believe the Pope's suprelnacy before the timc of those Councils? 'Vhy do we not hear of some one single Father that declared so much before the Council of Nice, or rather before the Canons of the Apostles? Or why is there no notice taken of such a right, or so much as pretence in the Pope, either by those Canons or one single Father before that time? Indeed our authors 1 find very shrewd evidence of the contrary. " 'Vhy," saith Casaubon 2 "was Dionysius so utterly Dionysius. silent, as to the universal head of the Church reigning at Rome, if at that time there had been any such n10narch there? especially, seeing he professedly wrote of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and governlnent." The like is observable in Ignatius, the most Ignatius. ancient nlartyr and bishop of Antioch, who in his Epistles frequently sets forth the order ecclesiastical and dignity of Bishops upon sundry occasions, but never n1entions the nlonarchy of 8t Peter or the Roman Pope. The writing to the Church of Trallis 'to obey Bishops as Apostles,' instanceth equally in Tin10thy, St Paul's scholar, as in Anaclctus, successor to 8t Peter 3 . 1 [The facts in this' Postscript' are mainly derived from Dp. Morton's 'Grand Impostw'c of the (now) Church of Rome: ('bap. vii. viii.] 2 Exercitation. XVI. in Baron. ad an. 34. CCIX. 3 [This passage docs not occur in thc genuine Epistle of Igna- dus. It is cited at length in Bishop Morton's 'Grand Imposture,' p. HilI; cd. Loud. 162R.] 298 PO TSCRIPT. The prudence and fidelity of these two prime j;---athers are luuch stained, if there were then an uni- versal Bishop over the whole Church; that professedly writing of the Ecclesiastical Order, they shotùd so neglect hiIll, as not to mention obedience due to l. I'aul. hinl ;-and indeed of St Paull himself, who gives us an enumeration of the primitive ministry, on set purpose, both in the ordinary and extraordinary kinds of it, viz. 'some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, sonIC pastors and teachers,' and takes no notice of the universal Bishop. But we hence conclude rather there was no such thing. For who would give an account of the government of a city, army, or kingdonl; and say nothing of the nlayor, general, or prince? This surpasseth the fancy of prejudice itself. lrenæu!;. Irenæus is too ancient for the infallible chair, and therefore refers us, in the point of tradition, as well to Polycarp in the east, as to Linus, bishop of Rome, in the ,vest2. Tcrtullian. Tertullian adviseth to consult the mother-churches immediately founded by the Apostles, and names Ephesus and Corinth 3 as well as Rome, and Poly- carpus ordained by St John, as well as Clemens by Peter 4 . Upon which their own Rhenanus note::;, that'Tertullian doth not confine the Catholic and Apostolic Church to one places,' for which freedom of truth, the 'Index Expu1'gatO'1'ius' corrected him 6,-but Tertullian is Tertullian still. 1 [Eph. iv, 11.] 2 [Adv. Hærcs.] Lib. II. c. iii. 3 Dc Præscrip. IIæl"ct. [c. xxxn.] 4 [Ihid. c. xX\.lI.] 5 [Bcatus Rhcnallus, Argument. in loco cd. Basil. 1521.] 6 [i. c. Index Expurgator. Belgic. p. 78.] POSTSCRIPT. 299 These things cannot con i!;t, either with their own knowledge of an universal 13iðhop, or the Church's at that time; therefore the Church of Egypt held thc Catholic faith with the chicfpriests, naming Anatolius of Constantinople, Basil of Antioch, J uvenal of J eru- salem, as well as Leo, Bishop of Rmue I. And' it is decreed (saith the Church 2 of Carthage) we consult our brethren, Siricius (Bishop of Homc) and SÏIllpli- cianus' (Bishop of 1\Iilan). Hence, it follows, that the Church and the Fathers before the Councils had no knowledge of the Pope's supremacy, and we have a plain answer to all obscure passages in those Fathers to the contrary. Besides, whatever private opinion any of them n1Ïght :seem to intimate on the Pope's behalf before, it is certain it can have no authority against the sense and sentences of General Councils, which soon after determined against him, as hath appeared in eycry one of theIn, in so express and indisputable terms, in the very bodJT of the Canons, that it is beyond all po sible hopes to :support their cause from any cir- cumstantial argument touching those Councils. Yet these also shall now be considered in their order. SECTION II. 'OBJECTIOX:s TOUCHING THE COUNCIL OF NICE AN S'VERED. L ET us Legin with the Council of .Nice, consi:stillg Fir8tGenc- . ralCouncil. of three hundred and Clghtecn Bishops, which is I Billius, inter Epist. Illustr. Person. Concil. [Tom. II.] p. 147. 2 ConcH. Carthag. III. can. XLVIII.: [1.<11;110, Tom. II. 1177, c.] Objec- tion I. Answer. 300 POSTSCRIPT. foun(l so plain in two special Canons I-the one for- bidding appeals, and the other lhniting the jurisdic- tion of the provinces according to custom-against the papal Supremacy, that one would think nothing could be objected. But Bellarmine will say home- thing that was never said before. He saith 2, 'the Bishop of Alexandria should have those provinces, because the Bishop of Rome was accustomed to permit him so to do.' We have given full answer to this bcfore, but a learned Prelate 3 of ours hath rendered it so scnseless and shameless a gloss, in so Inany and evident in- htanees, that I cannot forbear to give the sum of what he hath said, t.hat it may further appear our greatest aulversaries are out of their wits, when they pretend a fence against the Canons. After the nonsense of it, he shews its im}Judenee against the sunshine light of story and grammar; because it is so evident, that the words 'because the Bishop of Home hath the Saine eustOln,' arc words of comparison betwixt Alexandria and Rome, in point of ancient privilege, both fron1 the words e7r t )j Ka: and three editions, now entered into the body of the Councils by their own Binius-wherein the words are, , because the Church of Rome hath the like custom.' , Yet this were Inodesty, did they not know,' saith he4, 'that the Council of Chalcedon did against the will of the Pope advance the prerogative of Constan- tinople, UPOll this gToUlHI of custom.' I [See above, pp. 220, 221.J 2 [De nom. Pontif. Lilt. ll. c. xiii.] 3 ßp. Morton, 'Grand Iml'osture,' pp. 130, ct 8Clj(l. [Lond. 1628.] 4 [po 132.] POSTSCRIPT. 301 The matter is so plain, that their own Cardinal Cusanus J concludes thus: "'V c see how much the Bishop of Rome, b,y use and custom of subjectional obedience, hath got at this day be yond the ancient constitutions;" speaking of this very Council. Bellarmine saitb 2, 'the beginning of that Canon 0 b jec- tlOn II. in the vulgar books i thus, Ecclesia R01nana semper habet primatum, mo,y autem perduret.' The answer is: it is shameful to prefer one vulgar Answer. book before all other Greek or Latin copies, anù before the book of the Pope's Decrees, not in the Canons set out at Paris, A. D. 1559, nor the editions sent by two Patriarchs, on purpose to give satisfaction in this cause,-whieh Bcllarmine himself acknowledg- eth 3. In none of all which the word ' Primacy' is to be found, and consequently is foisted into that vulgar book. But what if it were? The bare Primacy is not disputed in the sense given of it by the Council of Chalcedon 4. 'It behoves that the Archbishop of Con- stantinople (new Rome) be dignified by the sanle Pri- Ulacy of honour after Rome.' SECTIOX III. SECOND GENERAL COUNCIL-OB,TECTIONS TOUCHING TIlE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPIÆ ANS'VERED. N EXT to the Council of Constantinople being the SecoM Ge- l "'1 I I J I t . b . t d neral COlllI- seconl Genera, et us leal' W Ut IS 0 Uec e. cil. 1 De Concordant. Cathol. Lib. II. c. xii. 2 [De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II. c. xiii.] 3 [Ibid. The whole of this answer is from TIp. Morton, as above, p. 134.j 4 [Quoted abov<>, p. 35.] Objec- tion I. Answers. 302 POSTSCRIPT. , They say thClnselycs,' saith Bellarmine, 'that the) were gathered by the nlandate of Pope Damasus I.' (1) \Vhat then? Suppose we should give the Pope, as the head of unity and order, the honour of convening general Councils, and of sitting as Presi- dent in them,-what is this to the Supremacy of government? or what more than might be contained in the Primacy, that is not now disputed? (2) But Bellarmine hiI11self confesseth 2, that those words are not in the Epistle of the Council, as aU mandates used to be, but of certain Bishops that had been at the Council. (3) It is recorded 3, that the nlandate from the Enlperor gathered them together: the testimony will have credit before the Cardinal. (4) Indeed the Pope sent letters, in order to the calling this Council, but far fr0111 mandatory; neither were they sent to the Eastern Bishops, to require, but to the Emperor Theodosius 4 by way of request, for the obtaining liberty to assemble a Synod. Did he command the Emperor? \Yhy did not Pope Leo afterwards conllnand a general Council in Italy nearer home, when he had intreated Theodosius for it with much importunity, and could not obtain 5 ? The time 1 [Dc Romano Pontif. Lib. II. c. xiii.] 2 [Recognitiones, pr{'fixed to his 'Disputations,' p. 5. ('; ('d. Colon. 1628.] 3 [See Bp. Morton, as above, chap. VIII. sect. 3. N atalis . Alexander (accord ng to Palmer's' Treatisc on the Church,' PartlY. chap. IX. sect. 2.) proves that this council was assembled without consulting Damasus ] 4 Vide Theodor. Hist. Ecd. Lib. v. c. ix. 5 [Epif:t. Df'CI"('ta1. :\XIY.: Opp. p. 1I4, co1. 2. J): ('d. Paris. J(j ï. ] POSTSCRIPT. 303 was not ripe for the Pope's cOll11nands, either of Emperors or S'ynod;::;. It is also said, that 'the Council acknowledg-cd KUTHrux8iIlUS: å1l"ó U Té;w KQIIÓIlWII, /(aì iK TlÎ ' imUTO- À ' TOV à)'LwnÍT01J 1TUTpÙ!> l;P.WII Kuì UVÀÀUT01Jp)'OV K À UTíIlO1J TOV imUKU- 7WU TÍ1!> 'PWP.ULWII iteteÀ'WLUS:, K. T. À. E\a. ... llisL Eeel. Lib. I. e. i\..] .. [Ill ill'. Iortoll' ; . Umllel IlIIl'o::.lm'(': chap. \ III. Sl'et. ....] iO :306 PU TSl'HIl'T. .-\ns\\"er. Strange! Bellarmine hence (I) ùcnies matter of fact, mentioned in the very same paragraph. They . durst not depose this Patriarch,' when they tell the Pope in terminis they had done it 1: :::Ie ilium P)'ÙIS e,vcommullicásse et omn'l. potestate ,f?ace1'dotali exuisse. 'Vhat is this but deposition? (2) He hence concludes a wonderful right, that the Pope is absolutely above a general Council ;-a conclusion 2 denied by their own gencral Councils of Constance and BasIc, ever dis- claimed by the Doctors of Paris as contrary to ant.i- quity, and which no Council since the beginning of Christianity did expressly decree, as Dr Stapleton hÎIl1self confesseth; and therefore flies to silence mj consent: QuamvÙJ 1tullo decreto publico, tamen tacito doctorltlll con8ensu definiti 3 , etc. But all t.his is evidently against both the sense of the Council declared in this point, and the reason of the Canon itself. (1) They sufficiently declared their sense In the yery Epistle alleged, where, speaking of the point constituted by the Pope, "'V e" (say they4) "have judged them to stand firm; wherefore we agree with you in one sentence, and do hold them (meaning Pelagius and others) to be deposed."-So that instead of the Pope's confirming acts of Councils, this Council confirms the acts of the Pope, whom indeed they plainly call their' colleague and fellow-worker 5 .' I [... n6>!> aVTOV!> àKOLIIWII TOV 1TOL UQJlTH Kal 1T pL ).ÓJIT !> aVTWII nQuâll ; ovuíall l PQTLK II, K. T.).. Apu'] POST ltlPT. 307 (2) In the Aet or Canons-their reason and verJ words 1 establishing' the Cyprian privilege, (as hath been shewn )-thcy bound and determine the power of Rome, as well as other Patriarehate ; and certainly they therefore never intended to acknowledge the absolute l\Ionarehy of the Pope over then1selves, by reserving John of Antioch to Cælestine, after they had deposed him; they declare their own end plainly enough, e-"'t illiu8 tmne'ì'itntem animi lenitate vinceJ'em1l8, that is, as ;you have it in Binius 2 , Cælestine might tr,)- whether by any reason he could bring him to a better mind, that so he might be received into f:1vom. again.' SECTIO Y. On,JECTION:-; TOLTCHING TIlE FOUHTlI, FI.FTlI, IXTII. REVENTH, EIGHTH GENERAL COUNCILS; E PEC[- ALL Y TOUCHI: 'G THE FOFRTH GENERAL COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, ANSWERED-CO CLUSION. r l 1I I IS Counc:l :tyled th.e Pope 3 '(Ecumenical Patri- Obj tion - arch,' or nl\"ersal BIshop. (1) The title was not gi, en by the Council itself, Answers. but by two deacons writing to th(' Council, and h,' Pasehasinus, the Pope's leg-ate in the Council t. 1 [The decree may be secn in Lahbe, Tom. Ill. 802.] 2 Tom. I. p. 806. 3 [Bellarmin. de Romano Pontifice, Lih. n. c. xiii. His assertiou is that this title occurs in Aet. I. n. Ill. p,tS.'lim, whieh is very far from the' truth.] "' [Apud Labb. Conei1. Tom. IV. 94, c; H8. C'. ('e alsl' Bp. '[orton's' Omutl Imposturt>.' chap. nil. sc>ct I.J 20- 308 POSTSCRIPT. (2) Though the Council did not que:;tion the form of the title, yet no one can think that they either intended to grant or acknowledge the Pope':s universal authority by such their silence: for it i:; inercdible that thc same Coun.ciI. which gave equal privileges to Constantinoplc I, should give or acknow- ledge an universal jurisdiction to Rome over the whole Church. (3) But thc words answer themselves, lTniversali Al'clâepiscopo nwgnæ Romæ, . Universal Archbishop' (not of the whole Church, but) 'of great Rome ;'- which grand restriction denics that universal power, which they would argue from it. The stylc of the Roman Empcror is 'universal Emperor of Rome,' amI thus is distinguished from the Emperor of TurkcJ and all others; and denieth hin1 to be the Emperor of the whole world. OLjection Saith Binius 2 , 'The title at first was t.he Bishop of II. the Univcrsal Church, because it is so read in the Epistle of Leo, but was altered by some Greck scribe in envy to the Church of Rome.' Answer. It is likely that a private man could or durst altcr the style of a general Council, against the dignity of the Pope, his legate present; but it is more likcl,) that some Latin scribe hath addcd that inscription to the Epistle of Pope Leo, in honour of the Church of Rome; as is confessed by Cusanus to have becn done to the Epistle of Anacletus=\ and by ßaronius to havc I [See abov(', p. QQ.] 2 Annot. in COI1('i1. Chalc('(lon. A(,t. III. ex Daronio. 3 [This aUll the followin faets art gi\'('n on tho authority of Bp. }Iorton, 'Grand Impostm'(',' PI'. 93. 94. Compal'o COlllhc-r's POSTSCRIPT. 309 been done to the Epistle of rope Boniface, and b,) three other Popes themselves unto the Council of Nice, viz. Zosimus, Boniface, and Cælestinus. And the rather, because, as was just now noted, this Coun- cil at the same time honoured the Bishop of Constan- tinople with equal privilcges to thc Bishop of Romc. 'Pope Leo opposed this decree of the Council. Objection and disclaimed it I.' Ill. No wonder; but it scenlS general Councils were An wcr. not alwaJ's of the Pope's mind; and the Pope would thcn have had 3 greater privilege than a general Council; and if that was a general Council (as they themselves say it was) the controvers,)' is ended; for by their own confession, this general Council made a decree against the Pope's pretences of superiority, and thercfore it did not intend, by the title of Bishop of the whole Church, to acknowledge that superiority which he pretended, and that Council of four hundred Bishops denied him. 'This decree was not lawfull,) proceeded in, be- Objection IV. cau::,e the legates of the Pope were absent 2 .' The legates were there the next day, and ex- Answer. ceptcd, and moved to have the acts of the day bcfore read. Aetius for the Council sheweth that the legates knew what was done; · all was done canonically.' Thcn the acts being read, the Pope's legate::, tell the Council, that circumvCI1Ìion was uRcd in making' that ('anon of privilcges, and that the Bishop:o; were COH1- , [(oman "Forgeries,' Part I. PI" 12, 13; Part 1lI pr. 2.1R, 2-.J!): ['mot Ill. pp. 35, ct scqq.] 1 [Dcllal'min. .le Romano Pontii'. Lih. ll. C. X\ iii ] :: flellann .lp ROlllctllO Ppntif Lih. n. e. xAii. 310 POSTSCRIPT. relIed thereunto. The Synod with a loud voice cried jointly, "V e were not compelled to subscribe.' After everyone severally protest, , I did subscribe willingly and freely;' and the acts are ratified and declared to be ju t and valid; 'And wherein' (say they) 'we will persist.' The legates are instant to have the act revoked, because the apobtolical See is humbled or abased; thereto the Fathers unanimously answercd, 'The whole Synod doth approve it.' This clear ac- count we have in Binins, in Concil. Clwlced. Act. xvi. 1 Rellarmine saith, that the Pope approved 2 all the decrees of this Council, which were de fide: and doth not 13ellarmine argne that the Pope'l:! superiorit.' i::; Jure Divino? and the present Church of Rome hold that his Supremacy is a point neeessar,V to salvation? How comes it to pass that he would not approve this decree? Or how can they esteem this Council gene- ral and lawful, and swcar to observe the decrees of it, when it is found g>uilty of heresy in so great a point as the Pope's Primac,}"? But to end with this. the very title itself of 'llishop of the Universal Church,' in the style of those age::;, signified certainly neither Supremacy nor Primacy: 'Universal Bishop of the Church' seellled a dangerous title, importing universal power over it, and was there- fore so luuch abhorred by Pope Gregory. But the title of 'Bishop of the Uni,'ersal Church' signifieth the ('are of the whole Church, to which (as Origen 3 saith) I pp. 134, 137. [Apud Labb. Tom. IV. 795, ot seeN'] 2 [Ubi supra,: . . ." so Coneilium illud approhasse, solum '1 u ;mtum all e plicationem fideL"] 3 [This and the following instances al"f' taken from Bp. 1\I01't(l1l I Grand IlIIpostu\'f'.' e>h;Jr. \1. Sl'('t. G.] f'O T cnlPT. 311 . eyer,y Bishop is called.' Therefore Aurelius, .For- tunatianus, Augu:;tinc, arc called' Bishops of the Uni- yersal Church,' and many in the Greek Church had the '; prctellf;iolls of Greg(ll"Y V II. anfl Innocent III.] [A PP ENUIX A.] [ r I 1HE peculiar position of English Homanists seemed to call for a fuller illustration than could have been conveniently hestowed on it in the body of the work. Under this conviction the Editor purposes in the following observations, first, to confirm the Author's assertion at p. 11, and secondly, to direct the thoughts of the younger student to the true state of our Anglo-Uo- manists.-On looking around us, we find a body of men pro- fe sing respect to ecclesiastical principles, who yet kcep aloof from the worship of the Church of England, and establish for themselves other altars and pro,'ide other teachers. Now by the canons of a general Council, t is declared highly criminal for persons, even' where the confession of a sound faith is pretended, to Illalw a schism and gather congregations in opposition to the canonical bishops I.' It is moreover admitted by both parties in tIle controversy that there cannot lawfully be two bishops in pos- ession of the same diocese; that if one 1e in canonical posscs- !o'ion, the other is guilty of irregularity and usurJ)ation. The qm.'s- tion, therefore, to be decided is this: 'Yhether of the two rival communions possesses canonical bishops,-whethcr of the two is chargeable with intrusion and schism? At present we may neg- lect all considerations of doctrine; for besides our retention of the ('ret-ds, always professed by our forefathers, it is a fact well a cer- tained that the bishop, by whose interference the hre:wh W:\::. evcntually made, had himself expressed a ,,,iIIingllc::-:'\ to sanction the Heformed !o'ervices 2 . .Accordingly our inquiry may be lmrsul'd I [ALpETL"OÙ<; ÒÈ ÀÉ')'oltEV, 'TOII<; 'Tt 7ra,\UL 'Tij<; KKÀ'1CTíu<; å7rO"IIf)IIXfJÉV'TU<;, huì 'TOÙS P.ETå 7uíìTU Í1cþ' ,jp.wv åIlUtJEP.UTLCTtJÉVTUS. 7rpò<; oÈ TOÚTOU; Kui TOÙ<; T,jV 7ríCTTW p.Èv 'T,jv v')'Úì 7rpOCT7rOIOIIP.ÉVOII<; u/wXo')'EÎv, à7rOCTXíCTUVTU<; oÈ Md avn- CTlIVå')'oVTCtS 'TOL<; KUVUVL"UL<; ,jp.wII È7rLCT"Ó7rOLS. ConcH. Constant. I. A. D. 3BI, ("\11. \'1.; a}JUd Labb. ConcH. Tom. II. !';'O, B.] 2 [See Sir Roger Twysdeu's 'Villllication,' pp. Itlß, et scqq. It i:. true that our adversaries in more prosperous time!. havc assumcd a far different tone; but at thc period we are considering, the Trcnt Creed had not found so heart}' ;1 reception, nor could 111('11 ee !-o tronA"ly in \\ hat p.lrtinilars we ha\'e \'Îo- Jatl'rl. the ('athnlic f tith. , APPE DIX. 31!) on thc ordinary principle:; of Church di:;cipline, the principles which guided the early Christians in determining a like contro- ver:;y.- 'Vith them it was a first step to investigate the onlc1'lì of the two rival communions, to trace upwards the succes:::.ion of their bishops to apostles or apostolical men, and in case one party could not prove unbroken descent from the original pastors of the district, to give (cæleri.v paribus) a 'verdict to their adversaries. The well-known language of Irenæus is as applicable to com- munion as to doctrine; indeed in his age the questions were made almost identical. "Habemus annumerare qui ab apostolis instituti :;uut episcopi in ecclesiis, et successores eorum usque ad nos qui nihil tale docueruut ueque cognoverunt, quale ab his dcliratur l ." And in a similar spirit writes Tertullian: "Edant ergo origiue.., ecclesiarum :;uarum; evolvant ordinem episcoporulll suorum, ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus illc epibcopU:S aliquem ex apostulis vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostoli:-; pl'rseveraverit, habuerit auctorem, et antecessorem 2." Let now this test of apostolicity be applied in the case before us. The hierarchy of our Church is in actual possession of the English dioceses; they claim to be sucæssors and representatives of the episcopacy, which flourished in England centuries before the Re.- furmation; they challenge their adversaries to point out OIle single particular by which their orders have been vitiated or their jurisdic- tion forfeited. The Anglo-Humanists, on the contrary, have no pretension to this continuity: when they first gained a distinctexi,:st- l'nce in England, they made no attempt to perpetuate episcopacy, and thus tacitly admitted their irregular position. Once, indeed, Parsons mdeavoured to procure bi hops3, A.D. 1580, but the effort was abortive; and Blackwell was in ]598 nominated a" head of the Rccu!"ants with the title arch-priest 4. In 1ü23, Dr. Bishop came 0\ er to institute an episcopal gOYCrIllllcnt, but died in the following year. In 1625, Dr. Uichard Smith (as Lishop of Chalcedon) was appointed to presidc over the Anglo- Uomani ts ; hut in ] 629 he withdrew iutu Frauce 5 . In] f>85, the first ,.icar- I lAdv. Hæres. Lib. Ill. cap. 3.J 2 [De Præscriptiolle Hæret. c. xxxii.] I [See Dodd's Church JIi t. Vol. I I I. p. Ii; Tierney's note.] I fIbid. PI). 47, et eqq.1 . [On these lIhj('('ts, ('(' 'The lIiMory nf the Declinc anri Fall of the Roman 316 \PPE DIX. apostolic cntercd England, une of a disconnccted band who are describell by one of their own disciples as "mere rlclcgatcs, stcward!S of the Roman bishop, amenable to his will, dcpendent on his beck I." As vicars-apostolic they have no English jurisdic- tion; as titular bishops in pærtibus ilýìdelium, they have no jurisdiction any where. Hence they are not properly bishop!S.- On this subject let us hear Dr. :!\Iilner (and surely the Romanists ('an ask no more favourable witness than the author of ' The End of Controversy'): "In my first letter," he writes to Sir John Throckmorton 2. h I made a necessary and obvious distinction hl'twcen a pe fect amI an impeifect Church, between one t11at was actually fonned and another that was only- in a state of formation. in short, between an establishment and a 1Ìssion. I shewcd that we werc in the latter of these predicaments, Itaving entirely losi ille succession qj' bisltops at the Rçfor11lati01I," &c. &c. It is of course easy enough to assert that the ipse-dixit of a foreign bishop ean give regularity to anything irregular, and can !Stultify the whule practice of the Church; but this assertion is to beg the question at issue, and, after thè arguments of the preceding Trea- tise, few Englishmen, we may hope. will grant it. Thus much may sufficc for the teachers of tho Anglo-Roman- i ts: let us next consider tIlt' history of the society which has placcd itself under their guidance.- 'Yhate\Ter be the chara<:ter of persons who have come into thi!': country with foreign orders, ('laiming jurisdiction in dioccscs already filled, the case of the nomani ts, as a body, will be ecclcsiastically desperate, if we find them gaining existence by yoluntarily dividing the Church and abandoning an older society of Christians which dill not impose :-;infnl terms of communion. That thesc terms were not at first cOll::5idcred sinful has been shewn in the prt.ccding remarks; and the same truth is further ilhu,trateJ by the conduct of thc Anglu- Uumanists themschc:=,. It will not be dcnied that thc Reforma- tiull, as to matter!S of faith, tenninated in 1.362, yet till 1570 there was in no quarter any vi!o>iMe defection from the worship of the Roman C ,\tholic Religion III Eng1.uul, tram,btcd from the Italian of Gregorio Panzani, by the R v. Jo"cJlh Hcrington' (a ROllldnbt), Lond. IBI3; pp. !lR. lOa, 130. The title of this book i m(1 t :-.ignifìcant.] I I J\pml Herington, r. :m:q . rErd(' i.l tk!\l nrlll(\(,Tõ\\"\" Hctrflc!\.l' 1 1; [,onc\. 17 13.' .APPEN IHX. 317 Engli h Church; all persons assembled at the pari:sh sanctuaries where their fathers had knelt for ages. Some few, it is probable, took exception to the Prayer-Book, on the grounù that it omitted topics which they individually cherished: yet none at the impulse of his private spirit proceeded to form a conventicle, none as::>unw,l an attitude of hostility, until the]] th year of Queen Elizabeth. This is a point of very great importance; for if once clearly established, the Recu!:;ants arc convictcd of voluntary secession, of disobedience to their canonical rulcrs, of 'hearing arms again t the Church, and resisting the appointment of God.' Hist01"ical ]J'I'oofs that the ROInanist8 went out from anwny 'Us. ON this :subject we shall select only a portion of the eviùence which is availahle. "For di\'ers years," writcs Archbishop Bram hall, "in the be'ginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, there was no Recusant known in England; but even they, who were most adùicted to Roman opinions, yet frequented our churches and public assemhlies, and did join with us in the U8C of the same prayers and Divine offices, without any scruple; until they were prohibited by a papal bull, merely for the interest of the Roman court. This was the true beginning of the schism between us and them. I never yet heard any of that party charge our Liturgy with any error, except of omission; that it wanted something which they would have in!;erted I." The authority for the main fact here stated is a contemporary pamphlet, entitled' Tlte Dis- closing qf tlte Great Bull, tltat roared at 11l!J l..ord Bi.\"!lOp'.<; Gate,' &c., published at IJondon, 15(:)9. The same circumstances are distinctly narrated by Bishop Amlrewes, in the TorluJ"fl Torti, pp. 130-132, p. 142, cd. Lond. 1009,-by Camdcn, Allnales Elizabeth. A. D. 1570, p. 186, cd. Lugdun. Batav. lô25,-by Silo Humfrey Lynde', Via Tuta, sect. IV. Coke, in his Charge at Norwich. A. D. ] 607, dcclared that at first 'none of the papist did refu:se to come to our church, and yicld their formal ohedience to the laws established. And tlms they continued, not anyone refusing to come to our churches during the first t('l1 years of her I [Just VilU\ication, Part I., Vise. ii; \\Torks. Vol. I. p. 2.tB ell. Oxf. 18"2.) 3]8 APPEXDIX. )raje ty' government. And in the beginning of the cleycnth year of her reign, Cornwalli:o::, Bedingfield, and Silrarde, were the first Recusants, they absolutely refusing to come to our churches; and until they in that sort began, the name of Recusant wa!'; never heard of amongst us.' In addition to this pa!':sage, }\fr. Palnwr (Treatise on tlte Church, Y 01. I., pp. 348, 340) adduces the in- structions of Queen Elizabeth to 'Valsingham, and other docu- mentary evidence, establishing the same position. Similar testi- mony is borne by a " Relatione del presellte Stato d' 11lghillerl"1l, Ca'l.lata da una letlera .vcritta di Londra ;" in Roma, 1590. After referring to the recent fortunes of the Romanists, the writer gocs on to tell us, "Allora tutti andavano communemente aIle sina- goghe degli eretici et aIle prediche loro menandovi Ii figli ('t famiglie," etc. etc. This narrative was perused by Ranke, who giycs an extract from it in his' History qf the Pope.v,' Y 01. II. p. BR, Engl. Trans. I t agrees entirely with another passage in Riba- deneira, d(' Scltismate, qnoted by Hallam, COllstiful. Histor.1J, Vol. I. p. llR. Further proof, if neceRsary, mar be found in Garnet \ and in Parson!';2, although the latter is somewhat loath to make the admission. As late in the r('ign of Elizabcth as the year 1578, a virulent tract was written by Gregory Martin, 'shewing that all Catholics ought to ahstain from heretical con- venticles:' in other words, witnessing to the difficulty with which the Romanizing portion of the Church were detached from it!': communion and worship. On tbe whole, therefore, we shall not scruple to conclude with Barrow:\ that "the Recusants in England are no less schismatics than any other 8eparatists. They are indeed somewhat worse; for most others do only forbear communion; these do fildely condemn the Church to which they owe obedience, yea, strive to destroy it: they are the most desperate rebels against it."J I [See State Papers, Vol. I. p. 249; quoted by 1\Ir. Palmer, ubi supra.] 2 [Answer to the 'ifth Part of Coke's Reports, p. 371.] 3 [Unity of the Church; "Yorks, Vol. r. p. 783; ed. 17lfi.] A S E ill 0 U A LA R I TO ALL SOnT OF E GLISH MEN AGAI ST POPEHY, FROM SEXSE A D CONSCIENCE, THEIR OA'fn AXD THEIR INTEREST. 1. T HE Kings of England seem bound, not onl.}" bJ their t.itle, but in conscience of their ministr under God, to defend the faith and thc Church of Christ within their dominions, against corruption and invasion, and therefore against PoperJr. They are also bound in honour, interest, and fidelity, to prescrve the inheritance and rights of the Crown, and to derive them entire to their hcirs and successors; and therefore to keep out the Papal authority. And lastly, it is said thcy are bound by thcir oaths at their coronation, and by the laws of nature and government, to maintain the liberties and cus- toms of their people, and to govern them according to the laws of the realm; and consequently not to admit the foreign jurisdiction of the Pope, in pre- judice of our ancient constitution, our common and ecclesiastical laws, our natural and legal liberties and properties. 2. The nobility of England have anciently hcld themselves bound, not only in honour, but by their oaths, to preserve, together with the King, the terri- tories and honours of the King most faithfully, and to defend thcm (lt'ra," Y 01. I. Pal's II. p. 927, l d. Lom1. 1816.] AGAINf-;T POPERY. 321 ipsiu8 ingl.és8lWl 'in In!Jliam ,wllatf-nliS 8w,linel'ef." This is said to be rccordcd about the 44th of Henry III. 4. It is therc observed also, that upon the con- quest, 'Yilliam the Conqueror made all the freeholders of England to becomc ::sworn brethren, sworn to dc- fend the nlonarchy with thcir persons and estates to the utmost of their ability, and manfully to preserve it: so that the whole body of the people, as well as the Lords and COlnmons assemble(l in Parlianlent, stoml anciently bound by their oath to defend their King aIlll their country against invasion and usurpation. 5. The present constitution of this kingdom is yet a stronger bulwark against Popery. Heretofore indeed the papal pretensions were checked, some- tÏnles in temporal, :;ometimes in spiritual concerns and instances; but upon the Reformation, the Pope's Supremacy was altogether and at once rejected, and thrown out of England; and the consequence is, an universal standing obligation upon the whole king- dom, by statutes, customs, and most solemn oaths, to defend our monarchy, our Church, our country, and our posterity, against those incroachments and that thraldom, from which we were then so wonderfully delivered, and for this hundred years have been so miraculously preserved,-blessed be God! Accordingly in our present laws, both the tem- pOl'al and ecclesiastical Supremacy is declarcd to be inherent in the Crown, and our Kings are sworn to maintain and govern by those laws: and I doubt not but all ministers of the Church, and all ministers of state, and of law and war, all lnayors and officers in cities and town corporate, &c., together with all the 21 322 A SERIOUS ALARM sheriffs anù othcr officcrð in thcir ::-;('n ral countie ; anù cyen all that haye rcceivcd either trust or power from his l\IajcstJT within thc kingdom ;-all these, I say, I suppose arc sworn to defend the I{ing's Suprc- macy as it is inconsbtent with, and in flat opposition to, Popery. In thc Oath of Allegiance, we swear to bear true allegiance to the IGng, and to defend him against all conspiracies and attempts which shall be made against his person and Crown, to the utmost of our power; mcaning especially the conspiracies and at- tempts of Papists, as is plain by that which follows in that oath, and yet more plain by the Oath of Suprcmacy. In which oath we swcar, that the I{ing is thc onl) suprenlC governor in this realm, as well in all spiritual things and causcs, as temporal; and that no forcign prince or prelatc hath, or ought to havc, an)' jurisdic- tion ecclesiastical within this rcalm; and that wc do abhor and rcnouncc all such. 'Ve swear also, that we will bear faith ancI truc allegiancc to the I{ing, and to our powcr assist and defeml all jurisdictions, viz. ccclesiastical as wcll as temporal, granted or belong- ing to thc King's Highness. 6. Now ncxt to oaths, nothing can be thought to oblige us 1llOre than intcrest. But if ncithcr oaths nor intcrcst, neither conscience nor nature, neither rcligion nor sclf-presenTation, can provokc us to our own defcnce, what remains but a certain fearful ex- pectation of judgment to devour a pCljurcd mul scnsc- le::,s gcneration ? If cithcr our joint or sevcral intercsts be con- :,iderable, how are we all conccrned ? .\UAIXST POPERY. 323 (1) 1:-; there any among us that care for nothing but liberty and nloney? They should re:;ist Popery, which would luany ways deprive them of both. (2) But if the knowledge of the truth, if the canon of life in the holy Scriptures, if our prayers in our own tongue, if the simplicity of the Gospel, the purity of worship and the intcgrity of Sacraments, be things valuable and dear to Christians,-let them abhor Popery. (3) If the ancient privileges of the British Church, the independency of her government upon foreign jurisdiction; if their legal incumbencies, their eccle- siastical dignities; if their opportunities and capa- cities of saving souls in the continuance of their n1Înistrics; if their judgment of discretion touching their doctrine and administrations; their judgment of faith, reason, and sense, touching the Eucharist; if exemption fronl unreasonable impositions of strange doctrines, Romish customs, groundless traditions, and treasonable oaths; and lastly, if freedom from spiritual t.rranny and bloody inquisitions,-if all these be of consequence to clergymen, lct thcnl oppose Popery. (4) If our judges and their scveral courts of judicature would preserve their legal proceedings, and judgments and decrees; if they would not be controlled and superseded by bulls, bentences, and decrecs from the Pope, and appeals to llome,-let them never yield to Popery. (5) If the famous nobility and gentry of England "ould appear like themselves and their heroic ances- tors, in the dcfence of the rights of their country, the law and customs of the land, the wealth of the peo- 21-2 324 A SERIOUS \LAR:\T pIc, the liberties of the Church, the empire of Britain, and the grandeur of thcir IGng, or indeed their own honour and estates in a great measure,-lct thcln never endure the re-adlnission of Popery. (6) Yea, let our great ministers of state, and of law, and of war, consider that they stand not firm enough in their high and envied places, if the Roman force breaks in upon us; and remember that had the late bloody and barbarous design taken effect., one consequence of it was, to put their places into othcr hands; and therefore in this capacity, as well as Illany other, they have no reason to be friends to Popery. (7) As for his most excellent l\Iajesty, no suspi- cion either of inclination to, or want of due vigilance against, Popery, can fasten upon him; and may he long live in the enjoyment and under a worthy sense of the royalties of lllonarchy, and the honour aIIll exercise of his natural and legal supremacy, in all causes and over all persons within his dominions, both eÏ\ il and ecclesiastical-his patcrnal inheritance of eDlpire; aIul at last leave it entirely to his heirs and successors upon earth, for a more glorious crown in heaven. And in the mean time, may he defend the faith of Christ, his own prerogative, the rights, pri- vileges, and liberties, and estates of his people, and the defensive laws and customs of his Royal progenitors; and therefore may he ever lnanage his governlllent, both with power, care, and caution, in opposition to the force, and detection and destruction of the hellish arts and traitorous dcsigns and attempts of Popery. 1 [An allusion to the pretended conspiracy of thc Frcnch, &c. reveal cd by Titus Oates, A.D. 1678.] AG_\JN" T POPERY. 325 (8) I conclude, that if the precious things already mentioned, and nIany Inore, be in evident danger with the return of Popery, let us again consider our oaths as well as our interest, and that we have the bond of God upon our souls; and, as the Conqueror's words are, we are jUJ"ati fratr;'es, we are sworn to God, our J{ing and country, to preserve and defend the things so endangered, against all foreign invasion and usurp- ation, i. e. against Popcry. Accordingly, nIay our excellcnt King, and his councils and l11inÏ::;ters; may the Pcers of the rcalm and the Commons in parlia- Inent; nmy the nobility and gentry, nIay the judges and lawyers, may the cities and the country, the Church and tate, and all ranks and dcgrees of men amongst us; 111ay we all, under a just sense, both of our interest and our oaths,-may we all as one man, with one heart, stand up resolved by all means pos- sible to keep out Popery, and to subvert all grounds of fear of its return upon England for ever. Amen, .Amen. 0 ,' \\ , ,.f , '\ ' ., , VTW Of:: Kat upXOVTa eKKI\'Y)Uta4:i eKaUTt}4:i 7roÀf::W4:i ;;'PXOVTt TWV ëv T 7f" ^et uvryKptTeov. Origen. contra Cebum, Lib. III. [po 129; ed. Cantab. 1658.J " It is fit that the governor of the Church of each city should correspond to the governor of those which arc in the city." "Præswni malwn fidem, ex antiquiore adversarii posses:sione. " "Ad trawm1,a}'inrt Cone ilia qui pllta 'el'it appellan- dnm, (t nullo intra Afi'ieam in eOlluJlztnionem l'ecipiatw.." Concil. l\lilevitan. [Can. XXII.; apud Labb. T0111. II., 15-l2. l:jJ-:J.] TH E OATtiS 01<' ALLEGIANCE A D SUPRE1\LACY. THE OATIl OF \LLEGIANCE. I A. D., do truly and incerc1y acknowledge, pro- fess, testify, and declare in my conscience bcfore God and the world, that our Sovercign Lord King Charles is lawful and rightful IGng of this realm, and of all other his l\lajesty's dominions and countries: and that the Pope, neither of himself, nor b.r any authority of the Church or See of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any power or autho- rity to depose the King, or to dispose any of his l\lajesty's kingdoms or donliniom" or to authorize any foreign prince to invade or annoy him or his coun- tries, or to discharge any of his subjects of thcir alle- giance and obedience to his l\lajesty, or to give licence or leave to any of them to bear arms, raise tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to his l\Injesty's royal person, state or government, or to any of his l\IajestY.H subjects within his l\Iajest.y's dominions. Also I do swear from my heart, that notwithstand- ing any declaration or sentence of exeOlumunieation or deprivation made or granted, or to be nlade or granted by the Pope or hh, successors, or by all) authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or hi:::! See, against the Raid T{ing, his heirs or successors, or all,y ahHolutioll of thc said sultleets THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. 327 ii'om thcir obcdiencc; I will bear faith and truc alle- giance to his l\Iajesty, his heirs and successors, and him and thCIll will defend to the uttermost of Iny powcr, against all conspiracies and attempts what- mever, which shall be made against his or their per- sons, their crown and dignity, by reason or colour of any such sentence or declaration, or otherwise; and will do my best endeavour to disclose and makc known unto his l\Iajesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous conbpiracies which I shall know or hear of, to be again t him or any of them. And I do furthcr swear, that I do from illY heart abhor, detest and abjure, a ÏInpious and heretical, this damnablc doctrine and position, that princes which bc exconlmunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do believe, and in conscience am resolved, that neither the Pope, nor any person whatsoever, hath powcr to absolve nle of this oath, or any part thereof, which I acknowledge by good and full autho- rity to bc lawfully alhninistcred unto me, and do renounce all pardons anù dispcnsations to the con- trary. And all these things I do plainly and sinccrcly acknowledge, and swear according to these exprcss words by me spokcn. and according to thc plain and eommon scnsc and undcrstanding of the samc words, without any cquivoeation or mental cvasion, or secrct reservation whatsocver. And I do make this recog- nition and aeknowledgnwnt heartily, willingly, and trul.}, upon thc truc faith of a Christian, So help mc God. &e. 328 THE OATIl OF SUPREMACY. I A. D., do uttcrlJ testify and dcclare in my con- bcience, that the !Gng's Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other hi Highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical thing or causes, as tem- poral: and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any juris- diction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm: and there- fore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities, and authorities, and do pron1ise fr0111 henceforth I shall bear filith and true allegiance to the King's Highness, his heirs and lawful successors, and to n1Y power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, pre-eminences, and authorities granted or belonging to the King's Highness, his heirs and successors, or united and annexed to the imperial Crown of this realm. So help me God, and by the contents of this book. [I N D E X. A. C. (i. e. Fisher against Archbp. Laud), B7, 100. ACAcIUs (patriarch of Constantino- pIe), 92, 287. ADRIAN VI. (bishop of Rome), 235. AFRICAN CHURCH, canons of, con- trary to the papal supremacy, 235-237. AGATHO (bishop of Rome) calls St. Peter and St. Paul Kopllcþaîm, 78; his submission to the emperor, 102. ALEXANDER II. (King of Scotland) repulses the papal legate, 59. ALFRED (King of Northumberland), his conduct respecting 'Vilfrid,57. ANTIOCH, Council of, (see Council). ApOSTLES, equality of, 257, 259. ApPEÅLS, none from a patriarch or primate, 60, 105; proceedings at Sardica concerning, 63; constitu- tions of Clarendon respecting, 65; prohibited alike to bishops and inferior clergy, 105-107 ;-to Rome, how forbidden by Henry VIII., 122; senses of the word 'appeal,' 124; case of'Vilfrid, 56, ð7; of Anselm, 125-127; when first pennitted, 125; complaint of Paschalis I. respecting, 129; again forbidden, 130; clause in Magna Charta respecting, 132; complaint of the kingdom, 132 ; præmullirc, penalty of, 133, ] 40; intcrru pted continuall T, 134. AUGUSTINE, St. (of Hippo), judgment of the pope's power, 76, 77, 105. AUGUSTINE (of Canterbury), his en- tertainment in England, 45, 46 ; his alleged connexion with the Bangor massacre, 46; the pall granted to, 54; was placed in Canterbury by the king, 115, 116. AÙToKÉcþaÀOt (independent primates), 36. BARNES (Father), his opUllon re- specting the Britannic Church, 1B2. BARONIUS, on the pope's confirma- tion of elections, 72, 73, 76. BASLE, Council of, (see Council). BEAUFORT, HENRY, (bishop of "\:Vin- chester), proceedings respecting, 133, 140. BONIFACE I. (bishop of Rome), letter on appeals, 106, lOB. BONIFACE III. (bishop of Rome), assumes the title 'Universal bi- shop; 39. BONIFACE VIII. (bishop of Rome), trial respecting a Bull of, 156. BRITISH CHURCH (see Churcl, of England ). BULI.8 (papal), of no force without the King's consent, 117; suits for prohibited, 122; trial rcspecting, I5fi, 157; rejected, }GH, 167. ß\ ZACH'1\f, primate of, procecding rcspecting', ß5. : 30 CAEIU.F.ON, al'chbp. of, illl1cpcndent, 3G, 45. CANO:\'"S ApOSTOLICAL, lluotcd, 34, GO, 105, 219, 220; question respect- ing, 218, 219. CANTERBURY, archbp. of, originally not subject to the pope, 62; him- self called 'pope: B3, 135. CARLISLE, statute of, on patronage, 164. CARTHAGE, Council of, (see Council). CATHOLIC CHFRCH, (see CIW1'clL). CATHOLIC FAITH, 8, D. CHALCEDON, bishop of, (i. e. Richard Smith) 10, etc. CHALCEDON, Council of, (see Coun- cil) . CUARLES the Great, excrcised autho- rity in sacl'is, 215. CUAUTA, l\IAGNA, clause respccting appeals, 131 ; when left out, 132 ; objections concerning, 142. CUURCH CATHOUC, 3, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17; Christ the 'Head' of it, 88; whether govcrned by an earthly monarch, 246, et seqq. CnrucII OF ENGLAND, doctrine of, B; did not divide in or from thc Catholic, 17; has the same faith as always, 18; same sacraments and disciplinc, 1ß; when founded, 30 ; not in the Roman patriarchate, 38, 39; its Reformation, 43; its bishops consecrated without the pope, 51, 52; sent bishops to Aries and other synods, 55; what coun- cils it received, G5; questions in, how scttled, 135; convocations of, 145; its dispensing powcr, 1.5.'); patronagc of, in the I\.ing, !GO, lG4. INDEX. CHURCH OmENTAL, , 72, 73; never admitted the papal supremacy, 237, 238. CHFRCH of ROJlIE, (see Roman Church and Bishop). CLARENDON, constitution of, respect- ing appcals, 65, 128, 130; renewal of, 130; respecting patronage, lü4. Cled by liing"s w1'Ït, 145. COUNCIL of ANTIOCH, A.D. 341, ex- cluded appeals, 236. of EASLE, A. D. 1431, de- clares against the pope, 234; re- ccived in England, 244. __ of CAUTUAGE, A. D. 4ID, on appeals, 108. __ of CHALCEDON, A.D. 4Jl, on the cquality of Rome and Constan- tinoplc, 35, G6; on appeals, 6.5; confirms the Council of Constanti- nople respecting the privilcges of 'New Rome,' GG; whether it offer- ed to the pope the title' Universal l)atrial'<'h; D7, D8; no witness fur papal suprcmacy, 22. , 22fi; ohjcc- t.ions answered, 307-311. COUNCIL of Co:s-srANcE, A. D. 1414, against papal supremacy, 233; I'eceived in England, 244. -- of CONSTANTINOPI.E, A. D. 3m, on the equality ofthe Roman and Constantinopolita.n Imtriarchs, 66: knew nothing of papal supre- macy, 2 2, 223; objections an- swered, 302, 303. of CONSTANTINOPLE, A. D. 553, conùemned pope Vigilius, 229. -- of CO STANTINOPLE, ..\. D. GBO, condemned pope Honorius ru; a heretic, 230. -- of CO STANTlXOPLE, A. D. BG9, no witness for papal supre- macy, 231. of EPHESUS, A.D. 431, for- bade additions tu the faith, 13; canon of, against usurpation, 39, 114; no ,,,,itness for papal supre- macy, 223, 224; objections an- swered, 305--307. -- of FLOREKCE, A. D. 1439, rcferred to, 2 7. of :\hLEVI, A. D. 416, on appeals, 60, 61, 105, 107. -- of 1\IcÆA or NICE, A. D. 325, respecting patriarchal sees, 34-3,,; occasion of the Canon, 36; Romish ol)jections and answer, 3,,-33; Canon on appeals, GO, 105; only twenty Canons of, 69; Arabic Canons forged, 63-71; knew nothing of papal supremacy, 220, 221; objections answered, 300. of SARDICA, A.D. 347, on appeals, 63; no general Council, "4; not received in England, 65 ; further tliscussion respecting, 2 n et se(1' t. INDEX. 331 COUNCIl, of TRENT, its doctrines, 3; never received here, 243. CVPIUAN (St.), confinned the bishop of Rome's con'!ecration, 73; with a Council, censures the bishop of Rome, 76; on the one episcopate, 93; his universal care, 94; on the equality of the apostles, 254. CYPRIAN PRIVILEGE, decree respect- ing, 39, 72. CYRIL (patriarch of Alexandria) ex- communicated, 92. DIONOTH (abbot of Bangor), his asser- tion of independence, 4.-'); objec- tions respecting, 43, 50. DISCIPLI E, ancient, remarks con- cerning, ÐI, 92. I DISPENSATIONS, papal, not ancient, 154; question repecting, 156;- granted by the English Church, 155. DUNSTAN, on papal dispensations, 155. EASTERN CH1..'RCH, (see Church Ori- ental). EDWARD (the Confessor), styled 'Vicar of Christ; 103. EDWARD III., statutes of, against appeals, 123, 129, 140. EI,E1-'THERIUS (bishop of Rome) re- ferred to, 30, 31, 32, 103. E3IPEROR, exercise of power in mat- ters ecclesiru;tical, 73, 77, 32, B5, 102, 212, 214, 215; instanccs of power over pO}Jes, 103, 104, 212, 213; last appealed to, 134. EPIIESCS, Council of, (see Council). Ex('mnll"i'lI"ATJII'\', it... nature, !l1, !I2. 332 FATHBRS, primitive, knew nothing of papal supl"emacy, 297-2U9. FBLIX (bishop of Rome), his name expunged from the diptychs, 92. FIRST-FRUITS, history of, 172, et seqq. FLAVIANUS, (patriarch of Antioch), opposed by three Roman bishops, 73. FLORENCE, Council of, (see Council). GARDINER, denied the pope's supre- macy, 234:. GEOFFREY (archbp. ofY ork) forbade appeals to Rome, 130. GOVERNl\IENT, a bond of ecclesiastical communion, 12. GRAVAl\IINA ANGLlÆ, what, 132. GREGORY I. (bishop of Rome), ex- tl'acts from respecting the I'"niver- sal Pastorship, 39, 54, 64, 67; his respect for the Canons, 83, 86, 87 ; on the Council of Chalcedon, 97 ; instance of his pretensions, 101; injunctions to Augustine, 116; re- specting the pall, 168, GUEGORY (bishop of Ostium), his confession, 141. HENRY I. (King of England), pro- hibition of appeals, 127 ; supposed law in favour of, 129; his conduct respecting investitures, 161. HENRY VIII. (King of England), what powers and perquisites he dcnied the pope, lI8, 122, 153, 169, 170; statement of the ques- tion between them, 120, 121. HILARY, (bishop of Poictiers) ana- thcmatizcs pope LiLcrius, 92; rc- 8J1ccting St. I\.ter, 2."J2, 2M. INDEX. Ho oRIl's (bishop of Rome) anathe- matized as a l\lonothelite, Ð2. H. T. (i. e. Henry Turbervill), 47. INFALLIBILITY, papal, argument re- specting, 183; not proved by Scripture, 185-193, nor by tradi- tion, ] 94-200, nor by reason, 201 -205. INNOCENT III. (bishop of Rome), his complaint to Richard I., 131. INNOCENT IV. (bishop of Rome), his exactions, 177. I1'\YESTITURES, controversy respect- ing, 160 et seqq. IRE1'\ÆUS, on the 'principality' uf the Roman Church, 99, 100. JOHN (King of England), his grant to the pope, 209, 210. JOHN (patriarch of Constantinople), how censured by Gl"egory, 80, 88. J USTI1'\IAN (the emperor), how he favoured the pope, 211, 212; his authority in sacris, 212; his sanc- tion of the Canons, 217. JeSTINIANA PRIl\IA, account of, 214. KINGS of ENGLAND, their authority in sam'is, 145 et seqq.; Canons confirmed by them, 146; their laws referred to, 147, 148; their power neithm' by the popc's grant nor permission, 149, 150; theil" authority in dispensations, 154, 155; in investitures, 160-165. LEGATES, papal, refused admission into Scotland, 59; had no au tho- l"Ïty in England without the l{ing's consent, 117; fOl'mal inquiry rc- spccting, 134 ct seqq.; at first mere mcs::-.cngcI's, 140; rejection of, justified, 141. LEO I. (hishop of Rome), his suhjec- tion to the emperor, 102. LWERI.-S (bishop of Rome) anathe- matized as an Arian, 92. Lucn:s (King), mention of, 31, . 3, 103. .\fARY (Queen of England), how she restored the papal usurpation, 123; her conduct respecting Peto, 143. :\IEJ.ETI1!S, his irregularity, 36. MORRIS (abbot), case of, 166, 167. Nn.{.s (archbp. of Thessalonica), on the Niccne Canon, 37,38. NON-OBSTAKTE, papal, 140, 156. OATIl, imposed hy the pope, 162; how enlarged, 163. PALL, from Rome, not essential, 168. P AJ.LAon:s, his mission, 53. P ASCHAJ.IS I. (bishop of Rome), the oath devised by him, 127, 161; his complaint respecting appeals, 129; his conduct respccting investitures, 161. PATRIARCHS, their number, 35; pre- sence necessary to a General Coun- cil, 64; their confirmation, 72; deposition, 74; restoration, 75 ; all alike called 'æcumenical bishops,' 97; no appeal from, 105. PELAGIUS II. (bishop of Rome), his testimony against the papal usurp- ation, 78. PETER (St.), how called' chief of the apostles: 02; 'first member of the Church,' 89; whether he was a monarch, 252 et seqq.; had 8 per- sonal preeminence, 252, 271 ; sense of Matt. xvi. ] 0, respecting, 2M; INDEX. 333 distinctions as to his power, 257; and titlcs of honour, 2.50; sense of John xxi. 14, and other texts re- specting, 262-2li8; whether his preeminence was inherited by the popes, 270-280. PETER-PENCE, history of, 170 et seqq. PETO (Cardinal), not admitted by Queen l\Iary, 143. POPE, (see Roman Bishop). PRÆè\I1:JlìIRE, penalty of, 133, 151, 167. PROVISORS, statute of, 140, 151, 155, 164. R. C. (see Chalcedon, bishop of). REC1!SANTS (Romish), schismatical, II, 314-310. REFOR:\IATIOS (English), how con- ducted, 43; what powers then denied the pope, 118. RICHARD I., his conduct respecting appeals, 130, 131. RmIAN CHURCH, a true Church, 4, 5, 6, Hi; particular, 7, 16; obe- dience denied to, 13; how it dis- turbs the Church Universal, 13, 14,22,23; how far we communi- cate with, 16; has made additions to the faith, 18; charge laid against, 23; several pretensions to power over us, 26; how inconsist- ent, 26, 27,40; when founded;30; how called 'head of all Churches,' 83, 84 ; whence it derived its great- ness, 98, 99; usurpations of, not sanctioned by imperial law, 104; divisions within its communion, 198, 204. RO:\IAN BISHOP, became the 'Vestern patriarch by degrees, 34, 35; his jurisdiction limited, 35; exercised : 3 t. no authority here for GOO years, -:14, 1I2; took oath to ohey the Canons, 61; which deny his pre- tensions, GO et seqq.; in like man- ner, practice against him, 71 et seqq.; what meant by his confir- mation of elections, 73; had no power to depose patriarchs, 74; nor to restor<" 75; usurpations of, unknown to anei<,nt popes, 70 et S<'qq.; in what extreme cases ap- pealed to, 86, 101; his submission to the emperor, 102; instances of severity exercised upon, 103, 104, 212, 213; modern powers of, not sanctioned by imperial law, ] 04 et seqrl. ; appeals to, denied by Afri- can Canons, 107; had no posses- sion of our obedience in Austin's timc, 115 ; his claims at the period of the Reformation, 1 Iß; ancient applications to, what they signified, 13.5; had no legislative power in England, 144; no dí:;pensatory power, 152, 15G, 150; exactions of, resisted, 173-178; infallibility of, disproved, I ß3 et seqq.; not universally held by Romanists, lÐO; supremacy of, not granted by the emperor, 207-215, nor by ecclesiastical Canons, 217 et seqq.; whether successor of St. Peter, 2(i9 et seqq.; monarchy of, not recognized in the Councils, 200; his schism and perjury, 203, 204. RO'IAN"I!'TS (Anglo), schi!'matics, II, 314-318. Ih FFINlJS, his version of the sixth Nicene Canon. 33; on the number of Canons, GO. THE END. INDEX. S \J ON.-\ (hishnp of), how c"'(comm u- nicated, 05. S-\IWICA, Council of, (see COllllril). SCHIS:U, definition of, 3' act of 3. subject of, 4; condition of,' 14; application of, not to OlIr Church, 17; to the Romanists, 22, 23, 318. S. "T. (i. e. "'illiam Sergeant), 1.'5, et alib. T. C. (i. e. Thomas Carwell), 71, et n1ib. TELAVS (St.) consecrated bishops, &c. without papal delegation, 51. THEODORE (arch bp. of Canterhury), his behaviour towarùs "'ilfrid, 57, 58. TRADITION, concessions respecting, 194, W5. UNIVERSAL BISHOP, title assumed by Boniface III., 30; ancient use of, in other dioceses, :m, OG; discarded by Pelagius II., 70; b.r Gregory the Great, 70-00; distinctions re- specting, 07-90, 05, Ð6, 208. VICTOR (bishop of Rome) excommu- nicates the Asian Churches, 00, Ðl. VIGILIVS (bishop of Rome) excom- municated, 02. '\T n,FRm, his appeals to Rome, .')6, 57, 7G. Zosulrs (l)ishop of Rome), his con- duct respe{.ting the Nicene Canon, 70, 241 ; letter to, from the Afric:m hishops, loo.J rV()'rks just Puoli:-:lwd 01' in the rml1'se (if Puo- tiration, lJ!! J. 0' J. J. fleigllion. Five Sermons Preached before the University of Cambridge. The First Four in November, 13.15. The Fifth on the GC'neral Fast-Day, \r etlnesday, l\larch 24th, W47. By the Rev. .T .T. ßU!XT, B. D., l\largaret Professor of Divinity. 8vo. 58. Gd. Analysis of the Exposition of the rreed, written hy the Right Rev. Father in God, .TOH'i" PEARSON, D. D., late Lord Bishop of Chester. Third Edition, revised :md corrected by "T. H. Mu,J., D. D., late Fel10w of Trinity CollC'ge, Cambl'idge; and Chap- lain to his Grace the Lord .Archbishop of Canterbury. Bvo. cloth, 58. A Discourse on the Studies of the University of Camhridge, by ADA1\J SEDGWICK, l\I.A.. 'Voodwardian Professor and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambl"ÏJge. Fifth Edition, with Additionall\Iatter. Post 8vo. J\Tem.Zy Ready. Bisllop I)earson's Exposition of t]le Creed, cor- rected throughout, and many References supplied. Edited for the S 'ndics of the Camln'idge Cniversity Press, by TEIIIPJ,E CUEVAJ.J.JER, B. D. Professor of Mathematics in the University of Durham, and late Fellow and Tutor of St Catharine's Hall, Cambridge. 8vo. J\Tearly Ready. The IIomiIies, with Various Readings, and the Quotations from the reek and Latin Fathers given at length, in the Original Langnag('s. Edited for the Syndics of the Cam llridge Pniver- sity Press, by G. E. COnRIE, B.D. Fellow and TutOl' of St. Catharine's Hall; Norrisian ProfC'ssor of Di\'Ínity in that University. and Exa- mining Chaplain to the Lord Bihhop ofEly. 8vo. III tlte 1'1'(',88. m m A LIST OF THEOLOGICAL 'VORKS, RECENTLY PUBLISHED B\' J. & J. J. DEIG HTON, Booksellers to H. R. H. the Chancellor if the Universit!J, and Agents to the Universit!J, CAMBRIDGE. Acts of the Apostles. 'Vith Notes original and selected. For the use of Students in the University. By HASTINGS ROBINSON, D.D., formerly Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge. 8vo. 88. Annotations on the Acts of the Apostles. De- signed principally for the use of Candidates for the Ol'dinary B.A. Degree, Students for Holy Ol'ders, &c., with College and Scnate- House Examination Papers. By T. R. .MASKEw, l\I.A., of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, Head Iaster of the Grammar School, Dorchester. Second Edition Enlarged. 12mo. 58. Altar Service. With the Rubricks, &c. in Red. Royal'" 4to. In Sheets .......................................... 0 128. Calf, lettered and Registers.. ... . ..... . ... ... 1 1 O. BibJes, Prayer Books, and Church Services, printed at the University Press, in a variety of bindings. Blunt (Professor). Sketch of the Church of the first Two Centuries after Christ, drawn from the Writings of the Fathers, down to Clemens Alexandrinus inclusive. 8vo. 68. &1. Blunt (Professor). An Introduction to a Course of Lectures on the Early Fathers, now in delivery in the Univer- sity of Cambridge. Parts I. and II. 8vo. 28. each. . . m Q 2 THEOLOGICAL \VORKS, Bushby (Rev. E.) Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures. Fourth Edition, 12mo. 38. 6d. Bushby (Rev. E.) Essay on the Htunan Mind. Fourth Edition, 12mo. 38. 6d. Butler (Bp.) An Analysis of his Three Ser- mons on H uman Nature, and his Dissertation on Virtue. \Vith a concise Summary of his System of Morals. 12mo.ls. Cheke (Sir John). Translation of the Gospel according to St Matthew, and part of the first Chapter of the Gospel accordillg to St Mark, with original Notes. Also VII Origi- nal Letters of Sir .T. Cheke. Prefixed is an Introòuctory Account of the nature and object of the Translation. By J. GOODWIN, B.D., Fellow and Tutor of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. 8vo. 78. 6d. Chrysoston1i (S. Joanni:-:;). HOlniliæ ill lattheunl. Textum ad fidem codicum 1\1SS. et versionum emendayit, præ- cipuam lectionis varietatem adscrip:;it, annotationihus ubi opus erat, et novis indicibus instruxit F. FIELD, A.l\I., ColI. SS. Trin. Socius. 3 vols. 8vo. 2/. 28. Large Paper, 4/. 48. An Ecclesiastical History fro In the earliest period to the present time, compiled from Eusebius, Bcde, l\1osheim, and the most authentic Records. Designed for Schools and Students. By the Editor of the Cambridge Edition of Elrington's Euclid. Foolscap, 8vo. cloth, 58. Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ Vindex Catholictls, sive Arti- culorum Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ cum Scriptis SSe Patrum nova Colla- tio, cura G. W. HARVEY, A.M. ColI. Regal. Socii. 8vo. Vol. I. 168. Vol. II. 168. Vol. III. lÛ8. Fisk (Rev. G.) Sermons preached i!l the Parish Church of St Botolph, Cambridge. 8vo. 10s. 6d. Select Poetry, chiefly Sacred, of the Reign of King JA:\IES the First. Collected by EDWARD FARR, Esq., Editor of Select Poetry of the Age of Queen Elizabeth. 16mo. cloth, 58.6d. Garrick. Iode of Reading the Liturgy of the Church of England. ANew .Edition, with Notes and a Preliminar)' Discourse. By R. CULL, Tutor in Elocution. 8vo. 58. Gd. Parish Sel"Inon . By the Rev. HARVEY GOOD- WIN, M.A., late Fellow of Gonville and Caius College. 12mo. cloth, 68. Gospels. Questions on the .'our Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, Critical, Historical, and Geographical. 12mo. 38. Gd. f r ct .... m (!. E \' r fJMG PUBLISHED BY J. & J. J. DEIGHTON. 3 Hare (Archd.) Sern10ns preacht in Herstlnon- ceaux Church. 8vo. 12.5'. Hey (Prof.) Lectures in Diyinity. Delivered in the University of Cambridge. Third Edition, 2 vols. 8voo It. 108. Hildvard (Rev. J.) Five SenTIons on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, preached before the University of Cambridge. 8vo. 58. Hilùyard (Rev. J.) SC)'lUOllS, chiefly practical. Preached in the Chapel Royal, Whitehall, during the years 1843, 1844, 1845. 8vo. 108. 6d. · ttI5tan 1Lttturt . Alford (Rev. H.) For the Year 18-11. The Con- sistency of the Divine Conduct in Revealing the Doctrines of Re- demption. To which are added Two Sermons preached before the University of Cambridge. 8vo. 78. Alford (Rev. H.) For the '"rear 1842. The Con- sistency of the Divine Conduct in Revealing the Doctrines of Redemp- tion. Part the Second. 8vo. 68. Slni th (Rev 0 Theyre T.) For the \7" ear 1840. The Christian Religion in connexion with the Principles of l\Iorality. 8vo. 78. 6d. uI tan (!i;s a)]5. Babington (Co) For the \ par 18-1.j. fluence of Christianity in promoting the Abolition Europe. 8vo. bds. 5.<;. l"he lu- of Slavery in Ellicott (C. J.) For the 'Tear 18-13. The His- tory and Obligation of the Sabbath. 8vo. sewed, 38. 6d. Gruggen (F. J.) For the Year 1844. The Law- fulness and Obligation of Oaths. 8vo. 38. M. Hoare CA. 1\1.) for the Year IH4ü. '-rhe Fitne:;s of Christianity to Improve the Moral and Social Condition of the Northern Nations which overthrew the Ron}an Empire. Bvo. 38. 6d. The Third Centenary of Trinity College, Caln- bridge. A Sermon preached in the Chapel on Tuesday, December 22nù, 1846, being the Commemoration of Founders and Benefactors By J. A. J EIn :\IIE, :\I.A., Fellow of Trinity College. 8vo. Is. 6d. C"': 'i) m D m 4 THEOLOGICAL \VORKS, Justin l\lartyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew. Translated from the Greek into the English, with Notes, chiefly for the advantage of English readers; a Preliminary Dissertation, and a short Analysis. By HENRY BROWN, M.A., 8vo. 98. (Origin- ally printed in 1745.) Jones (Rev. 'V. of Nayland). An Essay on the Church. 12mo. h o . 6d. Leighton (Arch.) Prælectiones Theologicæ; Paræ- neses, et :Meditationes in Psalmos IV. XXXII. CXXX. Ethico- Criticæ. Editio nova, iterum recensente J. SCHOLEFIELD, A.M., Græc. Lit. apud Cantab. Professore Regio. 8vo. Ss. 6d. Liturgiæ Britannicæ; or the several Editions of the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England, from its compilation to the last revision; together with the Liturgy set forth for the use of the Church of Scotland; al"ranged to shew their respective variations. By '\T. KEELING, B. D., Fellow of St John's College. 8vo. li. 18. The Rubrics in these Liturgies are printed in red. Margaret, Countess of Ricluuond and Derby, and Foundress of Christ's and St John's Colleges, Cambridge, The Funeral Sermon, preached by BISHOP FISHER in 1õOD; with BAKER'S Preface to the same, &c. Edited by J. HYl\IERS, D. D., Fellow of St John's College; with illustrative Notes, Additions, and an Appen- dix. 8vo. 78. 6d. l\liddleton (Dr. T. F.) The Doctrine of the Greek Article applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament. 'Vith Prefatory Observations and Notes. By HUGH JAMES ROSE, B.D. 8vo. 138. l\lilI (Dr. 'V. H.) Observations on the attempted Application of PANTHEISTIC Principles to the Theory and Historic Criticism of the GOSPEL. Bvo. 68. 6d. Mill (Dr. 'V. H.) The Historical Character of St Luke's first Chapter, vindicated against some recent Mythical Interpreters. Bvo.48. Mill (Dr. W. H.) The Evangelical Accounts of the Descent and Parentage of the Saviour, vindicated against some recent .Mythical Interpreters. 8vo. 48. l\iill (Dr. W. H.) The Accounts of our Lord's Brethren in the New Testament vindicated against some recent Mythical Interpreters. 8vo. 48. Mill (Dr. 'V. H.) The Historical Character of the Circumstances of our Lord's Nativity in the Gospel of St Mat- thew vindicated against some recent Mythical Interpreters. 8vo. 48. m v ':TL' <õ't-'/ c> PUBLISHED BY J. & J. J. DEIGHTOX BJ 5 m l\Iill (Dr. 'V. H.) Prælectio Theologica in Scholis Cantabrigiensibus habita Kal. Feb. A. D. 1843. 4to. 28. l\-lill (Dr. W. H.) Five Sefll10ns on the Temp- tation of Christ our Lord in the 'Vilderness. Preached before the University of Cambridge in Lent 1B44. Bvo. 68. 6d. Mill (Dr. \V. H.) Sermons preached in Lent 1B45, and on several former occasions, before the University of Cambridge. Bvo.128. l\Iill, (Dr. 'V. H.) Analysis of the Exposition of the Creed, written by the Right Rev. Father in God JOHN PEAR- SON, D. D., late Lord Bishop of Chester. Second Edition, revised and corrected. Bvo...cloth. 58. l\'Ioore (Rev. Daniel.) Sermons preached before the University of Cambridge in December 1B44. Bvo. cloth, 48. Neale (Rev. J. M.) Ayton Priory, or the Restored l\1onastery. 12mo.48. f}.orri ian a!? . Jones (John Herbert). For the Year 1846. If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be per- suaded, though one rose from the dead. Bvo. sewed, 2.5'. 6d. 'Voolleý (Rev. Joseph). For the Year 1843. The \Vritings of the New Testament afford indications that this portion of the Sacred Canon was intended to be a complete record of Apostolical Doctrine. Bvo. sewed, 28. . Woolley (Rev. Joseph). For the Year 1844. "By one offering Christ hath perlected for ever them that are sanctified:' Heb. x. 14. Bvo. sewed, 28. Offices of the Church, with the Rubrics, &c. in Red. Crown Bvo. sheets, 28. black calf, 58. Paley. Analysis of the Principles of l\Ioral and Political Philosophy. By S. FENNELL, .M.A., Fellow of Queens' College. 12mo. 28. 6d. Paley. Analysis of the Evidences of Christianity. By s. FENNELL, M.A., &c. 12mo. 28. M. Paley. Exalnination Questions on the Evidences of Christianity. l mo. 28. 6d. a J 6 THEOLOGICAL \VORKS, Parkhurst's Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament, with additions by the late HUGH JAJ\IES }tOSE. A new edition carefully revised by J. R. :\IAJOR, D.D., King's Col- lege, London. 8vo. It. 48. Preston (Theodore). l1 iTp. The Hebrew Text and a Parallel Latin Version of the Book of Solomon, called Eccle- siastes; divided into the Sections adopted by R. Moses l\Iendles- sohn, with a Literal Translation from the Rabbinic of his Com- mentary and Preface, and Original Notes, Philological and Exege- tical. Also a New and Improved English Version of the same, similarly arranged, with Introductory Analysis of the Sections; to which is prefixed a Prelimin81'y Dissertation on the scope and Author of the Book, and various writers of eminence, who have quoted or illustrated it. 8vo. cloth, 15s. Robinson (Professor). The Character of 8t Paul the Model of the Christian l\1inistry. Four Sel'mons preached before the University ofCambIidge in 1840. 8vo.3s. Scholetìeld (Professor). Hints for an Improved Translation of the New Testament. Second edition, 8vo. 48. Scholetìeld (Professor). Scriptural Gronnds of Union, considered in Five Sermons preached before the University of Cambridge in 1840. Second edition, 8vo. 38. 6d. Sedgwick (Prof.). Disconr e on the Studies of the University of CambIidge. Fifth edition, with Additions. 8vo. cloth. 58. . Sruith (Rev. C.) Seven Letters on National Reli- gion. Addressed to the Rev. Henry Melvill, M.A. 8vo. 78. ()d. , Smyth (Pr f.) Evidences of Christianity. 12111U. cloth, 58. Tertullian. The Apo og-y. 'Vith English Notes and a Preface, intended as an Introduction to the study of Patris- tical and Ecclesiastical Latinity. By H. A. ,r OODHAl\l, A. f., Fel- low of Jesus College, Cambridge. 8vo. 88.6d. Thomas à Becket. Sanctus Thomas Cantuari- ensis, ed. J. A. GILES, LL.D. Eccles. Anglic. Presbyter, et College C. C. Oxon. olim Socius. 8 vols. 8vo. 4/. l(j. . Turton (Dean). The ROll1an Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist considered, in l'eply to Dr. Wïseman's Argument from ScIipture. 8vo.88. 6d. Turton (Dean). Observations on Dr. \Viselnan's Reply to Dr. Turton's Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist considered. 8vo. 48. Gd. oo J;. " . .. .. We"> 1 (; 'M(. A_ "a e:. PUBLISHED BY J. & J. J. DEIGHTON. 7 Turton (Dean). A Vindication of the Literary Character of Professor Porson from the Animadversions of Bishop Burgess, on 1 John v. 7. By CRITO CANTABRIGIENSIS. 8vo.118. Usher (Archbp.) Answer to a Jesuit. \Vith other Tracts on Popery. 8vo. 138. 6d. Sennons preached at J erusaJeIll in the years 1842 and 1843. By the Rev. GEORGE 'YILLIAIIIS, M.A., Fellow of King's College, Cambridge; sometime Chaplain to the late Bishop of the Anglican Church in that City. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 'Vilson (Rev. 'VU1.) An Illustration of the l\lethod of Explaining the New Testament by the eal'ly Opinions of the Jews and Christians concerning Christ. New Edition, 8vo.8s. eEO<ÞIAO ArrAll\.Al\;O , "H .ð.I A KAAIA .ð.IA THN NEOAAIAN TIEPI TH 'EKF\AH IA , KAI Tor 'ArrAIKor KAA.10Y AY'TH . 'Yrro Tor AI..lE IMOr KrpIOr XPI TOCÞO- por 'A'zIoAOrOY. CHRISTOPHER 'VORDSWORTH, D.D., Canon of Westminster. 1\IETA(ÞPA eEI A 'EK Tor 4.rrAIKOr, IIAPA TAl\IOr TPIK. KAAWTOY. 12mo. cloth, 6s. A Cat logue of English and Foreign "rheology and Ecclesiastical History; comprising the Holy Scriptures in various Languages, Liturgies, Fathers of the CbUl'cb, &c. Part 1, A to L. 8vo. Is. AllQwed to Purchasers. m ? m PrepæJ"ina for Publication. .. . Blunt (Rev. J. J.) Five Sermons preached before the University in November, 1845, to which are added, one preached on the day of the late general Fast. By the Rev. J. J. BLUNT, B.D., Margaret Professor of Divinity. Fullwood (F.) The Established Church; or a Sub- version of all the Romanists' Pleas for the Pope's Supremacy in England. By FRANCIS FULLWOOD, formerly of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and Archdeacon of Totness. This work, first published in 1673, and dedicated to Archbishop Sancroft, will serve the purposes of a text-book to the Student of the papal controversy; placing before him in a short and well digested form, nearly all the arguments of our best divines. . m J{b b D &'1 \ &OUN[V'i It W[ u.- '11 3 . . r;: .> #i:t >' 1 : j I . JE .=t Ë:I I 4 J J : I .- f: { "þ t:tk ':: '. t -> " , " . , t- : r 10. , t' þ. . :. ::: :.. ,'. ,.If of':": : ; ". .' -'. "tt;t, .....".;1- :1 .