CHAP. I. An Introduction, the danger, and sin of Schisme.

§. 1 Two concern­ments of al Christians.TWO wishes rather then hopes there are, wherein all Christians are very much concerned; First, That all that have given up their names to that holy profession, would sincerely betake themselves to the discharge of all those duties Practise of Christianity. (as well more common, one towards another,as more particular, of each single man toward God and toward him­self) which Christ came on purpose to plant in, or reduce into the world: The Second, Propagating of it. That the Faith of Christ might gain an amicable, universal [Page 2] reception in the hearts of all men over the whole world, and that all mankinde (by an uniform obedience to those divine precepts which are most agreeable to our rational, i. e. humane nature, and which are able to advance us to the highest pitch of moral excellency and dignity, that a­ny created substance is capable of) might attain the great end of our creation, a paradise, or blisful beeing here in this world, only with the mixture of some allayes to that blisse (and those necessary both to the ex­ercise of some most eminent virtues, and such as the Angels are not, for want of passible bodies, capable of, and also to the inhaunsing of our crown) and then a state of infinite re­ward, and uncompounded felicity here­after.

What is to be done toward the latter.§. 2. That the later of these may in Gods good time be effectually at­tempted by all Christian Kings, and Bishops, and advance more success­fully, then of late it hath done, ought to be the indevour of all those, whose eminencie in the world hath given them capacities, or qualifications to contribute some considerable degree [Page 3] of assistance to so glorious a work. And for others, whose inferiority of condition or sphere of motion, and the improbability, consequent to that, of advancing so magnificent a de­signe is their just excuse for not en­tertaining any such hopeless thoughts, it is yet their certain duty by con­stant, fervent prayers to solicite the good hand of God, who alone can ac­complish so divine a work, and by the diligent strict observance of all Christs precepts to exemplifie to all others the power, and real energie of the faith of Christ, where it is ad­mitted into the heart, thereby to at­tract all others to the imbracing of that, which hath such admirable vir­tues in it.

§. 3. The chief bran­ches of the for­mer, considered in society.As for the former, That is (in proportion to his condition) the known duty of every single Christi­an, much more of every congregation, and community of such; who are therefore associated into one body, that each supplying the defects, and infirmities of others, they may by so advantagious an instrument, as union of forces is, be enabled to doe what without it they are justly suppose­able [Page 4] to want means, or strength to doe, and so are deprived of all excuse, if they be found culpable.

§. 4. In this kinde 1.Charity. The duty of Charity, and peace to all: 2.Obedience. of rea­dy, and filial obedience of those under authority to their lawful authorized superiours: and 3. Paternal exer­cise of Eccle­siastical power.of charitative pa­ternal exercise of their power, in all those that are invested with it by Christ, may be justly looked on as virtues of the first magnitude, which have the most lively characters, and impresses of the Law-giver, Christ's image, and superscription upon them, & accordingly deserve the first fruits of our care and diligence that they be most diligently conserved, where they are, and industriously reduced, where by the malignity, or infelicity of the times, they are torn, or escaped from us.

The contrarie­ty of Schisme to the Doctrine of Christ.§. 5. For that malices, and ran­cors, and animosities among single Christians, but especially seditious, mutinous spirits, that divisions, and schismes, and ruptures, and prepara­tive thereto, causless anathematizing, and tyrannizing over the Faith of Christ's flock, are most scandalously [Page 5] contrary to Christ's platform, to the prophecie of the plough-shares, and the pruning-hooks, the happy ex­change for the sanguinary, hostile in­struments, is a truth so eminently, and signally visible in the practise, and doctrine of Christ, and his A­postles, that it cannot be doubted, or questioned on either side. And a­greeably, there is no one vice, which hath fallen under so much of the dis­pleasure, and correption, and severest discipline of the holy Fathers of the Antient Church, as this of Schisme, and the ingredients, and preparatives to it have done.

§. 6.The Fathers Censures of it. It is but a small part of the character thereof, that from S. Paul, and S. Jude they tell us, that it is a special piece of 1 Cor. 3.4. Jude 19. See Fulgentius ad Mon: l 2. carnality; an Quisquis in Ecclesiâ gra­tiam consecutus, ab Ecclesiâ exierit, reus sibi futurus est, i. e. ipse sibi quod pereat imputaturus; Quod Apostolus explanat, docens haereticum vitandum esse, ut à semetipso damnatū Cypr: Ep: 76. Poenas quas meruerant pependerunt, ut à nobis non ejecti ultro se ejecerent, de ecclesiâ sponte se pellerent, Ep: 40. Quomodo te à tot gregibus scidisti? Exscidisti enim teipsum. Firmilian: ad Cypr: Ep: 75. excommunicating and condemn­ing, i. e. voluntary inflicting of that punishment on ones self, which the Governours of the Church use to in­flict [Page 6] on the most scandalous sinners; that ^(a) they that so divide on their own presumption, may not at their own will return to the Church, and communicate again with the Bishop, and his Christian people; that ^(b) it is contrary to the Faith, ^(c) even when it hath not, in respect of doctri­nal points, any heresie joyned with it; ^(d) Contrary to charity, yea to all the ^(e) advantages that belong to [Page 7] a member of the Church, the ^(f) be­nefits of prayers and sacraments; that it is ^(g) as bad as heresie; that ^(h) there was never any heresie in the Church, which was not founded in it; and ⁽ⁱ⁾ that it is constantly forced, in its own defence, to conclude in some heresie or other (all of which being put together will be sufficient to keep men from being in love with the guilt, or company of schismaticks) but it is farther branded with these superadditions of terror, that ^(k) there [Page 8] is scarce any crime so grear as schism, not ^(l) idolatry, ^(m) sacrilege, parri­cide; that it hath been under pecu­liar marks of Gods indignation, in the story of the Jewish Church, as in the ⁽ⁿ⁾ case of the ten Tribes, and of the ^(o) Samaritanes, who are ranked with the Gentiles, Mat. 10.5. ^(p) and so in the story of Core, &c. that it is the ^(q) Antichristianisme mentioned by [Page 9] Saint John, the ^(r) worshipping or ser­ving the Devil, and, in a word, so great a crime, that it is not ^(ſ) ex­piable by Martyrdome to him that continues in, and hath not repented, and returned from it.

§. 7.No excuse for it. Much more of this subject is every where to be met with in the Antient monuments, and nothing of alleviation to be had for any, who have not the Caeteri tan­tùm vel simpli­citate capti, ve [...] errore inducti, vel aliqua sal­lentis astutiae calliditate dece­pti, à fallaciae laqueis vos sol­vite, Cypr: de Unit: Eccl: excuse of involun­tary seduction, of error, or simplicity to plead for them, and the surest way to doe that effectually, to qua­lifie them for that plea, is to forsake their course, to get out of so dangerous a snare.

§. 8. Nay 'tis farther observable, how unsafe it hath been deemed by these, for Judicabit spiritalis & eo [...]s qui schisma o­perantur, qui propter modicas & quaslibet causas, magnum & gloriosum cor­pus Christi conscindunt, & dividunt, verè liquantes culicem, & camelum diglutientes, Irenae: l. 4. c. 62. light, and inconsiderable causes to break this unity, it being in their opinion very ^(x) hard, if not [Page 10] impossible to receive such an injury, or provocation from the Governours of the Church, as may make a ru­pture, or separation excusable. And for the Ʋniversal, or truly Catholick Church of Christ, it is not, in Si possunt aliqui (quod fie­ri non potest) habere causam justam quo com­munionem sepa­rent à communi­one Orbis terra­rum. Aug: Ep: 48. S. Augustine's opinion, possible that there should be any just cause for any to separate from it, nor conse­quently Apologie to be made for those, that on any, whether true, or pretended cause whatsoever, have really incurred this guilt.

§. 9. From these premises thus ac­knowledged and undeniable, the con­clusion follows irrefragably, that it is not the examination of the occa­sion, or cause, or motive of any mans schisme, that is worth the producing or heeding in this matter; The one thing that is of force, and moment, and, by consequence, pertinent to be inquired into, is the truth of the mat­ter of fact, whether this charge be sufficiently proved or confessed, i. e. whether he that is thus accused, stands really guilty of separation from the Church of Christ; And this will be a means of shortening our me­thod, and giving very moderate [Page 11] bounds to our ensuing discourse, which will now be regularly finished by making these two inquiries.

§. 10. The Parts of the ensuing Tract.1. What Schisme is, and how it may be most fitly branched.

§. 11. 2. What Evidences are pro­ducible against the Church of Eng­land, whereby it may be thought li­able to this guilt, and withall how it may be cleared from all force of those evidences.

§. 11. Which when we have done, we shall not from the office of Ad­vocates proceed to that of the Accu­ser, or Judge, but leave all others, that are under the same charge, to their proper tribunal, to stand or fall, as they shall appear able, or not able, upon firm grounds, to maintain, and vindicate their innocence.

CHAP. II. What Schisme is, together with some general considerations thereon.

§. 1. OUR first enquirie must be what Schism is, in the strict & proper notion (as ^(a) distinguished from Heresie, the ^(b) introducing of some false doctrine into the Church.) And herein there will be no diffi­culty the Origination, and universal use of the word, according and con­senting exactly, to give us the impor­tance of it.

The Original of the word Schism.§. 2. In the origination of it from [...], scindi, it signifies literally scissure, or division, which being a figurative, and withall a relative word, referring to some body, which is thus cut or divided, but that no natural, but political body, the Church, or Congregation of Christians, the li­teral notation of the word in the Ecclesiastical use, will be [...] [Page 13] [...], a division in or from the Ʋnity of the Church of Christ. Only the form & termination of the word must be farther noted, which being not [...] from the active [...],Reciprocal pas­sion noted by the word. but [...] from the passive [...], the use of such passives is observable, be­ing of the nature (and for want of conjugations, designed to supply the place) of the Hebrew Hithpa [...]l, and so noting reciprocal action or passion, where the passion is from, and on him­self, and is most fully expressed by the Latine Neutrals, which partake both of active and passive, but are strictly neither of them. This might be largely exemplified in the use of other words, but the advantage of the observation will not be propor­tionable to the length of such a di­version, being no more then this, that the distinct notion of the word [Schisme] is a voluntary dividing,Schisme a vo­luntary reces­sion. or, in the neutral expression, which the Fathers familiarly use, a separa­ting, or receding of any member from the unity of the body, i. e. the Church of Christ, and so that the scismatick is he that [...], Jude 19. divides himself from the Church of God, not that is cut off, or [Page 14] separated, he that ^(a) goes out, or ^(b) withdraws, or recedes of his own accord, not he that is cast out by the Governours of the Church. Excommuni­cation no Schisme.For what­ever blame, and vengeance may just­ly light on such, who are by the righ­teous, and charitative Censures of the Church, cut off from communion, in case they doe not by humiliation, con­fession, and reformation, and meet fruits of repentance, prepare and qua­lifie themselves for readmission to that Communion, yet certainly this punishment of Excommunication is very disparate and distant from the crime of schisme, the Judge, i. e. Bishop or Governour of the Church, being the only actor in the one, (and that ex officio, an act of duty in him, when duly executed) but in the other, the offender, or guilty person, who is therefore said to ^(c) accuse, to cast, to ^(d) condemn himself, throwing himselfe, by his voluntary recession [Page 15] from the Church, into that very con­dition, into which the adulterer, and obstinate offender is cast by the Cen­sures of it.

§. 3. This is so evident a truth, that this punishment, and so judicial act, of the Governour, cannot be the guilt of him that is punished, and though it be supposed to be founded in some offence, is not yet in any pro­priety of speech the offence it self, much lesse the sin of schisme, especi­ally when he is punished for heresie, or some other crime, and not for schisme, that I need not farther insist on it. Interpretative Excommuni­cation.Only, as beside the formal [...], there is also an interpretative excōmunication, when he that is not under the Censures of the Church, is yet refused admission, or reception un­to it, unlesse he will submit to such & such conditions, indispensably propo­sed to him, and because both in the one, and the other, in the formal, and in the interpretative excommunicati­on, the Governours, being men, may possibly erre, and consequently cen­sure, and excommunicate the innocent, and in like manner propose those conditions of communion which are [Page 16] not lawful for that man to submit unto,Continuance out of actual Communion, without Schisme. so it is possible in both cases, that the person excluded may be ab­solutely innocent, free not only from that of schisme, but from all other guilt, so that he which is excommu­nicated may not be obliged to regain the peace, nor he that is barred out, to force his passage into the commu­nion of the Church, and so both sorts of these, continuing out of the actual communion, neither the one nor the other be guilty of schisme in the least degree by so continuing.

Unjust excom­munication hurts no man.§. 4. He that is excommunicated unjustly, cannot be rendred crimi­nous by that misfortune, nor conclu­ded culpable by that argument, upon which he is supposed innocent. Our Saviour hath pronounced of the ana­themaes of the Jews, of their bitterest execrations, their [...], their sharpest censures, nay the [...], casting men out of the Sy­nagogue, falsly or unjustly, that it is to be looked on as a most auspicious token, a matter of the greatest re­joicing to them which fell under it, one of the principal ingredients in, and forerunners of their blisse (and [Page 17] accordingly the Apostles when they were thus cast out, and contumeliously used, went out of the Temple rejoicing that they were thought worthy to suffer shame for Christ's name) To which purpose is that of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople to Michael Metro­politan of Mitylene, Ep: 116. [...], &c. The excom­munication of the Jewish Sanhedrim sent out against Christ's disciples brought them so much neerer to their Lord and Master, and alien'd the Jews themselves, removed them so much far­ther from the kingdome of heaven, and so doth all unjust excommunication now unite us to the Apostles by this confor­mity with and participation of their sufferings. And I suppose the argu­ments, and testimonies produced by the Chancellour of Paris are (and, when they were first published, were so deemed by those of the Romish communion) unanswerable to this matter; And accordingly that of [Page 18] Thomas de Curselis in the Councel of Basil, that it was Papae à Christo dictum, Quic­quid ligaveris super terram, e­rit ligatum, non quicquid dixe­ris esse ligatum. Jacob: Angu­laris in Ep: ad Wesselum ap: Goldast: l. 1. p. 575. Which holds in the Interpreta­tive Excom­munication. said by Christ to the Pope, Whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth shall be bound, not whatsoever thou shalt affirm to be bound,] hath with it the evidence of undeniable truth, equally applicable to him and all Bishops in that and in all future ages.

§. 5. And then certainly what hath thus been said of the Formal, will with the same evidence be extended also to the Interpretative excommu­nication, whensoever the conditions of the communion contain in them any sinne, and so become as the former censures were supposed to be; For in that case certainly it is no act of Schisme from any Church, for any member to be, or to continue thus excluded from it. For how desireable, and valuable soever an intire, invio­late peace with all Christians, with all men, (together with the approbation of our willing, cheerful obedience, and submission of our judgments and practises, to our superiors) must for­ever be deemed by all true disciples of Christ, Yet must not the purchase of this treasure be attempted by the [Page 19] admission of any sin, any more then the glory of God might be projected by the Apostle's lie. The least trans­gression of God's Law must not be adventured on upon any the most Christian designe, or consideration; The peaceable living with all men, which is so often exhorted to▪ and in­culcated, is yet no farther recom­mended, then [...], and [...], if it be possible, and as much as in us lies, and that, we know, must be interpreted of a moral and leg [...] pos­sibility, by which we are pronounced able to doe that (and no more) which we can doe lawfully, and so when the Apostle 1 Thess 4.11. exhorts to the most earnest pursuit of this blis­ful state (this ease, and rest, and quiet from the labours, and toils and hell of the factious, turbulent spirit) it is in a style, which supposes this reserve, we must, saith he, [...], have an ambition, and emulation, and contention to live peaceably, and quietly, obliging us to use all means that would be allowed to the ambiti­ous person in his warmest pursuit, i. e. the utmost lawful, but not the lowest unlawful means.

[Page 20] M^r Knots Con­cession in this matter. c. 7. p. 471, 472.§. 6. In which matter it is remark­able what course hath been taken by the late author of Infidelity unmas­ked, in his discourse of the Schisme of Protestants, where having acknow­ledged how perfectly unlawful it is to dissemble, equivocate, or lie in the matters of faith— and withall urge­ing from all antiquity, that to for­sake the external communion of God's visible Church is the sin of schisme, he makes a shift to conclude (as a natu­ral consequence) from hence, that therefore the Church (I suppose he means, of Rome) is infallible, and not subject to errour, because otherwise men might forsake her communion— Where though the consequence be very strange, that we may forsake the Churches communion, in case she be fallible or subject to errour (for this supposes it lawful 1. to forsake the communion of any erroneous Church, which is much more then we would desire to be granted us, and 2. to forsake all that are fallible, though they be not actually in errour, which is in effect to forsake the communion of all but Saints, and Angels, and God in heaven, for they only have the [Page 21] privilege of impeccable and infalli­ble) yet it absolutely acknowledges that it would be lawful to separate from, and forsake the (even Ʋniver­sal) Church of Christ, in case, or on supposition that we could not be per­mitted to communicate with it, with­out lying, and dissembling, and equi­vocating in matters of faith, which he there acknowledgeth to be the denying God on earth.

§. 7. Now (to return to our pre­sent consideration) Severe condi­tions of some Churches Communion.Of this there is no question, but that, as it is said to be customary among the Kings of the Hunnes (as soon as they have any children, and so no need of their bre­threns assistance) to banish all their brethren out of their dominions, and not to admit them again without putting out their eyes, ( [...], saith Cin­namus, Hist: l. 1.) so it is possible (I wish it were not justly supposable) for a particular Church so to fence, and limit, to guard, and restrain their communion, to require such severe con­ditions of all whom they will admit, or tolerate within their Church, that [Page 22] some men cannot without putting out their eyes, or wilful acknowledgment of untruths, others without commit­ting sin against conscience, undergoe the conditions thus required, nor con­sequently be admitted to communion with it.Make Com­munion with them impos­sible. As in case any unsound or untrue position be entred into the Confession, or Catechisme of any Church, and all the members of that Communion be explicitly required to believe, Such are pre­scribing sub­scription of errors. and acknowledge the truth of every branch of that Confession, and so that confession be really the condition, and accordingly in the re­putation of men esteemed the tessera, or symbol of that communion, then he that shall enter this communion thus conditionated, must certainly either actually subscribe, or (which, as to the scandal of the action, is equiva­lent) be reasonably supposed to ac­knowledge that untruth; and if in some persons blameless ignorance may be supposed sufficient for the excu­sing, or alleviating that fault, yet 1. he that hath means of discovering that untruth, and criminously neglects to make use of those means, and 2. he that hath discovered the truth, and [Page 23] yet thus professeth himself to believe the contrary, will not be thus excu­sable; And it is not here sufficient to object the supposable levity of the error, or intellectual falsity, For how light, and inconsiderable (and ex­trinsecal to the foundation) soever the error be supposed to be, yet if there be obstinacy in continuing in it against light and conviction, or if there be falsness in professing, or sub­scribing, contrary to present perswa­sions, or scandal and ill example, temptation and snare to others, in seeming to doe so; these certainly are sins, and neither light nor inconsider­able, nor reconcileable with that fa­brick of Christian practise, which ought to be superstructed on that foundation.

§. 8.or Profession against Con­science. Nay if the errors be really on the other side, if the doctrines so pro­posed, as the condition of the commu­nion of any Church, be indeed agree­able to truth, but yet be really ap­prehended by him, to whom they are thus proposed, to be false, and disagreeable, it will even in that case be hard to affirm that that man may lawfully thus subscribe, contrary to [Page 24] his present perswasions; For though it be certain, that he that thus erres, be obliged to use all probable means to reform, and deposite his error, and, as long as he remains in it, is so farre guilty of sin, as he wants the excuse of invincible ignorance, and being ob­liged to charity and peace, as farre as it is possible, and in him lies, he can­not be freed from offending against that obligation, if he doe not commu­nicate with those, the condition of whose communion contains nothing really erroneous, or sinful; and so though such a man, on that side, be, or may be in several respects crimi­nous, yet it is as evident on the other side, that he that professes to believe, what he really doth not believe, that subscribes with his hand, what he re­jects in his heart, or that doth that which is under the scandal of doing so, is farre from being guiltless, he certainly offends against the precept of sincerity and veracity (yea and of charity to his brethren, in respect of the scandal) hath added hypocrisie to his error, and so which way soever he turns, he is sure to sin (the worst and most unhappy kinde of straight) he [Page 25] remains in error, and schisme on the one side, and by flying from that, he advances to lying and hypocrisie on the other, and the desire of avoiding one of these, cannot justifie the o­ther.

§. 9. This I say, in case the error be really on the mans, not on the Chur­ches side; But if (as in the case pro­posed) the errors be supposed to be wholly on the Churches side, and withall indispensably required to be subscribed by all, and so the conditi­ons of that communion being exacted of him, who cannot without sin un­dertake them, be to him really, and unexcusably unlawful, then certainly to that man in that case it is no crime not to communicate (when he is thus excluded from communicating) with that Church, but a crime, and a great one, thus (by testifying against the truth and his own conscience) to qua­lifie himself for that communion. The admission of such guilts as these, hy­pocrisie, and lying against conscience, and due grounds of conviction, is too high a price to be paid even for peace, or communion it self.

[Page 26]§. 10. A meek son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase, and when the fun­damentals of the Faith, and super­structures of Christian practise are not concerned in the concessions, he will cheerfully expresse his readiness to submit, or deposit his own judgment in reverence and deference to his su­periours in the Church where his lot is fallen. But when this proves unsuf­ficient, when peace with the brethren on earth will not be had at a cheaper rate then this of a voluntary offend­ing against our father which is in hea­ven; in this case, the Christian must be content to live without it, and though he would rejoice to sell all that he hath to purchase that jewel, yet his conscience, the health and peace of that (which is interrupted by every wilful sin) is a commodity, that must not be parted with, whatsoever the acquisition be, which is in his view and thus offers it self in exchange for it.

§. 11. Application to the Church of Rome; in relati­on to the pre­sent Church of England.The evidence of which is, I conceive, so demonstrative and irre­sistible, that it will be justly extended [Page 27] much farther then the present case of the Church of England gives me any temptation to extend it; For in case our Ancestors had unjustly and cri­minously made a separation from the Church of Rome (which it shall anon appear that they have not) and we their successors in that schisme should unfeignedly confess, and repent, and desire to reform that sin, and upright­ly discharge our conscience in neg­lecting no means, that patience, hu­mility, charity could suggest to us, in order to obtaining our reconcilia­tion, yet if that cannot be obtained by all these submissions, without that harder condition of renouncing, or professing, or seeming (in common re­putation of men) to renounce any part of Divine truth, or Christian practise, which we verily believe to be the truth, and our duty, it would not be our guilt, but only our un­happiness, that we were thus forced to continue in that separation. The reason is evident from the former grounds, we must not sin, that we may give glory to God (such is confes­sion, & fruits of repentance, Jos. 7.19.) a penitent thief must not lie, to enable [Page 28] himself to make restitution, nor the contrite schismatick commit any new sin (such certainly is hypocrisie, lying, professing contrary to present perswa­sion) to complete his repentance for the old.

§. 12. If this last be conceived (as it is not the present case of the Church of England, so) to be an im­possible, unsupposeable case, not only upon the Romanists grounds, who I presume will not acknowledge any such hard condition (as is the profes­sion of an untruth) to be required to any mans reconciliation, and read­mission to their communion, but upon this other score, because if any false profession be now required to our re­admission, the same was formerly re­quired to our continuance in their communion, and consequently our Ancestors departure then could not be supposed (as in this last fiction of case it is) a schismatical departure. I shall not need to give any more di­stinct answer to this, then 1. That we that acknowledge not the Church of Rome to be infallible, may be allowed to make a supposition, which is foun­ded in the possibility of her inserting [Page 29] some error in her Confessions, and ma­king the explicite acknowledgment of that the peremptory indispensable condition of her communion; 2. That it is possible also (though not by us pretended) that she should since that supposed departure of our Ancestors, introduce some new doctrines, and consequently some new errors, and those now be supposeable to lie in the way to our return, though they had no part (before their birth) in driving us from them; 3. That that may be by the Church of Rome per­mitted, and allowed to those that have alwaies remained in their com­munion, which to them that have de­parted, and either in their persons, or posterity, desire to return to it, will not be permitted by them; It being more ordinary to indulge liberties to sons, that have alwaies continued in the family, then to grant them to of­fenders, and suppliants, that expect favours, and graces, and restauration to privileges; 4. That those which have had their education out of the Communion of the Church of Rome, may very possibly & probably come to discern that, which in that com­munion [Page 30] would never have been (for want of representation) discerned by them, and consequently may observe some errors in her doctrine or practise, which their Ancestors at their very departure from them had not discer­ned, and then though those errors subscribed to by them, had the Leni­tive, or Antidote of blameless igno­rance, yet because those that now really discern that truth, which the Ancestors discerned not, cannot law­fully professe not to discern it, or pro­fesse against conscience to believe what they doe not believe, it is therefore necessarily consequent, that the re­turn of such to the peace of the Ro­man Church may by this means be rendred impossible though their An­cestors continuance there, lying un­der no such prejudice, their separa­tion were acknowledged unlawful.

CHAP. III. The several sorts of Schisme.

§. 1. THus much hath been neces­sarily premised for the true notion of Schisme, taken from the ori­gination of the word, as that includes, in the neuter sense, a recession, or de­parture, in the reciprocal, a separating, or dividing himself.

§. 2. It is now time to proceed and inquire how many sorts there are of this schisme in the Ecclesiasti­cal sense, or by how many waies the guilt of this sin of the flesh may be contracted.

§. 3. In which inquiry it will be first necessary to consider, wherein Ecclesiastical unity consists, viz: Unity Ecclesi­astical wherein it consists. in the preserving all those relations, wherein each member of the whole Church of Christ is concerned one to­wards another: These relations are either of subordination (paternal on one side, and filial on the other,) or of equality (fraternal. Unity of Mem­bers subordi­nate.) The unity of those members that are subordi­nate one to the other, consists in the constant due subjection, and obedience [Page 32] of all inferiors to all their lawful su­periors, and in due exercise of autho­rity in the superiors toward all com­mitted to their charge:Of fellow bre­thren. And the uni­ty of the fellow brethren in the per­formance of all mutual duties of ju­stice and charity toward one ano­ther.

§. 4. The former.Of the former sort is the [...], obedience to the Rulers of the Church, Heb. 13.17. and back again the [...], due feeding, i. e. governing the flock of God among them, 1 Pet. 5.2. And because there be (under the King or Emperor, or supreme power, to whom all are sub­ject in any his dominions) many pos­sible links in that subordination, Pa­triarchs, Metropolitans, Bishops, Pres­byters, Deacons, and the brethren, or congregation, the unity must be made up of the due subordination, and Christian i. e. charitative exercise of power in all these.

§. 5. The later.Of the later sort there are as many branches, as there are varie­ties of equalities. The brethren or be­lievers in every congregation, i. e. all beside the Governors of the Church (however unequal in other respects) [Page 33] are in this respect equalized, and comprehended all under the one title of [...] the younger, 1 Pet. 5.5. And this whether we respect all o­ther fellow-members of the same, or whether of any other congregation, whether Parish, or City, or Diocese, or Province, or Nation, of the West, of the East, of the whole Christian world, as farre as each member is qualified to exercise any fraternal duty toward them. So again the se­veral Deacons, or Presbyters of any Diocese, the several Bishops of any Province, the several Metropolitans of any Nation, the several Primates or Patriarchs one with another (as the several Apostles) over the whole world, are each of them to be looked on as equals to all others of the same sort; And proportionably (and to­gether with the Pastors) the flocks, the several communities, or congrega­tions of Christian men considered in complexo, the Parishes, Dioceses, Pro­vinces, Nations, Climes of the whole Christian world. And according to these so many equalities, there are, or ought to be so many sorts of unities, so many Relations of that mutual [Page 34] fraternal charity, which Christ came to plant in his Church.

§. 6. Communion.Having seen what the unity is (to which Communion superadds no more but the relation of external association, whether by assembling for the worship of God in the same place, where the matter is capable of it, or whether by letters communicatory, by which we may maintain external Communion with those which are most distant from us) It will be easie to discern what Schisme is, viz: the breach of that Ʋnity (and Commu­nion) and what be the sorts or species of it▪ either those that offend against the subordination which Christ hath by himself, and his Apostles setled in his Church, or those that offend a­gainst the mutual charity, which he left among his disciples.

§. 7. The branches of Schisme as it is an offence against Sub­ordination.For the first of these, those that offend against the due subordi­nation, they are possibly of as many sorts as there be distinct links in the subordination. As first those brethren or people, which reject the ministerie of the Deacons, or Presbyters in any thing wherein they are ordained, and appointed by the Bishop, (and as long [Page 35] as they continue in obedience to him) and of their own accord break off, and separate from them,Schism against the Deacons or Presbyters. refuse to live regularly under them, they are by the Antient Church of Christ adjud­ged and looked on as Schismaticks; So Ignatius the holy Bishop, (and A­postolical person) and Martyr of An­tioch, in Ep: ad Trall: admonishing them to beware of the poyson of sedu­cers, i. e. the Schismaticks of those times, he directs them this one way to doe it, [...]— [...], This ye shall doe, saith he, if ye be not puffed up, and if ye be not separated from God, from Christ, from the Bishop — He that continues within the sept is pure, He that doth ought without the Bishop and Presbyterie and Deacon, is not of a pure conscience, accounting all that live out of this obedience to be so far infected and defiled with schisme. So again in the former part of the same Epistle, [...] [Page 36] [...], Let all revere the Deacons as the ministers of Jesus Christ, and in like manner the Bishop as Jesus Christ the son of the Father, the Presbyters as the Senate of God and College of Apostles, without these it is not called a Church. Where every particular Church being administred by these, no man is farther deemed a member of the Church, then he lives regularly within this obedience: And the same is the importance of his ex­hortation to the Philippians, [...], Observe the Bishop, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons, intima­ting this to be the only way of pre­serving unity against schisme, as ap­pears by that which had gone before, [...]— [...], There is one altar (or sept) as there is one Bishop together with his Presbyters and Dea­cons, and the living in union with, obe­dience to these, is the only way to doe, whatsoever ye doe, according to the will [Page 37] of God. Where this subordination be­ing looked on, as that which is placed in the Church by God, it is both schisme and impiety not to continue regularly under it; And so in the inscription of that Epistle, [...], He salutes them in the blood of Christ, especially if they be at one with their Bishop, and the Presbyters with him, as also the Dea­cons designed by the appointment of Jesus Christ, looking upon all as Schismaticks, that were not so. Thus again in his Epistle to the Ephesians, he admonisheth them to obey the Bi­shop, and Presbyters [...] with an undivided minde, making the disobedience an act of schism or divisi­on in any; And so generally through­out all those Epistles.

§. 8. Against the Bishop.In like manner; if we ascend to the next higher link, that of the Bishop, to whom both Presbyters and Deacons, as well as the brethren, or people, are obliged to live in obedi­ence, the withdrawing or denying this obedience in any of these will cer­tainly [Page 38] fall under this guilt. So the same holy Ignatius in Ep: ad Smyr: [...], Let no man without the Bishop doe any of those things which belong to the Church. [...], Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude be, [...], he that doth any thing without the privity of the Bishop, serves the Devil; the title by which those foule Gnostick here­ticks and schismaticks (the [...], the troublers and dividers of the Church) were signified. So in the processe of that Epistle, having men­tioned obedience to their Bishop, as a necessary requisite to their sanctifi­cation, supposing the contrary to be an act of pollution, i. e. of the poyson of the schismaticks, and again admo­nishing them as of their duty ( [...]) to concurre with the sentence of their Bi­shop, he adds, that he that doth not so (expressed by not being within the altar or sept) [...], falls short of the bread of God, is an excommunicate person, being rendred [Page 39] such by this act of division from the Bishop. So in the Epistle to the Mag­nesians, speaking of those that act without the Bishop ( [...]) [...], saith he, [...], these seem not to him to be men of a good conscience (the phrase by which he oft expresses Schismaticks, whose minde and con­science was defiled by the poyson of the Gnosticks at that time) because they assembled not according to that order and establishment which was set­led in the Church. And again, as Christ did nothing without his Father ( [...]) being united to him, or all one with his Father, [...]— so neither must ye doe any thing without the Bishop, [...], but assemble toge­ther and have but one prayer common to you all, where the living out of this regular obedience to the Bishop, is the contrary to union and commu­nion, and so is formally schisme. And to the Philadelphians, [...], as many as are God's and Christ's, are with the Bishop, excluding them from [Page 40] the unity of Christ's body who are thus separated from the Bishop; And in the same Epistle speaking of the repentance of schismaticks, and here­ticks, and God's pardon offered to such, the [...]. condition of that pardon, and [...] of the syncerity of that repentance, is, [...], if they return to the unity of God and senate of the Bishop. So frequently in S. Cy­prian, the schisme especially of the five Presbyters of Faelicissimus his fa­ction, Ep: 40. appears to consist in their disobedience to, and breaking off from their Contra Episco­patum meum &c. Ep. 40. Hi tribuebant, ne concordarent cum Episcopo suo-Ibid. contra sacerdo­tium Dei partio­nem ruptae fra­ternitatis arma­re voluisse. proper Bishop, and caus­ing others to doe so; and De Ʋnit: Eccl: the Schismatick is described to be filius impius qui contemptis Episco­pis & Dei sacerdotibus derelictis con­stituere audet aliud altare, an impious son, which having contemned the Bi­shops, and (which is all one) forsaken the Priests of God, dares constitute an­other altar; and Ep: 76. qui schisma faciunt & relicto Episcopo alium sibi foris Pseudo-episcopum constituunt, the schismaticks are they that having left their Bishop set up for themselves a­broad another false Bishop, and all their [Page 41] adherents are involved in the same guilt, qui se schismaticis contra Prae­positos & sacerdotes irreligiosâ teme­ritate miscuerunt, who joyn with the schismaticks against their Bishops, and Ep: 65. Hi sunt conatus schismatico­rum— ut sibi placeant, ut Praepositum superbo tumore contemnant, These are the endevours of schismaticks, that they may please themselves, and proudly con­temn their Bishop, and Ep: 69. Ʋnum scire debes— si quis cum Episcopo non sit, in Ecclesiâ non esse, One thing you are to know that he that is not with the Bishop, is not in the Church, the Church being there by him defined plebs sacerdoti adunata & Pastori suo grex adhaerens, the people united to the Bishop, and the flock to their Pastor.

§. 9.This of a ligh­ter & a grosser sort. And as this disobedience may be of two sorts, either of a lower, or of a higher kinde, the denying obedi­ence in any particular lawful com­mand of the superior, or the casting off all obedience together, dethroning them, or setting up our selves either in their steads, or in opposition to them (the first parallel to the contumacy of the Levites, the sons of Eliab, Num. 16.12, 14. which said, We will not [Page 42] come up, the second to their rebellion, levelling and equalling themselves to Moses and Aaron v. 3. [...] and both together subjecting them first to that curse, of Gods, not accepting their sacrifice, v. 15. and then to that sud­den exemplary destruction, v. 31.) so will the Schisme be also a lighter, and a grosser separation, a defection from the Bishop, and a rebellion against him, the former ordinarily called [...] Schisme, the latter [...] Sedition, the latter adding very much to the guilt of the former, and uncapable of the alleviating excuses of ignorance or mistake (in thinking the commands unlawful, and consequently the obe­dience) which may be pretended in the former.

§. 10. Against the Metropolitan.From this of Bishops we may further ascend to the higher dig­nity, and authority of Metropolitanes, over Bishops themselves, which what it is, will be fit to be examined a while.

§. 11. The original of Metropoli­tans. In Titus.And the first rise may be ta­ken from Scripture it self, where the Commission which is given to Titus by S. Paul, to ordain Elders, Tit. 1.5. (that is Bishops v. 7.) in every city [Page 43] of Crete, demonstrates him to have had Metropolitical authority bestow­ed on him; so saith S. Chrysostome (on Tit. 1. Hom. 1.) of Titus, [...]. If he had not been an approved person, in whom the Apostle had perfect confidence, he would never have committed a whole Island to him, never have appointed him to perfect what he had left imper­fect, never have intrusted to him the jurisdiction over so many Bishops: And Theodoret in Arg. Ep. ad Tit. That Titus was ordained by S. Paul, [...], to ordain Bishops un­der him for the governing of that whole Province, being a very great one; and Eccl. Hist. l. 3. [...]. Eusebius [...], That Titus had the inspection of all the Churches in Crete, of which that there was an hundred in number, and Gortyna the Metropolis of them all, appears by Dionysius bishop of Corinth about the year of Christ 175. who inscribes an Epistle [...] [Page 44] [...], to the Church about Gorty­na, together with the rest of the Dio­ceses in Crete, of all which he men­tions and commends Philip their Bishop, i. e. the Metropolitan, under whom they all were, as appears by Eusebius l. 4. c. [...].

§. 12. In Timothy.What hath been thus said of Titus, is with the same evidence of the Text affirmable of Timothy, when being placed by S. Paul at E­phesus the chief Metropolis of Asia; he had by that means the inspection of all the Bishops there, and conse­quently is directed both for the or­daining (1 Tim. 3.2.) and exercising jurisdiction over them c. 5.1.19. and so saith S. Chrysostome, Hom. 15. in 1. Tim. 5.15. [...]. Tis manifest that Timothy was in­trusted with more Churches then one, even with a whole nation, that of Asia, and therefore S. Paul discourses to him of Elders or Bishops, Photii lib. num. 254. So the Anony­mus writer of the Martyrdome of Timothy [...] [Page 45] [...]. The Apostle Timothy is ordained by S. Paul, and enthroned Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus, and accord­ingly is by Theodoret styled [...] the Apostle, i. e. chief ruler or Bishop of the Asiaticks;Eccl. hist. l. [...] and by Eusebius, [...] Bishop of the Province about Ephe­sus.

§. 13.In James, &c. The same might be shew'd of James Bishop of Jerusalem, who by that means was evidently Metro­politane of all the cities of all Judea, And even of Syria and Cilicia also, if we may argue concludently from the sending of that Canon to those regions, Act. 15.23. It is likewise the affirmation of Agrippa (in Philo) of Jerusalem, [...], that it was the Me­tropolis, not only of one region Judea, but of many more, because of the Co­lonies it had sent out, naming [...], Syria and Cilicia among others. And thereto agrees again (as far as Syria) what we find in the letters of Commission, which Saul had received from the Sanhedrim at Je­rusalem ▪ [Page 46] to the Synagogues of Dama­scus, a city of Syria, as being suppo­sed under that Metropolis of Judea, Act. 9.1, 2. And accordingly after the destruction of Jerusalem, Tibe­rias had this privilege, as appears both by the Imperial Code, tit. de Jud. & Caelic. and by Epiphanius, in the heresie of the Ebionites, who re­fers all Syria and Cilicia to that Me­tropolis, in the same manner as the Synagogues in Assyria and Media to the Sanhedrim in Bagdat, and in all Aegypt to that in Alexandria; But all this doth rather belong to the Jewish Form among themselves and the Jurisdiction of that Great San­hedrim over their colonies thus far diffused, and is not so appliable to the Christian Church at Jerusalem, it be­ing affirmed by Joseph. de bel. Jud. l. 3. c. [...]. that Antioch was Metropo­lis of all Syria, but this by the way.

§. 14. Thus Philippi appears to have been the Metropolis of one part of Macedonia (as Thessalonica ano­ther) [...], the prime city of a portion, or division, or province of Macedonia, Epist. 247. Act. 16.12. and is accordingly so styled by [Page 47] Photius the Patriarch of Constanti­nople [...] the city of Phi­lippi being a Metropolis of a Province of the Macedonians, and so Epaphro­ditus their Bishop in S. Pauls time (as [...]— Theod. in 1. Tim. 3.1. Theodoret and others resolve from his being called [...], their Apostle, Phil. 2.25.) had under him many Bishops, who are accord­ingly named in the plural Phil. 1.1. and all these subordinate to him as their Metropolitane.

§. 15. So of the seven churches of Asia, Rev. 2. and 3. it appears (what hath been elsewhere proved) that they were all Metropoles; Of Ephe­sus it hath been already clear, and S. Chrysostome is expresse,In Arg. Ep. ad Eph. [...], Ephesus is a Metropolis of Asia, and Theod. in Ep. ad Dioscor. [...], and in Photius, the Antient writer of the Martyrdome of Timo­thy (bib. num. 254.) saith of S. John ▪ that being returned from his banish­ment [...] he resided at the Metropolis of the Ephe­sians. And in Ʋlpian, L. Obser. D. de Offic. procons. the Proconsul under Antoninus being to go to [Page 48] Asia, was to touch upon [...], Ephesus one and the chief of the Metropoles of Asia: and ac­cordingly Act. 19.38. it is said of that city, [...], the Proconsuls were there, and the Assises, as in the chief city of that Province, Eccl. hist. l. 4. c. [...]. and in Eusebius, Antoninus Pius his Epistle concerning the Chri­stians is said to have been read and proclaimed at Ephesus [...] in the common councel or conses­sus of Asia, Or. ad Afiat. and in Aristides it is sty­led [...] the common Magazine of Asia, [...], whither they applied themselves for all their wants. All which are evi­dences that it was a Metropolis (and the chief) of Asia.

§. 16. Geogr. l. 5. c. 2. Act. 5.So of Thyatira, saith Pto­lomee, [...] that it was a Metropolis. Of Philadelphia the Councel of Constantinople Sub Menâ [...] the Bishop of the Metropolis of the Philadelphians of the Province of the Lydians, i. e. in this Lydian or Proconsular Asia. So Laodicea, Sardis, and Smyrna (to­gether with Ephesus) are set down [Page 49] by Plinie as cities in which the Ro­man Proconsuls kept their Assises, Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 29. and dispensed justice to all the neigh­bouring cities, which is the character of a Metropolis in the civil notion,Ibid. c. 30. and the same he also affirms else­where of Pergamus: And thus the whole number of the seven Churches appear each of them, to have been Metropoles, [...] Steph. Byzant. [...]. and accordingly by Ig­natius his Epistles to the Trallians and Magnesians, (the Christians of two neighbour cities of Lydia on the Banks of Meander, and so of this Asia) and by the mention of their Bi­shops Damas and Polybius, it is evi­dent that there were other Episcopal Sees in that Asia, beside those seven named in the Revelation, and those afterward appear to have been sub­ject to the Metropolis of Ephesus, which alone of all the seven conti­nued till Constantin's time, the rest being destroyed.

§. 17. From these manifest foot­steps of Metropolitical power in Scripture, it is easie to descend through the first times, and find the like;In Ignatius. As when Ignatius the Arch­bishop of Antioch (the Primitive [Page 50] Martyr) in his Epistle to the Ro­mans styleth himself [...], Pastor of the Church which was in Syria, that whole region belonging then to that Metropolis of Antioch: Agreeable to which is that of the author of the Epistle to the Antiocheni (whosoever it was) inscribing it [...], to the Church of God in Syria, that belongs as a Province to that of Antioch: In the Bishop of Rome. (what his Province.) So the Epistle to the Romans is inscribed [...] to the Church which hath the Presidencie in the place of the Re­gion or Province of the Romans, which gives the Bishop of Rome a Metropo­litical power over all other the Bi­shops of that Province, the Ʋrbicari­an region, as it was styled, and [...]. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. [...]. Syn. Sardic. Epist. ad Alex. ap. Athan. Apol. 2. [...]. Athan. Epist. ad solit. vit. agent. Ex Provinciâ Italiae, civ. Med ex Prov. Romanâ, Ci­vitate Portuensi. Syn. Arelat. 1. in nominibus Synodo praefixis. di­stinguished from the Province of Italy properly so called, confined to the seven Provinces of the civil jurisdi­ction of the Vicarius Italiae, and the [Page 51] Ecclesiastical of the Archbishop of Milan the chief Metropolis thereof. Of the circuit or compasse of this Province of the Bishop of Rome, ma­ny learned men have discoursed ex­cellently out of the Antient Sur­veys of the Provinces, particularly that very learned Frenchman so rare­ly skilled, and judicious in Antiquity, Jacobus Leschaserius, in his little tract de Region. Suburbic ▪ but none with more evidence of conviction, then our Modest countreyman M^r Brerewood, who thus describes the antient jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, ‘that it contained all those Pro­vinces of the Diocese of Italy, which the old Lawyers term Suburbicarias, of which there were ten, three Islands, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, and the other seven in the firm land of I­taly, taking up in a manner all the narrow part of it, viz. all Italy Eastward, but on the West no farther extended then to the River Magra (the limit of Tuscanie) toward the Tyrrhene sea, and to the River Esino (antiently Asius) toward the Adri­atick Sea.’ For at that River Esi­no met both the Picenum, Suburbi­carium, [Page 52] and Annonarium, the former of which belonged to the Prefecture of Rome, of which that city was the Metropolis, And the later, with all the other Provinces in the broader part of Italy (seven of them in all) to the Diocese of Italy, of which Milan was the Metropolis. Hist. Eccl. l. 1· c. 6. Thus Ruffinus in his Paraphrase rather then translation of the Nicene Canon saith, that the Bishop of Rome was thereby authorized Suburbicariarum Ecclesi­arum Sollicitudinem gerere, to take and manage the care of the suburbica­rian Churches; and there is no rea­son to doubt but that he that lived so neer after that Councel, and was of Italy, knew competently what he affirmed of that matter. And it being evident that in all other pla­ces the Ecclesiastical jurisdictions were proportioned to the temporal of the Lieutenants, and that the Sub­urbicarian region, and the so many and no more provinces in them, per­tain'd to the Praefecture of the city of Rome, It must follow that these were the limits of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of that Bishop also. But this by the way, in passing.

[Page 53]§. 18.In Alexandria. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. [...]. So when of S. Mark it is affirm'd out of the anc [...]ent records by Eusebius, that he [...], first consti­tuted Churches (in the plural) in A­lexandria, and under the title of [...], the Province of Alexandria, put them all into the hands of Anianus in the 8^th of Nero, Ibid. c. [...]. it is evident that Alexandria was a Metropolitical, or Patriarchal See to which all Aegypt did be­long.

§. 19.In S. Cyprian. So S. Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage, to which the whole Pro­vince of Africk pertained, is by the Councel of Constantinople in Trullo, Can. 2. called [...], the Archbishop of the Region of Africk, And according­ly he often mentions the many Bi­shops in his Province, Ʋniversis vel in nostrâ Provinciâ — to all the Bi­shops in our Province—Ep. 40. And Latiùs fusa est nostra Provincia, ha­bet etiam Numidiam & Mauritanias duas sibi cohaerentes. Our Province is extended farther, hath Numidia and the two Mauritania's annexed to it, Ep. 45. in each of which there be­ing [Page 54] a Church and consequently a Bi­shop in every city (as [...] Act. 14.23. is all one with [...] in every city Act. 16.4.) they were all subject to this Metropolitane.

§. 20. The subjection of Bishops to Archbishops.By all this, and much more which might be added, it is manifest, that as the several Bishops had Prae­fecture over their several Churches, and the Presbyters▪ Deacons, and people under them, such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schisme, So the Bi­shops themselves of the ordinary, in­ferior cities (for the preserving of unity, and many other good uses) were subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropolitanes.

§. 21. Of Archbi­shops to Pri­mates, &c.Nay we must yet ascend one degree higher from this of Arch-Bishops or Metropolitanes, to that su­preme of Primates or Patriarchs, the division of which is thus cleared in the division and Notitia of the Ro­man Empire. (Original of Primates.) Constantine the Great instituted four Praefecti Praetorio, two in the East, as many in the West; Of the Western, one at Rome, another at Triers, this last then called Prae­fectus Praetorio Galliarum. These [Page 55] Praefects had their several Vicarii, who in their power, and name judg­ed the Provinces, As for example, The Praefectus Praetorio placed at Triers had three Vicarii, or Lieute­nants, one placed at Triers, a second at Lions, a third at Vienna, from the greatnesse of whose authority, and the resort of all other cities and Pro­vinces to them for justice sprang the splendor, and dignity of those cities where they resided, and the depen­dence of large Provinces and many other cities on each of them. This whole circuit which was thus subject to, or dependent on any such Lieu­tenant, was by the Greeks called [...], and the style devolving from the civil to the Ec­clesiastical divisions, as the former both of cities, and of Territories, and of Metropoles or Mother cities (the chief in every Province) had done the Bishop being answerable to the Defensor civitatis, and the Archbi­shop to the Praesident in every Pro­vince, from thence it came that eve­ry such Metropolis which was the seat of any Vicarius or Lieutenant General, was (over and above [...] [Page 56] [...]) called [...] and [...], and the Bishop thereof Primas, [...], Patriarcha, a Primate, Exarch, or Patriarch, and all that [...] (which is larger then a Province, the joynt administration of many Pro­vinces, with the several Metropoles, and Metroplitanes contained in it) was subjected to him.Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. [...]. Thus S. Ire­naeus being Bishop of Lyons, is by Eusebius affirm'd [...], to have the over sight or Government of the Provinces of France, either those only that were under that Primate, or perhaps of all France, Ibid. c. d. of which Lyons was then in the Ecclesiastical account the first Exarchate; for so saith the same Eu­sebius, [...], Lyons, and Vienna (but first Lyons) were famously known to be beyond all others in those parts, the principal Metropoles of France. And again [...], these were the most splendid illu­strious Churches there. To which first times I conceive belongs that verse of Guilielmus Brito in Philippeide. [Page 57] Et Lugdunensis, quo Gallia tota solebat, Ʋt fama est, Primate regi— placing all France under the Primate of Lyons, or affirming it from tradi­tion (ut fama est) that it was wont antiently to be so placed, which was not well understood or taken notice of by the learned Jos. Scaliger, In Notit. Galliae p. 8 [...]2. when he affirms it nuperum & novitium, & ex beneficio Romani Pontificis indul­tum, a privilege lately granted to the Bishop of Lyons by the Pope, quod Pri­matem sese vocari gaudeat, that he calls himself Primate, which privilege, if not title, did so long since belong to Irenaeus the Bishop of that Diocese.

§. 22. I shall not need inlarge on this subject, or set down the several Primates and Dioceses belonging to them. It is known in the ancient no­titiae of the Church, that beside the three Patriarchs of Rome, Alexan­dria, and Antioch (to which title af­terward Constantinople, and Jerusa­lem were advanced) there were ele­ven Primates more, there being fourteen Dioceses, or joynt administra­tions of many Provinces (for so the word anciently signified, not in the modern sense of it, one city and the [Page 58] territory, The Primates power equal to that of the Patriarch. the jurisdiction of an ordi­nary Bishop, for which they then used [...]) seven in the East, and the Praefecture of the city of Rome, and six more in the West, into which the whole Empire was divided. And though the Patriarchs had in Coun­cels the praecedence, or deference in respect of place, either because these three cities had the honour to dis­perse Christianity in a most eminent manner to other cities, and nations, or from the great dignity of the cities themselves, ( [...]. Concil. Chalced. Can penult. Rome being the seat and first city of the Empire, and thereupon thus dignified saith the Councel of Chalcedon: and Alexan­dria by Or. 32. ad Alexandrin. see Aristid. Or. de Rom. Laud. Dio Chrysostome, and others affirmed to be the second, and Antioch the third, saith Josephus) yet it is cer­tain that the power and jurisdiction of Primates, was as great as of Pa­triarchs, and the Office the same (see Anacle [...]us Epist. ad Episc. Ital. and Gratian Dist. 99.) and many times in Authors the very titles confound­ed, as appears by Justinian, who commonly gives Primates the names of Patriarchs of the Dioceses. And if it be now demanded whether [Page 59] there were not anciently some Sum­mum Genus, some one Supreme either of, or over these Patriarchs, I an­swer, that if we respect order, or pri­ority of place again, then the Bishop of Rome had it among the Patriarchs, as the Patriarchs among the Pri­mates, that city of Rome being Lady of the World, and the seat of the Empire; But if we respect power, And no power but of the Prince above them. or authority, there was none anciently in the Church over that of Primates, and Patriarchs, but only that of the Emperour in the whole Christian World (as of every Soveraign Prince in his Dominions) as may appear by the ancient power, and practice of congregating, or convoking of Coun­cels, Provincial by the Metropolitan, Patriarchal by the Patriarch, or Primate, National by the Prince, for the first 1000 years, through the whole West, and General by the [...]. Socrat. l. 5. Prooem. Ex Su­perioribus habetur Imperatores Sanctos congregationes Syno­dales Universalium Conciliorum totius Ecclesiae semper [...] ­cisse. Ita ego perlustrans gesta omnium Universalium usque ad octavum inclusivè Basiliitempore celebratum verum esse r [...]pe­ri. Cusan. de concord. Cathol l. 3. c. 16. and c. 13. See S. Hierom in Apol. ad Ruffin. l. 2. where speaking of a pretended Synod, he adds, Quis Imperator hanc Synodum jusserit congregari? [Page 60] Emperor, when for the conserving the unity, or taking care for the ne­cessities of the Church, those last re­medies appeared seasonable. But this of General Councels being extra­ordinary, and such as the Church was without them for the first three hund­red yeers, and are now morally im­possible to be had, we need not far­ther to ascend to these, but content our selves with those standing powers in the Church, the uppermost of which are Archbishops, Primates, and Patriarchs, to whom the Bishops themselves are in many things ap­pointed to be subject, and this power, and subjection, defined, and asserted, by the Ancient Canons, The Primitive Power of Pri­mates &c. and the most ancient, even immemorial Apostolical tradition, and Custome, avouched for it, as may appear Concil. Nicen. 1. Can. 4.6. Concil. Antioch. c. 9.20. Concil. Chalced. C. 19. In the Sixt Ni­cene Canon, where the jurisdiction of all Aegypt, Lybia and Pentapolis is affirmed to belong to the Patriarch of Alexandria, and order is taken that the [...] or privileges of e­minency which belong to the Bishop of Rome, of Antioch, and Metropo­litanes [Page 61] of all other Provinces, shall be conserved intire to them, the In­troduction is made in these words, [...] Let the Ancient customes be in force, The very form which S. Ignatius useth concerning Apostolical customes which were to be solicitously retained in the Church, and seems there particularly to re­fer to those orders, which S. Mark had left in Aegypt, Lybia, and Penta­polis, subjecting all the Bishops there to the Patriarch by him constituted in Alexandria.

§. 23. So in the 9^th Canon of the Councel of Antioch, where [...], the Bishop presiding in the Metropolis, is ap­pointed [...] to undertake the care of the whole Province ▪ (and all the inferior cities, and Bishops in them) and the Bishops commanded [...], it is straight added [...], according to the ancient Canon of the Fathers, which hath continued in force (from the first times also un­to that Councel) Where if it be de­manded what is the importance of [Page 62] [...], I conceive the word to be best explained by Hesychius, [...] (it should doubtlesse be [...]) and so the meaning of the Canon to be, agree­ably to the expresse words of other Canons, that as any ordinary Bishop hath full power in his own Church, which he may in all things, wherein that alone is concerned, exercise in­dependently from the commands or directions of any, So in any thing of a more forein nature, wherein any other Church is concerned equal­ly with that, and so falls not under the sole cognizance or judgement of either, there the Bishop of that Church is to do nothing without di­rections from the Metropolitane, and that is the meaning of [...], as that is all one with [...] — that no Bishop must do any thing but what belongs particularly to him ratione officii (any thing that another is con­cerned in, as well as he) without the Metropolitane.

§. 24. Act. 15 Can. 9.So in the Councel of Chal­cedon the direction is given for ap­peals in this order, from the Bishop to the Metropolitane, from the Me­tropolitane [Page 63] to the [...] or Primate of the Diocese or Province, as where there are more Metropolitanes then one (as was shewed of Ephesus in Asia, [...]. Ulp. Obser. D. de Offic. Procons. and elsewhere frequently) there some one is Primate or Patri­arch among them, and to him lyes the appeal in the last resort, and from him to no other, see Justinian Novel. 123. c. 22. and Cod. l. 1. tit. 4. leg. 29. who speaking of this calls it an an­cient decree.

§. 25. That which we find in the eighth Canon of the Great Councel of Ephesus, shall conclude this matter, when upon some claim of the Patri­arch of Antioch for an interest in the ordaining of the Patriarch of Cyprus, the Bishops of Cyprus deny his claim, and deduce their privilege of [...] or independence from any forein Bishop, from the very Apostles times, A sanctis Apostolis, say they, nunquam possunt ostendere, quòd adfuerit Antiochenus & ordinaverit, vel communicaverit unquam insulae ordinationis gratiam, neque alius quis­quam, From the very Apostles times they can never shew that the Patriarch of Antioch or any other was present [Page 64] and ordained, or (being absent) sent the grace of ordination to this Island, but that the Bishops of Constantia, the Metropolis of that Island, by name Troilus, Sabinus, and Epiphanius, and all the orthodox Bishops from the A­postles times, ab his qui in Cypro con­stituti sunt, have been constituted and ordained by their own Bishops of the Island, and accordingly they requi­red that they might continue in the same manner, Sicut initio à tempori­bus Apostolorum—permansit Cy­priorum Synodus, as they had done from the times of the very Apostles, still appealing [...], to the ancient manner, the ancient custome, the privileges, which from their first plantation they had enjoy­ed, and that from the Apostles them­selves: And accordingly that Coun­cel condemned the pretension of the Patriarch of Antioch, as that which was [...], an innovation against the Ecclesiastical Lawes and Canons of the holy Fathers, and orders not only in behalf of the Cypriots that the Bi­shops [Page 65] of their Churches [...]— shall continue to enjoy their right inviolate according to the ancient custome, but extended their sentence to all other Dioceses in these words, [...], The same shall be observed in all other Dioceses and Provinces wheresoever, that no Bishop shall lay hold of another Pro­vince, which hath not been formerly and from the beginning under their or their Ancestors power. And again [...]. This holy and Oecumenical Synod hath decreed, that the privileges and rights of every Pro­vince shall be conserved pure and invio­late, as they have enjoyed them from the beginning, according to the custome that hath anciently been in force. All deducing this power of Primates over their own Bishops (and together ex­cluding all forein pretenders) from [Page 66] the Apostles and first planters of the Churches, and requiring all to remain, as they were first thus constituted. Wherein as there be many things of useful observation, which will be more fitly appliable in the progresse of this discourse, so that which is alone pertinent to this place is only this, that there may be a disobedience, and irregularity, and so a Schisme, even in the Bishops in respect of their Metropolitanes, and of the authority which they have by Canon and Pri­mitive custome over them, which was therefore to be added to the several Species of Schisme set down in the former chapters.

CHAP. IV. The pretended evidences of the Roma­nist against the Church of England examined, and first that from the Bishop of Romes Supremacy by Christs donation to S. Peter.

§. 1. THE Scene being thus pre­pared, and the nature and sorts of Schisme defined and summa­rily enumerated, our method now [Page 67] leads us to inquire impartially, what evidences are producible against the Church of England, whereby it may be thought lyable to this guilt of Schisme, And these pretended evi­dences may be of several sorts, ac­cording to the several Species of this sort of Schisme described, and ac­knowledged by us.

§. 2.The first charge against us, Our casting out the Popes Supremacy. The first evidence that is offered against us is taken from a pre­sumed Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, as Successor to S. Peter, over all Churches in the world, which be­ing in the dayes of Henry VIII. re­nounced, and disclaimed, first by both Ʋniversities, and most of the great­est and famous Monasteries of this kingdome (in their negative answer and determination of this question, An aliquid Authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure com­petat plusquam alii cuiquam Episcopo extero? Whether the Pope of Rome have of right any authority in the Realme of England, more then any other forein Bishop hath) and that de­termination of theirs testified under their hands and scales, and after by Act of Convocation subscribed by [Page 68] the Bishops and Clergy, and confirm­ed by their corporal oaths, and at last the like imposed by Act of Parlia­ment, 35 Hen. VIII. c. 1. all this is looked on, and condemn'd, as an Act of Schisme in this Church and Nation, in renouncing that power of S. Peters Successors placed over all Christians by Christ.

§. 3. This objection against us consisting of many branches, every of which must be manifested or granted to have truth in it, or else the objection will be of no force, 1. the matter of fact, that thus it was in England; 2. the consequence of that fact, that it were Schisme, sup­posing these Successors of S. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ. 3. the matter of fact again, that S. Peters Successors were thus constituted Ʋniversal Pastors by Christ; This again of two branches, 1. that S. Peter was so constituted, 2. that the power instated on S. Pe­ter devolved on the Bishops of Rome; I shall endevour to expedite this matter by granting, and not requiring the pretenders farther to prove the two first branches, and leave the issue [Page 69] of the debate to their manifesting the truth, or our manifesting the falshood of (the last mentioned, but indeed) the principal fundamental part of the contention, as it consists of two branches, one as it respects S. Peter, the other as it respects his Successor in the See of Rome; where­in if the Romanists pretensions shall appear to have truth in them, we must be acknowledged by breaking off from our submission to that See, to be formally Schismaticks accord­ing to the grounds allready laid, and acknowledged by us; But on the other side, if their pretensions herein shall appear to be false ▪ or unsuffici­ently proved and manifested, there is no other branch of the argument, be it never so true, which can give the conclusion any authority with a­ny pondering rational man, it being in the power of any weak link to destroy the usefulnesse of the whole chain, and consequent to the false­nesse, or inevidence of any one pro­position, that the conclusion shall not be inferred by that arguing.

§. 4.The Suprema­cy of S. Peter examined. And first for the pretension as far as it respects S. Peter, and [Page 70] must be managed by evidences, and so concluded either on one side or the other, I shall begin with offering my evidences for the Negative.

§. 5 Evidences a­gainst it. First from his being Apostle of the Circum­cision peculi­arly.And first it is evident by Scripture, that this Apostle was the Apostle of the circumcision, or Jewes exclusively to the uncircumcision, or Gentiles, which were generally ano­thers Province; By Apostle here I understand a Commissioner of Christs, endued with authority by him, and this Commission given to him, as to all the other Apostles, indefinitely, and unlimitedly, not restrained by Christs words to any particular Province, but extending equally to the whole world; what therefore is done in this kind is by Subsequent act of the Apostles themselves, who are testified to have done that, which it had been very unskilful, and improvident, and con­sequently unreasonable not to have done, viz. distributed their Ʋniver­sal great Province inro several [...] Act. 1.25. distributions, or Lots, or lesser Provinces, one or more to goe one way, the other another, which is there called by S. Peter [...], to go to [Page 71] his own, or proper place, or assignation, for the witnessing the Resurrection, and proclaiming the faith or Doctrine of Christ to the world.

§. 6. Now if the circumcision, or Jewish Christians were peculiarly S. Peters Province, the lot, or divisi­on assigned unto him, (agreeable un­to which it is, that both his preaching in the Acts is to the Jewes in Judaea and Samaria, and his Epistles are both of them addressed to the Jewes of the dispersion, and none else) then it is not imaginable, how he should be the Ʋniversal, or Supreme Pastor, or Bishop of the whole world: For the Christians of that age of the world being either Jewes or Gentiles, the Jewes again either those that re­mained in their countrey, or those that were dispersed in other regions, there was but one portion of one of these, which can reasonably be placed un­der S. Peters Jurisdiction. The Jewes that were in Judaea were all immedi­ately subject to the several Bishops in each city, and all they to their Me­tropolitane, James the Bishop of Jeru­salem; Of this James the brother (or neer kinsman) of Christ, ma­ny [Page 72] ^a of the Ancients affirm, that he was by Christ after his resurrection constituted Bishop there; ^b others that it was done by Christ and his Apostles; ^c others the more ancient, that the Apostles constituted him in that See, Peter, James, and John, the three most honoured by Christ, confer­ring this honour upon him, whereupon in this his See he is named before Pe­ter and John, Gal. 2.9. and hath the Principal place in the Councel at Je­rusalem, where S. Peter is present, and accordingly gives the Sentence, Act. 15.19. upon which the Re­script [Page 73] is grounded, v. 22. From all which as it appeareth, that the Juris­diction in that Metropolis (which had extended very far among the Jewes, not only to all Judaea, but even to Syria and Cilicia and other regions, saith Agrippa in ^a Philo, as hath for­merly been mentioned) belonged to James the Just, and not to S. Peter, So it is as evident, that it was not by S. Peter alone intrusted to him (which might conclude some peculiar tran­scendent power of S. Peter there) but by S. James and S. John together with S. Peter, which quite takes off all pretension of his to the singular Supremacy there.

§. 7.The Gentiles were not S. Pe­ters Province. So again for the uncircum­cision or Gentile Christians, they were not S. Peter's Province but peculiarly S. Paul's (by S. Peter's own confes­sion and acknowledgment Gal. 2.7.) who is therefore styled the Apostle of the Gentiles, Rom. 11.13. and that without any commission received, or [Page 74] consequently dependence from S. Pe­ter, as he declares and contests it, Gal. 1.12.17. having his assignation immediately from Christ, v. 16. Ac­cordingly whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same city, the one constantly applied himself to the Jewes, received disciples of such, formed them into a Church, left them, when he departed that region, to be governed by some Bishop of his assignation: and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles.

§. 8. Thus we know it was at Antioch, where S. Peter converted the Jewes, and S. Paul the Gentiles (and certainly S. Paul no way Sub­ordinate, or dependent on him, as ap­pears by his behaviour toward him avowed, Gal. 2.11.) and acordingly in Ignatius his Epistle to the Mag­nesians we read of the Church of An­tioch, that it was [...] found­ed by S. Peter and S. Paul, not by one, or other, but by both, and in the ancient, if not Ignatian Epistle to the Antiochians, You, saith he, [...], have been the disciples of Peter and Paul, i. e. converted and ruled by them, [Page 75] the Jewish part by one, and the Gen­tile by the other, and the Church of the Gentiles at Antioch, and Syria (of which Antioch was the chief city) and Cilicia, is it, to which peculiar­ly the decrees of the Councel at Je­rusalem are sent, Act. 15.23. and in­scribed [ [...]— [...], To the brethren at Antioch—those of the Gentiles] and that separately from the Jewish Church in that city or region, as is evident both by the contents of that Rescript, or Decretal Epistle, in which only the Gentiles were con­cerned, v. 28, 29. and also by that which we read of S. Peter, and the Jewish proselytes, Gal. 2.11. that they withdrew from all communion and Society with the Gentile Christi­ans, upon which S. Paul reproved him publickly v. 12. According to this condition of disparate, not sub­ordinate Churches at Antioch, it is, that the writer of the Apostolical constitutions tells us, that Euodius and Ignatius at the same time sate Bishops of Antioch, one succeeding S. Peter, the other S. Paul, one in the Jewish, the other in the Gentile [Page 76] congregation, and so continued a while, till both the Churches (the wall of Separation being by compli­ance and Christian Charity removed) joined, and united together under Ignatius, who therefore as by Hom. 4. in Luc. Ori­gen and l. 2. c. [...]. Eusebius he is called the Second, so by S. Hierome is called the third Bishop of Antioch, and yet as truly by de Syn. Arim. & Seleuc. Athanasius [...] said to be consti­tuted Bishop after the Apostles, and by Ex com. Ignat. S. Chrysostome to the same pur­pose ( [...]—) that the blessed Apostles hands were laid upon him, whil'st yet Theodoret ( [...]) affirms him to have received the Ar­chisacerdotal honour from the hands of S. Peter.

§. 9. The same is as evident at Rome where these two great Apostles met again, and each of them erected and managed a Church, S. Peter of Jewes, S. Paul of Gentiles. So saith l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 4. c. 6. S. Irenaeus, [...] — the blessed Apostles found­ed and built the Church there; and l. 1. adv. Car­pocrat. Epiphanius more expressely, [...] [Page 77] [...], Peter and Paul were Apostles and Bishops in Rome: So the Inscription on their Tombes, which, saith l. 2. c. [...]. Eusebius, continued to his time, mentions them both as founders of that Church. So Gaius an Ecclesiastick writer of great antiquity, coaetaneous to Pope Zephyrynus, speaking of the monuments of S. Peter and S. Paul, calls them Euseb. Ibid. [...] the monuments of them that founded that Church.

§. 10. So Dionysius the Bishop of Corinth, who lived about 20 years after their death, affirms both of the Church of Rome and of Corinth, Euseb. Ibid. [...], that it was (each of them) the plantation of Peter and Paul; And De Prom. & Praedict: im­plend: c. 5. Prosper, Petrus & Paulus Apostoli in urbe Româ—Peter and Paul the Apostles consecrated or con­stituted a Church in the city of Rome. And the very Seales of Popes are an irrefragable evidence of the same, as they are set down by Mathew Pa­ris in the year of our Lord 1237. In bullâ Domini Papae, saith he, stat imago Pauli à dextris crucis in medio [Page 78] bullae figuratae, & Petri à sinistris; In the Bull of the Pope stands the image of S. Paul on the right hand of the Crosse, which is graven in the midst of the Seal, and the image of S. Peter on the left hand; and this only ac­count given for S. Pauls having the nobler place (Quia Paulus credidit in Christum quem non vidit, à dextris figuratur) because he believed on Christ without seeing him (here on earth) And all this very agreeable to the story of Scripture, which as (according to the brevity of the re­lations there made) it only sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the cir­cumcision (and of his being so at Rome we make no question) So it af­firms of S. Paul, that he preached at Rome in his own hired house, receiving them which came unto him, Act. 28.30. which will most fitly be applied to the Gentiles of that city, the Jewes having solemnly departed from him v. 29.

§. 11. Accordingly in Ignatius, Ep. ad Trall. we read of Linus and Clemens, that one was S. Paul's, the other S. Peter's Deacon, both which afterward succeeded them in the Epi­scopal [Page 79] chaire, Linus being constituted Bishop of the Gentile, Clemens of the Jewish Christians there; And hence growes (unquestionably) that variety, or difference observed among writers, some making S. Peter, others S. Paul the founder of that Church, but others (as hath been shewed) both of them; some making Clemens, others Linus the first Bishop after the Apostles, both affirmers speaking the truth, with this Scholion to interpret them: Linus was the first Bishop of the Gentile Christians, after S. Paul; Clemens the first of the Jewish after S. Peter; and after Linus his death, Cletus (or Anacletus) succeeding him, and dying also, both congregations were at length joyned in one, under Clemens; by which one clew I sup­pose it easie to extricate the Reader out of the mazes, into which the an­cient writers may lead him, in rehear­sing the first Bishops of Rome so very diversly, but this is not a place to in­sist on it.

§. 12. By all which it appears that even in those Churches, whereof S. Peter is acknowledged the founder, as that of Rome, and the like, yet he [Page 80] cannot be deemed the sole founder, but coequal to him S. Paul of the Gentile, as he of the Jewish Proselytes: and if the sole government of that Church be devolved to the original, it will be found to have begun in Clemens, in whom the union of the Jewish and Gentile congregations there was first made, and not in S. Peter.

§. 13. But then for another great part of the Christian world, it is ma­nifest that S. Peter had never to doe either mediately, or immediately in the planting, or governing of it, and consequently that from him that power can never descend to any o­ther. Not to mention the travailes and labours, and plantations of the other Apostles; which certainly had each their [...] and [...], and consequently their Provinces by Apo­stolical joynt consent assigned them Act. 1. (though that short History written by S. Luke, S. Paul's attend­ant, mention them not) I shall only insist on the beloved Disciple his fel­low-Apostle of the Circumcision, and that abundant Labourer S. Paul.

[Page 81]§. 14. Nor all the Circumcision.For S. John, who had the favour of Christ, and the dignity of place before all others in Christ's life time, even before S. Peter himself (which is the plain meaning of his style of the beloved Disciple, and of the [...] leaning on his breast at supper Joh. 21.20. his having the [...], the first place next to Christ, as being in Abrahams bosome plainly signifies being in dignity of place next to the father of the faithful) 'tis evident that he is one of those that by agreement went to the Circumci­sion, was assigned the Jewes Not the Jewes of Asia, for his Province, as well as S. Peter, and con­sequently he had the converting, and then governing of all the converted Jewes of that Lydian Asia, and pla­cing Bishops over them, as [...] — [...]. ap. Eu­seb. l. 3. c. [...] Clemens Alexandrinus, and [...] Ibid. Eusebius, and Joannes apud Ephesum Eccle­siā sacravit. De Prom. & Praed. impl. c. 5. Prosper, and others tell us; and the Phot. Bib. num. 254. Author of the Martyrdome of Timothy saith of him, that being re­turned from his banishment by Ner­va's decree, [...]—he placed his seat of re­sidence [Page 82] in Ephesus, and having seven Bishops with him he undertook the care of that Metropolis, that is in effect, or by interpretation, of all Asia, which was under that prime Metropolis, as far as extended to the Jewish Chri­stians there.

As neither the Gentiles there.§. 15. But then as before was said of the several Churches and Bi­shops in the same place, one of the dispersed Jewes, the other of Gentiles; so it is evident that through all this Asia (the Lydian or Proconsular) the faith was by S. Paul planted among the Gentile part, and by him S. Ti­mothy constituted Bishop there: and so saith S. Chrysostome, Hom. 5. in 1 Tim. 5.19. [...], a whole intire nation, that of Asia was in­trusted to him.

§. 16. Where I shall demand of any man of the Romish pretensions, or perswasion, what can be said, in any degree probably, for S. Peters Ʋni­versal Pastorship, whilst he lived, o­ver this Asia, whose seven Metropo­les (and sure there were inferior Churches, or Episcopal Sees under them) are so early famous, being ho­noured with Christs-Epistle to them [Page 83] in the Revelation; was S. Peter the supreme Pastor of these Churches? had he any, or did he ever exercise, or pretend any Jurisdiction over them? was not all the Jewish part of that Province ultimately under S. John? and the Gentile part under S. Paul, and S. Timothy constituted, and commissionated by him? Doth not S. Paul give him full instructions (and such as no other Apostle could countermand, or interpose in them) leaving no other appeal or place of application for farther directions, save only to himself, when he shall come to him, 1 Tim. 3.14, 15. Did not S. Paul by his own single power delegate that Province to him, and seat him there? (as appears by the [...], I exhorted or ap­pointed thee, when I went to Macedonia, 1 Tim. 1.3.) and may it not as rea­sonably be said that S. Peter was with him in his journey to Macedonia, as that he joyned with him in giving that Commission to Timothy?

§. 17.Nor in Crete, And so likewise of Titus in Crete, was he not by S. Paul pe­culiarly left in Crete, and constituted Primate there? Is it imaginable [Page 84] that under Christ there could be any head of that Church of that whole Island, save only S. Paul?

§. 18. Nor in Bri­tannie.The same may certainly be said of all the Gentile Churches in all other Islands, and parts of the world, and consequently in this of Britannie, wherein our present de­bate is terminated: And therefore if that of ^* Simeon Metaphrastes should be thought to have truth in it, that S. Peter was in Britannie some time and baptized many into the faith of Christ, and constituted Churches, ordaining Bishops and Pres­byters and Deacons in the 12. of Nero, in all reason it must be extend­ed no farther then S. Peters line, as he was the Apostle of the Circumci­sion, i. e. to the Jewes that might at that time be dispersed here, and so not prejudge the other more authentick relations, of Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes having planted the faith in this Island.

[Page 85]§. 19. This I suppose is one com­petent proof of the Negative, as it respects the person of S. Peter, that he was not (could not be, as things stood with him) Ʋniversal Pastor of the whole Church, constituted by Christ. And accordingly we see in Prosper disputing against hereticks: which divide from the Church, he ex­presses it by relictâ pace communionis, Prospers testi­mony to this matter. & panis unius Dei & Apostolorum, that they leave the Communion of Christ and his Apostles in the plural, and adds cum in ipsâ Hierusalem Ja­cobus— Joannes apud Ephesum, An­dreas & caeteri per totam Asiam, Pe­trus & Paulus Apostoli in urbe Ro­mâ, Gentium Ecclesiam pacatam unám­que posteris tradentes, ex Dominicâ pactione sacrarunt, that James in Je­rusalem, John at Ephesus, Andrew and the rest through all Asia, Peter and Paul at Rome consecrated the Church of the nations. Whereas the Church had the several Apostles for the founders (and those independent one from the other) So the unity from which hereticks, and schismaticks depart, is said to have been founded equally in each of them, in John [Page 86] and James and Andrew and others, as well as in S. Peter, nay at Rome, not in S. Peter alone, but in him and S. Paul, together.

§. 20.A second evi­dence against S. Peters supre­macy from the donation of the keyes. In the next place another evidence we may have of this (in re­ference again to S. Peters person) from that which is visible in the do­nation of the power of the Keyes set down in Scripture. This power Mat. 16.19. is promised to S. Peter, [I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven—] But to him that from hence pretends this Donative and consequent power, as a peculiarity and inclosure of S. Peters, these con­siderations will be of force to super­sede his conclusion, 1. That these words here set down by S. Matthew, c. 16. are not the Instrument of Christs conveyance, the words of his commission, but those other Joh. 20.21. As my Father hath sent me, Power of the keyes given to all and each. so send I you, upon which words it is added, he breathed on them, and said, Receive the holy Ghost, Whose sins you remit, they are remitted— And these (as also those Mat. 28.19. which are a [Page 87] repetition much to the same purpose) are delivered in common, and equal­ly to all, and every of the eleven A­postles, as is evident by the plural style throughout that Commission.

§. 21. Secondly, The words Mat. 16. are only a promise in the future, what Christ will afterward do, and so the donation there set down only by way of [...], or anticipation, and if the making this promise to him peculiarly, seem to make any thing for him, then the repetition of that promise, Mat. 18.18. which is made to all the Apostles indefinitely will take off that appearance, where it is [...], and, [...], I say un­to you (to all of them equally and without any peculiarity of restricti­on) whatsoever ye shall bind &c. The applying the words particularly to S. Peter hath one special energie in it, and concludes that the Ecclesiastical power of oeconomy or stewardship in Christ's house (of which the keyes are the token Isa. 22.21.) belongs to single persons, such as S. Peter was, and not only to Consistories, or as­semblies, that whatsoever S. Peter acted by virtue of Christs power thus [Page 88] promised, he should be fully able to act himself, without the conjunction of any other, and that what he thus did (clave non errante) no one (or more men) on earth could rescind without him, which is a just ground of placing the power Ecclesiastical in Single persons, and not in Communi­ties, in the Prelate of each Church, and not in the Presbytery. But still this is no confining of this power to S. Peter, any more then to any other single Apostle, who had this power as distinctly promised to each of them, as here S. Peter is pretended, and acknowledged to have; To which purpose, as the words of Scripture are most clear Mat. 18.18. (and ac­cordingly Mat. 19. the promise is a­gain made of twelve thrones for each Apostle to sit on one, to judge, i. e. to rule, or preside in the Church, and when that promise was finally perfor­med in the descent of the Spirit, Act. 2. the fire that represented that Spirit was divided, and [...] sat up­on every one of them, without any pe­culiar mark allowed S. Peter, and they were all filled with the holy Ghost, and so this promise equally performed, [Page 89] as it was made, to all) so is this exact­ly the notion, which the ancient Fa­thers of the Church appear to have had of them;in Mat. 18. Thus Theophylact ac­cording to S. Chrysostomes sense, [...], [ [...]] [...], Though the words [I will give thee] were delivered to S. Peter alone, yet the power hath been conferred on all the A­postles. Epist. 27. S. Cyprian hath an eminent place to this purpose, Dominus no­ster— Episcopi honorem & Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio loquitur, & dicit Petro, Ego tibi dice, Quia tu es Petrus, & tibi dabo cla­ves— Inde per temporum & suc­cessionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernetur, Christ meaning to set down the way of ordering his Church, saith unto Peter, I will give thee the keyes— From this promise of his, the ordination of Bishops and course of the Church hath continued by all successions and vicissi­tudes, So that the Church is built up­on Bishops (in the plural) and every Ecclesiastick act is governed by them. [Page 90] So S. Ambrose, De Dign. Sa­cerd. c. 5. & 6. Claves illas regni Coe­lorum in beato Petro cuncti suscepimus Sacerdotes, All we Bishops have in S. Peter received those keyes of the kingdome of heavens. Ep. ad Dracont. And accord­ingly S. Athanasius mentions the of­fice of Bishop as one of those things [...], which Christ effigiated or formed in or by the Apostles; And S. Basil the great calls Episcopacy [...], the Presidency of the Apostles, the very same, that Christ bestowed upon all, and not only on one of them.

§. 23. By all which it is evident again, that the power which Christs commission instated on S. Peter, was in like manner intrusted to every o­ther single Apostle, as well as to him, and consequently that this of univer­sal Pastor was no personal privilege, or peculiarity of S. Peters.

§. 24. The Roma­nists argument from Tu es Pe­trus evacuated.Thirdly, that argument which is taken by learned Romanists from the name of Peter [ [...] a Rock or foundation stone] bestowed on him by Christ, as if that were sufficient to found this pretended Su­premacy, is presently evacuated, and [Page 91] retorted on the pretenders, when 'tis remembred 1. that [...], and [...], directly the same, signifies vulgarly a stone ( [...], in Homers Iliad. [...].) and of it self denotes no more, but by the context, Mat. 16.18. be­ing applied to a building must needs signifie a foundation stone; and then 2. that all the 12 Apostles are in like manner (and not he only, or above a­ny other) styled [...], twelve foundations Apoc. 21.14. each of which stones having the name of an Apostle on it, in respect of the power, and dignity that belonged to every one, is severally compared to a precious stone; And it being there in vision apparent, that the wall of the city, i. e. of the Church, being measured exactly, and found to be an hundred fourty four, i. e. twelve times twelve cubits, 'tis evident that that mensuration assignes an equal proportion whether of power or pro­vince to all and every of the Apostles which is again a prejudice to the Ʋniversal Pastorship of any one of them.

CHAP. V. The Evidences from the Bishop of Romes succeeding S. Peter exami­ned.

§. 1.No privilege by succession from S. Peter, but such as S. Peter is proved to have himself. FRom this argument of the pretenders as it respects S. Peters person, and hath thus been ma­nifested to be utterly incompetent to inferre the designed conclusion, It is now very easie, but withall very un­necessary to proceed to the other part of it, as it concerns S. Peters successors in his Episcopal, or (which is all one as to this matter) his Apo­stolical seat, and power at Rome, For certainly what he had not himself, he cannot devolve to any of his succes­sors upon that one skore of succeed­ing him, and therefore as this of S. Peters personal power, and eminence is the principal, So it is in effect the only ground of the Romanists pre­tension, this other of derivative power in his successor, being like wa­ter that flowes from a spring, apt to ascend no higher, then the fountain stood, and therefore I again think fit to remind the Romanist, and pe­remptorily [Page 93] to insist on this exception, that if he cannot make good S. Pe­ters Oecumenical power, and Pastor­ship over all the rest of the Apostles, from the donation of Christ (which I suppose hath been evidenced he can­not do, and for any proofs made use of by any to that purpose, and drawn either from Feed my sheep, and lambs, or from the mention of the two swords, or from Thou art Peter— they have so little apparence of strength in them, and have so often been answered by those of our per­swasion, that I cannot think it useful, or seasonable to descend to any far­ther survey of them) his other pre­tensions are at an end for the Ʋni­versal Pastorship of the Pope his successor, whose power, and authority over all other Bishops cannot farther be extended (upon this account of succession) then S. Peter's was over all other Apostles, the several Bishops of the world holding from (as suc­ceeding) some Apostle or other, as certainly as the Bishop of Rome can by any be supposed to succeed S. Pe-Peter, according to that of De Praescript. c. 32. Tertul­lian, Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia Po­lycarpum [Page 94] à Joanne collocatum refert, Sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit, perinde utique & caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habent, As the re­cords of the Church of Smyrna deduce Polycarp their Bishop from S. John, and as the Church of Rome relates that Clement (their Bishop) was ordai­ned by S. Peter, in like manner the rest of the Churches shew us the Bishops which they have had constituted by the Apostles, and who have brought down and derived the Apostolick seed unto them.

§. 2. What therefore I shall now adde in return to the second branch of this argument, concerning the power of S. Peters successor, as such, will be perfectly ex abundanti, more then needs, and so I desire it may be looked on by the reader, whose cu­riosity perhaps may require farther satisfaction, when his reason doth not, and in compliance therewith I shall propose these few considerations. The privile­ges attending S. Peters succes­sor belonging rather to the Bishop of An­tioch then of Rome. First whether S. Peter did not as truly plant a Church of Jewish belie­vers at Antioch, and leave a successor [Page 95] Bishop there, as at Rome he is suppo­sed to have done? 2. Whether this were not done by him, before ever he came to Rome? 3. Whether the Conces­sion of these two unquestioned mat­ters of fact ▪ doe not devolve all power, and Jurisdiction on the Bishop of Antioch S. Peters successor there, which by that tenure and claim of succession from S. Peter can be pre­tended to by the Bishop of Rome, S. Peters successor also? Nay, Whe­ther the right of Primogeniture be not so much more considerable on this side, then any circumstance on the other side, which can be offered to counterbalance it, that he which suc­ceeded him in his first seat (Antioch) is, if there be force in the argument of succession, to be looked on as the chief of his strength, partaker of more power by virtue of that succession, then he that afterward succeeded him at Rome?

§. 3. This we know, that ancient­ly there were three Patriarchates, and Antioch was one of them, as Rome was another; and though I, who lay not that weight on the argument of succession from S. Peter, am not en­gaged [Page 96] to affirme that Antioch was the chief of these, yet this I contend, that there is much lesse reason, that any precedence, which is afforded Rome by the ancient Canons, should be deemed imputable to this successi­on from S. Peter, when 'tis evident that claim belongs to Antioch, as well as to Rome, and first to Antioch, and afterwards to Rome, and no o­therwise to Rome, then as it was first competible to Antioch.

§. 4. The Primacy belonged to Rome upon another score.Of Rome it is confessed that the primacy of dignity or order be­longed to that, the next place to A­lexandria, the third to Antioch, which is an evidence that the succession from S. Peter was not considered in this matter, for then Alexandria, which held only from S. Mark, must needs have yeelded to Antioch which held from S. Peter. The original of this precedence, or dignity of the Bishop of Rome is sure much more fitly de­duced by the fourth General Councel holden at Chalcedon, Can. penult. confirming the decree of the Councel of Constantino­ple, that that See shall have [...], equal privileges, and digni­ties, and advantages with Rome, upon [Page 97] this account, that Constantinople was New Rome, and the seat of the Em­pire at that time, which, say they, was the reason (and not any donation of Christs to S. Peter, or succession of that Bishop from him) that Rome en­joyed such privileges ( [...]) and therefore [...], The Fathers at Constantinople being moved with the same reasons had rightly judged that now the same privileges should belong to that Church or City, [...], and that this being next to Old Rome should in all Ecclesiastical af­faires have the same dignity, or greatnesse that Old Rome had. Where, as the Original of the dignity of that See is duly set down, and (which is observable) in the whole contest never so much as quarelled at by the Le­gats, viz. the residence of the Imperi­al Majesty there (a thing very re­markable in the several degrees of dignity in the Church, that of Pa­triarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bi­shops, [Page 98] which generally observed their proportions with the civil state, as hath been shewed) so is the nature of it also, no supremacy of power over all the Bishops of the world (for that monarchical power is not at once competible to two equals or rivals) and withall the moveablenesse or com­municablenesse of that dignity, as that which may follow the Imperial seat, whithersoever it is removeable, and is not fixed at Rome by any com­mission of Christ or succession from S. Peter.

§. 5. The Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon re­jected by the Romanists.But because I shall suppose that a Canon, though of an Ʋniver­sal Councel, when it is found thus de­rogatory to the height which Rome now pretends to, shall not by the Romanist be acknowledged to be au­thentick, as wanting that which the Romanist makes absolutely necessary to the validity of Councels or Canons, the suffrage of the Bishop of Rome and consent of his Legates; and be­cause I mean not here to goe out of my way to vindicate (which I could very readily doe) the authority of that Canon, or to shew the strangenesse of this dealing, not to admit any testi­mony [Page 99] against them, but wherein they have given their own suffrage (a me­thod of security beyond all amulets, if no man shall be believed against me, till I have joyned with him to ac­cuse and condemne my self) I shall therefore lay no more weight on this, then will, without this support, be otherwise upheld, and is in some measure evident by the Romanists re­jecting this Canon, and adding that the Church of Antioch rejected it al­so; which argues that that which the Church of Constantinople was wil­ling to acquire by this decree, was as derogatory to the dignity of An­tioch as of Rome. And as that con­cludes that Antioch had professedly the [...], equal privileges with Rome, the dignity of a Patriarchate, and the attendants and pompes of that, So it proceeds on a concession, that all that Constantinople wanted, or in which this New came short of the Old Rome, was only the dignity of a Patriarchate, without any ordi­nary jurisdiction over other Churches. Which again shewes us what was the nature of the preeminence of the Roman See at that time; no supreme [Page 100] authoritative power over other Pri­mates, The dignity of Patriarchs re­concileable with the inde­pendency of Primates. but only a precedence, or pri­ority of place in Councels, an eminence in respect of dignity, which is perfect­ly reconcileable with the [...] and independence, the no-subordinati­on or subjection of other Primates.

§. 6. The Canon of Ephesus against encroaching on any others Province.This hath formerly been ma­nifested, when we discoursed of the original, and power, and dignity of Primates, and Patriarchs, and is put beyond all controll by that Canon of the Councel of Ephesus in the cause of the Archbishop of Cyprus, over whom the Patriarch of Antioch, though Patriarch of all the Orient, was ad­judged to have no manner of power. And this independency of Cyprus, not only from the Patriarch of Antioch, but from all others whomsoever, was contested then, as from the Apostles times, and asserted, and vindicated by that Councel, and order given in­definitely against all invasions for time to come, in whatever Diocese, that no Bishop shall encroach upon anothers Province, or usurp a power, where from the Apostles times he had not enjoyed it; which how directly it (is applicable to, and) prejudgeth the [Page 101] pretensions of Rome, as well as of Antioch, is so manifest, that it can­not need farther demonstrating.

§. 7. Instances of Independent power in Arch­bishops.Of the same kind, two far­ther instances I shall here adde; first of the Archbishop of Carthage, who being the chief Primate, or Metropo­litan (for these two words in the A­frican style, different from the usage of other Churches, are observeable to signifie the same thing) in Africk, i. e. in one of the thirteen Dioceses of the Empire, appears to have been in­dependent from all other power, an ab­solute Primate, subject to no superi­our, or Patriarch, whether of Alexan­dria, or Rome. This is evident by Justinian in the 131 Novel, where the Emperour gives the same privi­leges to the Archbishop of ^* Carthage, which he had formerly given to the Bishop of Justiniana prima; which being the second example I meant to mention, I shall briefly shew what that Prerogative was, which equally belonged to these two.

[Page 102]§. 8. Justiniana Prima was the head of ^a Dacia the new; a Diocese (as that signifies more then a Pro­vince, a ^b Primat's, a Patriarch's dominion) erected by Justinian the Emperour; and that city thus dignifi­ed, as the ^c place where he had been born, and the Archbishop thereof made Primate of all that Diocese. This is thus expressed in the Imperial Constitutions, Nov. 11. that he shall have omnem censuram Ecclesiasticam, summum Sacerdotium, summum fa­stigium, summam dignitatem, all pow­er of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the supreme Priesthood, supreme honour and dignity; And in the Constitutions set out by Gothofred out of an old [Page 103] MS. Copy, Tu & omnes Justinianae primae Antistites, quicquid oriatur in­ter eos discrimen, ipsi hoc dirimant, & finem eis imponant, & nec ad alium quendam eatur, sed suum agnoscant Archiepiscopum omnes praedictae Pro­vinciae — that all the Provinces shall in the last resort make their ap­peal to him for all controversies. And Nov. 131. c. 3. that in all that Diocese he shall have locum Apostolicae sedis, the place or dignity of an Apostolical seat; which gave Nicephorus occa­sion (in his relation of this matter) to affirme that the Emperour made it a free city, and [...] an head unto itself, with full power independent from all others: And though the first Bi­shop thereof was consecrated by Vi­gilius Bishop of Rome, as by some Bi­shop it is certain he must, yet that is of no force against the conclusion, to which I designe this instance, it being evident that being consecrated, he was absolute, and depended not on a­ny, and his Quando au­tem te ab [...]âc▪ luce decedere contigerit, pro tempore Archi­episcopum ejus à venerabili suo Concilio Metro­politanorum ordinari sancimus, quem ad modum decet Archi­episcopum omnibus honoratum Ecclesiis provehi. Ibid. successors were to be or­dained by his Councel of Metropoli­tanes, and not by the Pope.

[Page 104]§. 9. Which as it makes a second in­stance of the point in hand, so when it is remembred, that all this indepen­dent absolute power was conferred upon this city (the Emperors favorite) only by his making it a Primate's, or chief Metropolitane's See, and that Carthage's being the Prime Metro­polis of Africk is expressed by having the same privileges, that Justiniana Prima had, It will follow (what is most certain, and might otherwise be testified by innumerable eviden­ces) that every Primate, or chief Me­tropolitane was absolute within his own circuit, neither subject nor sub­ordinate to any forein Superiour, whe­ther Pope, or Patriarch; And that was all which was useful (much more then was necessary) to be here demonstrated. And being so, there re­mains to the See of Rome no farther claim to the subjection of this Island, nor appearance of proof of the charge of schisme, in casting off that yoke, upon this first score of S. Pe­ter's, or his successors right to the Ʋniversal Pastorship.

[Page 105]§. 10. The unreason­ablenesse of confining the Catholick Church to the number of those that live in the Roman subjection.Upon this head of discourse depends also all that is, or can be said for the confining the Catholick Church to the number of those, who live in obedience to the Roman Church, or Bishop. For if there have been from the Apostles times, an independent power vested in each Primate, or chief Metropolitane (as hath been evident­ly shown) then how can it be neces­sary to the being of a member of the Catholick Church, to be subject to that one Primate? 'Tis certainly suffici­ent to the conservation of the unity of the whole Church, that every one pay an obedience, where an obedience is due, and no way usefull toward that end, that those that are born free, should resigne up, divest them­selves of that privilege, and become [...] servants or subjects of their own making. But I shall not en­large on this matter, but conclude with that of our Bishops in Convoca­tion, Anno Chr: 1537. in their Book intituled, [The Institution of a Chri­stian man:] that it was many hun­dred years before the Bishop of Rome could acquire any power of a Primate over any other Bishops, which were [Page 106] not within his Province in Italie, And that the Bishops of Rome doe now trans­gresse their own profession made in their Creation, For all the Bishops of Rome alwaies when they be consecrated and made Bishops of that See, doe make a solemn profession and vow, that they shall inviolably observe all the Ordi­nances made in the eight first General Councels, among which it is especially provided, that all causes shall be deter­mined within the Province, where they be begun, and that by the Bishops of the same Province; which absolutely ex­cludes all Papal, i. e. forein power out of these Realms.

CHAP. VI. Their third plea from the Bishop of Rome having planted Christianity among us.

§. 1. THE next part of the Roma­nist's arguing against us, is taken from a peculiar right, or claim, that the Bishop or See of Rome hath to our obedience, upon the score of ha­ving planted Christianity among us.

§. 2.The plea from Planting the Faith unrecon­cileable with the former. But before I proceed to shew the invalidity of this plea, I desire it may first be observed, that the plead­ing of this, as the title by which the Bishop of Rome hath right to our sub­jection, is absolutely unreconcileable with his former pretensions founded in his oecumenical Pastorship by suc­cession to S. Peter; For certainly he that is supposed (in grosse) to have that original title to all power over all Churches, cannot be imagined to acquire it afterward (by way of re­tail) over any particular Church. He that claims a reward, as of his own labour and travail, must be supposed to disclaim Donation, which is antece­dent to, and exclusive of the other, as [Page 108] the title of descent is to that of Con­quest, And it is a very great prejudice to the justice of his pretensions, who findes it necessary to mix things that are so incompetible.

§. 3.A Dilemma to the Romanist. And therefore I am obliged to offer this Dilemma to the Roma­nist in this place, and to demand, Which is the Pope's true title to the subjection of this Island? the Dona­tion of Christ, or conversion wrought by Augustine the Monk? If the lat­ter be affirmed to be it, then it must be granted by him, both that this Is­land before the time of Pope Gregory was no way subjected to the Romish See, and withall that no Christian na­tion is at this day thus subject, but such as doth appear to have been converted by Rome, as the Saxons here are supposed to have been; And then this concession will lose more subjects to the Apostolick See, then the return of these Islands to the desired subje­ction would ever be able to counter­vail, or recompense; and therefore it is reasonable to insist on the terms of this bargain, and not to yeild the one, till the other be yeilded to us, But if the former be affirmed to be it, [Page 109] and that indeed the commission from Christ to S. Peter be still the funda­mental hold, by which our subjection is, and alwaies hath been due to his successors, then is that other of the conversion by Augustine but a falla­cious pretense, a non causa pro causâ, to amuze us, and need not farther be answered, or invalidated, then by this confession.

§. 4.The Faith planted here before Augu­stine the Monk. But then passing by this ad­vantage, and taking the objection, as it lies by it self, these farther consi­derations will take off all force from it. 1. That this Island was converted to the Faith of Christ, long before Augustine's preaching to the Saxons, either in, or very neer the Apostles times, in Tiberius his reign, saith Gil­das, and long before Tertullian's, and Origen's time, as by them appears, Tertull: in Apol: and Orig: in Ezech: Hom: 4. To this I shall not need to adde the testimony of Eleutherius the Bishop of Rome, in the vulgar Epistle to our Lucius, the first Christian King of the world, styling him vica­rium Dei in regno suo, God's vicege­rent in his own kingdome, because, as there is some doubt of the authen­thenticknesse [Page 110] of that Epistle, so the Suscepistis nu­per in Regno Britanniae le­gem & fidem Christi. only thing that we have now need to conclude from it, is otherwise evi­dent, viz: that the Nation was in his time converted, and so long before Au­gustine's coming. And though by Dioclesian's persecution, Christianity were here shrewdly shaken, yet I sup­pose, that will not be thought argu­mentative, both because it might be of ill example against other nations, where the faith was as bloodily per­secuted in that, or other times, and possibly at some point of time against Rome it self,And not quite destroyed by Dioclesian. where S. Peter's chair was not alwaies amulet sufficient to avoid the like destructions, and especially because it is evident, that the British Church survived that calamity, three of our Bishops being ten years after that, present (and their names sub­scribed, Eborius of Yorke, Restitutus of London, and Adelfius Coloniae Lon­dinensium) at the Councel of Arles, eleven years before the first Councel of Nice. So likewise at the time of that Nicene Councel it appears, that as Britaine was one of the six Dioceses of the West Empire (see Notitia Pro­vinc: Occident:) so there were in it [Page 111] three Metropolitanes, the Bishop of York (his Province Maxima Caesa­riensis) the Bishop of London (his Pro­vince Britannia prima) the Bishop of Caeruske (his Province Britannia se­cunda) in Monmouthshire, See S. Hen: Spelman, Concil: Anglic: pag. 26. out of the An­nales of Gis­burne. which after in King Arthur's time was trans­lated to S. Davids, where it continued an Archbishoprick, till King Henry I. who subjected it to Canterbury, and à Samsone us (que) tempus Henrici primi, sederunt Meneviae unde­cim Episcopi, & us (que) ad hoc tem­pus Episcopi Me­neviae à suis su [...] ­fraganeis Wallensibus ibidem fuerunt consecrati, nullâ penitus professione v [...]l subjectione factâ alteri Ecclesiae. Ibid. all this space of about 500 years after Augustines coming, the Bishops thereof, eleven in number, were all consecrated by the suffragan Bishops of that Province, without any profession, or subjection to any other Church, as the Annales there affirm.

§. 5. To the same purpose is it,The Britains rejection of the Bishop of Rome. that when Augustine required sub­jection to the Pope and Church of Rome, the Abbat of Bangor is recor­ded to have returned him this answer, Notum sit vobis, quòd nos omnes su­mus— Be it known unto you, that we are all subject, and obedient to the Church of God, and the Pope of Rome, but so as we are also to every pious and [Page 112] good Christian, viz: to love every one in his degree and place, in perfect charity, and to help every one by word and deed to attain to be the sons of God; Concil: Anglic: p. 188. Et aliam obedientiam quàm istam non scio debitam ei quem vos nominatis esse Pa­pam, nec esse Patrem Patrum vendi­cari & postulari, And for any other o­bedience I know none due to him whom you call the Pope, and as little doe I know by what right he can challenge to be father of fathers, Bishop of Bishops, or Ʋniversal Bishop. Praeterea nos su­mus sub gubernatione Episcopi Caer­legionensis super Oscâ— As for us, we are under the rule of the Bishop of Caerlegion upon Ʋsk, who is to over­look and govern us under God.

§. 6. The invalidity of the argu­ment from conversion, when the Bri­tains were cer­tainly not con­verted by Au­gustine.From hence the result is clear, that whatever is pretended from Au­gustine the Monk, or supposed to have been then pressed by him, for the advancing of the Popes interest in this Island, and concluding us guilty of Schisme in casting off that yoke, yet the British Bishops still holding out against this pretension, and that with all reason on their side, if the title of conversion, which the Romanist pleads for our subjection, may be of any va­lidity [Page 113] with him, it must needs follow, that the whole Island cannot upon this score of Augustine's conversion, be now deemed schismatical, it being certain, that the whole Island, & par­ticularly the Dominion of Wales, was not thus converted by Augustine, nor formerly by any sent from Rome, or that observed the Roman Order (as appears by the observation of Ea­ster, contrary to the usage received at Rome) but either by Joseph of Ari­mathea, or Simon Zelotes, as our An­nals tell us most probably. And this in the first place must needs be yeil­ded to by those that expect to receive any advantage to their cause by this argument; And if they will still ex­tend their title equally, to those parts of Britannie, which Augustine did not, as to those which he did convert, to Wales, as well as to Kent, it is e­vident they must doe it upon some other score (whatsoever the pretense be) and not upon this of conversion.

§. 7. But then 2^dly, for as much of this Island, as was really converted to the Faith by the coming of Augu­stine, No title from conversion for subjection. there is no title for their sub­jection, and the perpetual subjection [Page 114] of their posterity from this.

§. 8. To examine this a while by other known practises of the Chri­stian world, S. Paul by himself or his Apostles, or Procurators, was the great Converter of the Gentiles; Con­cerning him I shall demand, whether all those nations converted by him and his ministers, are to all ages obli­ged to be subject to that chair, where S. Paul sat (whether in the Church at Antioch, or Rome, or the like) at the time of his sending out, or going him­self to convert them; If so, then 1. there cannot be a greater prejudice imaginable to S. Peter's Ʋniversal Pastorship; And 2. it will in the story of the fact appear to have no degree of truth in it; Timothie that was pla­ced over Asia in Ephesus, and Titus over Crete, being (as hath formerly appeared) supreme in those Provin­ces, and independent from any other See, And generally that is the nature of Primates or Patriarchs, to have no superior either to ordain, or exer­cise jurisdiction over them, but them­selves to be absolute within their Pro­vince, and their successors to be or­dained by the suffragan Bishops under [Page 115] them; which could not be, if every such Church, where such a Primate was placed, were subject to that Church, from which they received the Faith.

§. 9. The power of Kings to erect Patriarchates.To put this whole matter out of controversie, It is, and hath alwaies been in the power of Christian Empe­rors, and Princes within their Domi­nions to erect Patriarchates, or to translate them from one city to an­other, and therefore whatever title is supposeable to be acquired by the Pope in this Island upon the first plan­ting of the Gospel here, this cannot so oblige the Kings of England ever since, but that they may freely remove that power from Rome to Canterbury, and subject all the Christians of this Island to the spiritual power of that Archbishop or Primate, independently from any forein Bishop.

§. 10. For the erection of Prima­cies or Patriarchates, that of Justi­niana Prima Examples in Justiniana Pri­ma, c. 5. §. 8. forementioned, and set down at large, is an evident proof, Justinian erecting that (long after the rest of the Primates seats in the Em­pire) to be an Archiepiscopal See, ab­solute and independent, and subjecting [Page 116] all Dacia the new to it▪ And though the Pope Vigilius was by the Empe­rour appointed to ordain the first Bi­shop there, yet were his successors to be ordained by his own Metropoli­tanes, and the Bishops under him not to appeal to any others, as hath in each particular formerly been evi­denced.

§. 11. Carthage.The same also hath in like manner been shewn of Carthage, which was by the same Justinian (not originally dignified, but) [...]: 131. after the rescuing it out of the Vandales hands, restored to a state of Primacie, after the pattern or image of Justiniana Prima, and two Provinces more an­nexed, then had antiently belonged to that Bishops jurisdiction.

§. 12. Ravenna.Before either of these the Emperour Valentinian the 3^d, Anno Christi 432. by his Rescript constitu­ted Ravenna a Patriarchal seat; And from his time that held the Patriar­chate without any dependence on the Bishop of Rome to the time of Con­stantinus Pogonatus, And though at that time the Greek Emperors Vicarii or Exarchs being not able to support the Bishop of Ravenna against the [Page 117] Longobards, he was fain to flie for support to the Bishop of Rome, and so submitted himself unto him, and after Reparatus, the next Bishop Theodorus did the like to Pope Agatho, whether upon the score of great friendship with him, or in despite to his own Clergie (with whom he had vari­ance) saith Sabellicus, yet the people of Ravenna thought themselves in­jured hereby, and joyned with their next Bishop Foelix to maintain their privilege, though Pope Constantine stirring up Justinian [...] a­gainst them, they were worsted, and defeated in their attempt.

§. 13. Other examples there are of this kinde,de privileg: Patriar: Balsamon points at some, which from the [...]. Emperours charter had this privilege, not to be subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, cal­ling them [...], which were Archbishops independent: So under Phocas, the Patriarchate of Grado in Italie was erected, saith l. 4. c. 34. Grado. Warnefridus de gestis Longobard: Others, as Eginartus Chancellor to Charles the Great, and who wrote his life, say it was done by Charles the Great. And so doth Rhegino [Page 118] who lived in the next age. And ac­cordingly in Duarenus de Benef: lib. 1. cap. 9. among the Minorum Gentium Patriarchatus, that of Grado is recko­ned for one, and joyned with Aqui­leia, Canterbury and Bourges.

§. 14. Frequent in the East.And that it was a frequent usage in the East, may appear by the 12^th Canon of the Councel of Chalce­don, where we finde mention of [...], cities honoured by letters patents from the Kings or Em­perors with the name and dignity of Metropoles, and where the Councel represses the ambition of Bishops, which sought those privileges [...], by Rescripts from the Emperours, and censures it, (in them that so sought it) as [...], not agreeable to the Ec­clesiastical Canons, repressing the am­bition of the Bishops, but not cassa­ting the Rescripts, nor withdrawing the honour from the Metropolis so e­rected; Of this Canon Balsamon saith, that when it was made, many Empe­rours had erected many Metropoli­tanes, and naming three, adds, [...], that other Bishop­ricks [Page 119] were thus honoured, and that the Emperours did it [...], according to the power that was given them. Where it is farther to be observed, 1. that this Councel was within 20 years after that grant of Valentinian, and consequently, if Balsamon say right, (that at that time many Emperours had erected many) there must needs be others be­fore Valentinian. 2. That the 17^th Canon of the Councel of Chalcedon doth more expresly attribute this power to the Prince, [...], If a city be built or resto­red by the Kings power, let the Eccle­siastical order follow the Political. And the same power is acknowledged to belong to the Prince by the Councel in Trullo Can: 38. And then 3. that these two last Canons are reconciled with that 12^th of Chalcedon, by the law of Alexius Comnenus, and assen­ted to by the Synod under him, See Balsam: in Can: 38. Concil: in Trul­lo, who concludes that the King might doe it [...], upon [Page 120] his own incitation or motion, but it should not be lawful for any by base sollicitation to seek or obtain it, adding that in that case, upon any such Re­script of the Emperour for such erecti­on, it might be lawful for the Patriarch to suspend the confirmation of the Char­ter, untill he represented to the Empe­rour what the Canons were in that case, and understood if the Emperour did it [...] from his own motion, which ap­pearing, the Patriarch was to admit thereof.

And accordingly the same Balsa­mon (on Concil: Carthag: Can: 16.) doth upon that Canon professedly found the authority of Princes, [...]— [...], to ad­vance an Episcopal See into a Metro­polis, and anew to constitute Bishops and Metropolitanes.

§. 15. So also to translate.As for the transplanting it also from one city to another, besides that the power of doing that, is con­sequent to the former, the examples of this practise are antient, Examples in England. Concil: Angl: p. 26. and fre­quent in this kingdome; The passage set down out of the Annals of Gis­burne may be sufficient, From Caer­uske [Page 121] the Metropolitan seat was trans­lated to S. Davids by King Arthur, where it continued till Henry I. and then was reduced to Canterbury.

§. 16. In like manner 'tis evident that the Kings of England have di­vided Bishopricks, and erected new ones; About the year 630. Kinigilsa King of the West-Saxons, and Oswald of the Northumbers, erected an Epi­scopal See at Dorchester, and placed Birinus in it, so saith Guil: Malmesb: de Gest: Pontif: Angl: l. 2. About the year 660, Kenewalch King of the West-Saxons divided this Bishoprick, and left part to Dorchester, and as­signed the western part to be the Dio­cese of the new Bishop, which he con­stituted at Winchester, so saith Hen: Huntingd: Hist: l. 3. Then Winchester was subdivided in the time of King Ina, who also erected a new Bishop­rick at Sherburne, and gave it to Al­delme, so Henr: Huntingd: l. 4. and Guil: Malm: de Reg: Angl: l. 1. c. 2. And after the Norman conquest, Henry I. divided Cambridgeshire from the See of Lincolne, and erected the Bishoprick of Elie, so saith Guiliel: Malm: de Gest: Pontif: Angl: l. 4. and [Page 122] Florentius Wigorn: Anno 1109. who lived at that time. So also saith Ead­mer with some variation, Regi, Archi­episcopo, caeterísque Principibus regni visum fuit de ipsâ Parochiâ (Lin­colniae) sumendum, quo fieret alter E­piscopatus, cujus cathedra Principatus poneretur in Abbatiâ de Eli, It seemed good to the King, the Archbishop, and the rest of the Princes of the kingdome to take as much out of the Diocese of Lincolne, as would make another Bi­shoprick, the chair whereof should be set up in the Abbacie of Elie. Adding indeed that Anselme (a zealous, pro­moter of the Papal authority, as the author Eadmer was a disciple and ad­mirer of Anselme) wrote to Pope Paschalis, desiring his consent to it, as a thing fit to be done, and yet to which he assures him he would not give his consent, but salvâ authoritate Papae, reserving the rights of the Pope; Which though it doth suppose the Popes pretensions to that authority at that time, and Anselm's yeilding it to him, yet it proves also this right of our Kings to have been even then ad­hered to, preserved, and exercised by them, as the former authors had set it down.

[Page 123]§. 17.So to exempt from Episco­pal juris­diction. Of this nature also is the authority of Kings in exempting any Ecclesiastical person from the Bishops Jurisdiction, and granting Episcopal Jurisdiction to such person, which is largely asserted and exemplified in Cawdries case 5. Report. 14. One in­stance of this will serve for all, that of William the Conqueror, who ex­empted Battel Abbey in Sussex from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Chi­chester, and gave the Abbat Episcopal Jurisdiction in his Territorie and the words of the Charter are produced by M^r ▪ Selden on Eadmer, Hoc regali authoritate & Episcoporum ac Baro­num meorum attestatione constituo, I appoint this by my royal authority by the attestation of my Bishops and Barons.

§. 18. Kings Foun­ders of Bi­shopricks and Patrons,Adde even unto this, that even the Westerne Princes (in those parts where the Bishops of Rome have much hightned their power, ever since the Kings were Christians) the Ger­man Emperours, the Kings of France and England, alwayes claimed to be founders of all Bishopricks in their Dominions, Patrons of them to be­stow them by investiture, that the [Page 124] Kings of France and England often claimed and were acknowledged to have right, that no Legate from Rome might come into the Land, and use jurisdiction without their leave; All which put together are a foundation for this power of the Princes to erect or translate a Patriarchate, It being withall acknowledged that our Kings have the same authority in their Ter­ritories, that the Roman Emperour had in the Empire.

§. 19.The Reason of all, supreme power of Kings, And the reason of all this is clear, not only from the supreme authority of Kings in all sorts of cau­ses, even those of the ^* Church, as [Page 125] well as Civil (as might be proved at large, if here it were needful, and can­not be reasonably so confined, as not to belong to a matter of this nature) but peculiarly from that which hath [Page 126] been already noted (and expressely, ordered, Can. 17. of the Councel of Chalcedon even now cited) of the Ecclesiastical division of Provinces &c:and Eccle­siastical divisi­on of Provin­ces following the Civil. following the civil, For 1. it being certainly in the power of the King to place his Praetoria or courts of Assizes, where he please; and 2. it being the known original of Metropoles, and divisions of Provin­ces (as Strabo saith, Geogr. l. 17. [...], Pro­vinces are variously distributed, [...], because the Romanes divide them not by tribes or families, but after another manner in relation to the cities, where they set up their courts of Assi­zes—) and again it being most rea­sonable, that as any new accident rai­ses one city to a greater populousnesse, or depresses another, so for the con­venience of the people one should be made the seat of Judicature, the other cease to be so, (and no man so fit to passe the judgement when this should be, as the King) and 3. the very same reasons of convenience [Page 127] moving in the Church, as in the State, the Bishops, and over them Metropo­litanes and Primates having their judicatures, and audiences, which in all reason must be so disposed of, as may be most for the convenience of administration, that they and all un­der them may do their duties with most facility, and to greatest advan­tage, and lastly there being no obstacle imaginable from any contrary con­stitution either of Christ or his A­postles, against which the Prince can be said to offend either directly or in­terpretatively (as I suppose is already clear from the refutation of the plea from S. Peters universal Pastorship) whensoever he shall think fit to make such changes, the Conclusion is rational, as well as evident; just that it should be so, as well as cleare, that elsewhere it hath oft been so de facto, (and appointed by the Canon of Chalcedon de jure) that the King may erect a Primacy when he please (and so it is certain that King Ethelbert at the time of Augustines planting the faith, did at Canterbury, the seate of his Kingdome, Imperit sui totius Metropolis saith Bede l. 1. c 25.) & con­quently [Page 128] remove it from any other place at his pleasure: Had it not been for this, there is no reason assignable, why, this nation being in Constan­tines time under three Metropolitans, the Arch-bishop of York (and the Primacy belonging to that city, as being then the Emperours seat, where Septimius Severus, and Constantius Chlorus died, and the Praetorium of the Diocese of Britannie) the Arch-bishop of London, and the Arch-bi­shop of Caerusk in Monmouthshire, either 1. there should be (as there was) an addition of two Provinces more, Valentia, and Flavia Caesari­ensis, or 2. the Metropolitical power should be removed from London to Canterbury (as also from Caerusk to S. David's, as hath been said) and the Primacie from Yorke to Canterbury.

§. 20. This Power of Kings if taken away by forein laws &c. re­sumable.Now what is thus vested in the Regal power, cannot be taken a­way by forein laws, or by prescription be so alienated, but that it remains perfectly lawful for the Prince to re­sume it.

sect;. 21. That laws made at Rome doe not take away the liberty of an­other national Church to make con­trary [Page 129] laws thereunto, and that by such obviation no Schisme is incurred, we finde delivered in the Councel of Car­thage (Can: 71. according to Balsa­mon's division) And though the Ca­non be not set down by Binius, yet both he and Baronius acknowledge, that what was contain'd in that par­ticular Canon, was the main occasion of the Synod; And the Antiquity thereof is considerable, those Canons being made, say Baronius and Binius, Anno 401.

§. 22. So likewise that a Law (though made by a General Councel and with the consent of all Christian Princes, yet) if it have respect to a civil right, may, in this or that na­tion, be repealed, is the judgment of Roger Widrington (or Father Pre­ston) in his last rejoinder to Fitzher­bert c. 11. §. 44. and c. 8. he con­firms it by the doctrine of Zuarez, l. 2. de leg: c. 19. and the reason of Zuarez is, because such a law made at a general meeting of Princes, is intrinsecally a civil law; and hath not force by virtue of the law to binde the subjects of any particular king­dome, or Common-wealth, any other­wise [Page 130] then as it is enacted, or received by the Governors and subjects of that kingdome.

§. 23. And this is affirmed, and extended by Balsamon to all Canons in general, as the judgment of learned men, in his notes on that 16^th Canon of the Councel of Carthage before cited.

§. 24. So if alienated by prescription.And for the matter of Pre­scription, the decision of Clav: Reg: l. 9. c. 12. Sayr is worth observing, that in such cases as these, Cum Praescriptio sit tantùm de jure Civili & Canonico, When the Prescription is neither of the law of Nature, nor the Divine law, nor the law of Nations, but only of the Civil and Canon law, there non plus se extendit quàm unusquisque supremus Princeps in suo Regno eam suis legibus extensam esse velit, it extends no farther then every supreme Prince in his Realm by his laws is supposed to will that it shall be extended, which, saith he, cannot be supposed, in matters of this na­ture, of exempting subjects from ma­king their appeal to their King, for saith he, non est de mente alicujus Principis ut quispiam subditorum pos­sit praescribere quòd ad Principem ab [Page 131] eo non appelletur, aut quòd eum coerce­re non potest, quando ratio & justitia postulat. It is not imaginable to be the minde of any Prince, that any of his subjects should be able to prescribe that he is not to appeal to his Prince (but to some other) or that his Prince may not punish him when reason and justice re­quires. It were easie to apply this distinctly to the confirming of all, that I here pretend, but I shall not thus expatiate.

CHAP. VII. Their third Evidence from our casting off Obedience to the Bishop of Rome at the Reformation.

§. 1. UPon that one ground laid in the former Chapter, the power of Kings in general, and parti­cularly ad hunc actum to remove Pa­triarchates; whatsoever can be pre­tended against the lawfulnesse of the Reformation in these kingdomes, will easily be answered. And therefore supposing the third, and last obje­ction to lie against our Reformation, that it was founded in the casting off that obedience to the Bishop of Rome, which was formerly paid him by our Bishops, and people under them, I shall now briefly descend to that, first lay­ing down the matter of fact, as it lies visible in our records, and then vin­dicating it from all blame of schisme, which according to the premises can any way be thought to adhere to it.

§. 2. The history of what was done against the Bi­shop of Rome in the Reforma­tion.And first for the matter of fact, it is acknowledged, that in the reigne of King Henry VIII. the Pa­pal (and with it all forein) power in [Page 133] Ecclesiastical affairs was both by acts of Convocation of the Clergie, and by statutes or acts of Parliament, cast out of this kingdome. The first step or degree hereof was the Clergie's synodical recognizing the King, sin­gularem Ecclesiae Anglicanae Prote­ctorem, unicum & supremum Domi­num—the singular Protector, the on­ly and supreme Head of the Church of England, Upon this were built the statutes of 24 Hen: VIII. prohibiting all Appeals to Rome, and for the de­termining all Ecclesiasticall suits, and controversies within the kingdome; The statute of 25 Hen: VIII. for the manner of electing and consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops, and another, in the same year, prohibiting the pay­ment of all impositions to the court of Rome, and for the obtaining all such dispensations from the See of Canter­bury, which were formerly procured from the Popes of Rome, and that of 26 Hen: VIII. declaring the King to be the supreme head (which in Queen Elizabeth's reign was, to avoid mis­takes, changed into supreme Gover­nour) of the Church of England, and to have all honours and praeeminencies, [Page 134] which were annexed to that title.

§. 3. This was in the next place at­tended with the submission of the Clergie to the King, agreed on, first in Convocation, and afterward in 25 Hen: VIII. enacted by Parliament, to this purpose, that as it was by the Clergie acknowledged that the Convo­cation of the Clergie then was, alwaies had been, and ought to be assembled by the Kings writ, and as they submitting themselves to the King's Majestie had promised in verbo sacerdotis, that they would never from thenceforth presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure, enact, promulge, or exercise any new Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances Pro­vincial or other— unlesse the King's most royal assent may to them be had to make, promulge, & execute the same— so it was now enacted, that none of the Clergie should enact, promulge, or exe­cute any such Canons, Constitutions, and Ordinances Provincial or Synodi­cal, without assent and authority re­ceived from the King, upon pain of im­prisonment, and fine at the Kings plea­sure.

§. 4. The third and last step of this began with the debate of the Ʋni­versities, [Page 135] and most eminent Monaste­ries in the kingdome; An aliquid au­thoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Ponti­fici Romano de jure competat, plus­quam alii cuiquam Episcopo extero? Whether any authority did of right be­long to the Bishop of Rome in the King­dome of England more then to any other forein Bishop? and upon agitation, it was generally defined in the nega­tive, and so returned testified under their hands and seals. The like was soon after concluded, and resolved by the Convocation of the Bishops, and all the Clergie, and subscribed and confirmed by their corporal oathes: And at that time was written and printed the Tract de verâ differentiâ Regiae et Ecclesiasticae potestatis, set out by the Prelates, the chief composers of which were, John Stokesly, Bishop of London; Cutbert Tunstall, Bishop of Durham; Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester; and D^r Thirlby after­ward Bishop; where from the practise of the Saxon, and first Norman Kings they evidence the truth of that Ne­gative out of story. And what was thus concluded by the Clergie was soon turned into an Act of Parlia­ment [Page 136] also in 28 Hen: VIII. called An Act extinguishing the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and prescribing an oath to all Officers Ecclesiastical, and lay, of renouncing the said Bishop and his authority.

§. 5. By these three degrees it is acknowledged that the Bishops and Clergie first, then the King confirm­ing the Acts of the Convocation, and after making Acts of Parliament to the same purposes, renounced the au­thority of the Roman See, and cast it out of this Island;The Praemu­nire. and though the first Act of the Clergie in this were so induced, that it is easie to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung over them (by a Praemunire incurred by them) could probably have inclined them to it, & therefore I shall not pretend that it was perfectly an act of their first will, and choice, but that which the necessity of affairs recommended to them, yet the matter of right being upon that occasion taken into their most serious debate in a synodical way, and at last a fit and commodious expression uniformly pitch'd upon by joynt consent of both houses of the [Page 137] Convocation, there is no reason to doubt, but that they did believe what they did professe, the fear being the occasion of their debates, but the rea­sons or arguments offered in debate, the causes (as in all charity we are to judge) of their decision.

§. 6. But I shall not lay much weight on that judgment of charity, because if that which was thus de­termined by King and Bishops were falsly determined, then the volunta­rinesse, or freenesse of the determina­tion will not be able to justifie it, and on the other side, if the determination were just, then was there truth in it, antecedent to, and abstracted from the determination, and it was their duty so to determine, and crime that they were unwilling to doe it. And there­fore the whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry, Whether at that time of the reign of Henry VIII. the Bishop of Rome were supreme head, or Gover­nour of this Church of England, or had any real authority here, which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other, viz: to the Archbishop of Canterbury, if he plea­sed.

[Page 138]§. 7. The Right of the Bishop of Rome conside­red.And this is presently deter­mined upon the grounds which have been formerly laid, and confirmed to have truth in them. For the pretensi­ons for the Popes supremacy of power among us being by the assertors thereof founded in one of these three, either in his right (as S. Peter's suc­cessour) to the Ʋniversal Pastorship, that including his power over Eng­land, as a member of the whole; or 2. by the paternal right which by Au­gustine's planting the Gospel among the Saxons is thought to belong to the Pope (and his successours) that sent him; or 3. in the voluntary con­cession of some Kings; the two for­mer of these have been largely dis­proved already, Chap. 4, 5, and 6. in discourses purposely, and distinctly applied to those pretensions. The concession of Kings. And for the third, that will appear to have re­ceived its determination also, I. by the absolutenesse of the power of our Princes, (to which purpose I shall mention but one passage, that of in Goldast: de Mon: G. de Heimburg, some two hundred years since in the last words of his tract de Injust: Ʋsurp: Pap: where speaking of the Emperors making oath to the [Page 139] Pope, he saith, that this is a submission in him, and a patience above what any other suffers, and proves it by this ar­gument, Nam eximius Rex Angliae, Franciae, Dux, Marchio, non astrin­gitur Papae quocunque juramento: fa­ctus Imperator jurare tenetur secun­dum Decretales eorum fabulosè fictas, ita ut supremus Monarcha magis ser­vilis conditionis, quàm quilibet ejus in­ferior fieri censeatur, The King of England and France, any Duke or Marquesse of that Kingdome is not bound to the Pope by any oath, yet the Emperour at his creation is thus bound to swear according to the Popes Decre­tals fabulously invented, so that the su­preme Monarch is made to be of a more servile condition then any his inferior Prince—.) And 2. by the rights of Kings to remove or erect Patriar­chates, and will be farther confirmed in the Negative, if answer be first given to this Dilemma.

§. 8. A Dilemma a­gainst the plea drawn from that.The authority of the Pope in this Kingdome, which is pretended to be held by the concession of our Kings, was either so originally vested in our Kings, that they might law­fully grant it, to whom they pleased, [Page 140] pleased, and so did lawfully grant it to the Pope; or it was not thus ori­ginally vested in our Kings; If it were not, then was that grant an in­valid, null grant, for such are all con­cessions of that which is not ours to give, presumptions, invasions, robbe­ries in the giver, which devolve no right to the receiver, and then this is a pitiful claim which is thus foun­ded: But if that authority were so vested in the Kings of England, that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleased, (which is the only way by which the Pope can pretend to hold any thing by this title of regal concession) then certainly the same power remains still vested in the King to dispose it from him to some other as freely, as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chancel­lour, or any other of his officers from his place, and commit it to another (this way of arguing is made use of by the Bishops in Convocation, Anno Chr: 1537. in the Book by them in­tituled [The Institution of a Christian man]) Or if the same power doe not still remain in the King, then is the King's power diminished, and he con­sequently [Page 141] by this his act, of which we treat, become lesse a King, then formerly he was, And then we know that such acts which make him so, are invalid acts, it being acknow­ledged to be above the power of the King himself, to divest himself and his successors of any part of his regal power.

§. 9.Two sorts of gifts. To which purpose it must be observed, 1. that some things are so ours, that we may freely use them, but cannot freely part with them, as all those things, wherein our proprie­ty is not confined to our persons, but intailed on our posterity, and such the regal power is supposed to be; 2. That as some things which are part of our personal proprieties, are so free­ly ours to give, that when they are given, they are departed out of our selves, and cannot justly be by us resumed again (in which case that Maxim of the civil law stands good, data eo ipso qu [...] dantur, fiunt accipi­entis, what is given, by the very act of being given, becomes the goods of the receiver) so other things are given to others, so as we doe not part with them our selves, they are as truly, [Page 142] and properly ours, after, as before the Concession.

§. 10. Some revo­cable.Thus the Sun communicates his beams, and with them his warmth and influences, and yet retains all which it thus communicates, and ac­cordingly withdraweth them again, And God the spring of all life, and grace, doth so communicate each of these, that he may, and doth freely withdraw them again, and when he taketh away our breath we die— And thus certainly the King, being the fountain of all power and authority, as he is free to communicate this power to one, so is he equally free to recall, and communicate it to another, And therefore may as freely bestow the power of Primate, and chief Metropo­litan of England, or (which is all one) of a Patriarch, on the Bishop of Canterbury, having formerly thought fit to grant it to the Bishop of Rome, as he or any of his Ancestors can be deemed to have granted it to the Bishop of Rome; And then as this be­ing by this means evidenced to be no more then an act of regal power, (which the King might lawfully exer­cise) takes off all obligation of obedi­ence [Page 143] in the Bishops to the Pope, at the first minute, that he is by the King divested of that power, or declared not to have had it de jure, but only to have assumed it formerly (which freedome from that obedience immedi­ately clears the whole businesse of schisme, The reasona­blenesse of re­voking it. as that is a departure from the obedience of the lawful superiour) so will there not want many weighty reasons, deducible from the antient Canons, as well as the maximes of ci­vil government, why the King who may freely place the Primacy, where he please, should choose to place it in a Bishop and subject of his own nation, rather then in a forein Bishop farre re­moved, and him not only independent from that King, but himself enjoy­ing a Principality, or territorie, which it is too apparent how willing he is to enlarge unlimitedly, and to improve the concessions, which are either ac­knowledged, or pretended to be made him, to that purpose.

§. 11. And here it is not amisse to observe, in the reign of Queen Mary, Title & power of Supreme head of the Church retai­ned by Queen Mary. who was no way favourable to the Reformation in points of doctrine and Liturgie, and made all speed to re­peal [Page 144] what had been done in King Ed­ward's time in that matter, yet 1. that she left not the title of Supreme head, till the third Parliament of her reigne; and 2. that in the second Par­liament authority is granted her to make, and prescribe to all such Cathe­dral and Collegiate Churches, as were erected by Henry the VIII. such sta­tutes and orders as should seem good to her, and that statute never repealed but expired: 3. that in her third Par­liament it was with much difficulty obtained, that the supremacie of the Pope should be acknowledged, the matter being urged by her, as that which concerned the establishing the Matrimonie of her Mother, and her legitimation, which depended upon the absolute power of the Pope: 4. that in the 4^th year of her reigne, when the Pope sent Cardinal Petow to be his Legate in England, and to be Bi­shop of Sarisbury, she would not per­mit him to come into the Land, nei­ther could he have that Bishoprick, which as it was some check to the Pope's absolute supremacy, and an as­sertion and vindication of the Regal power, so being added to the former [Page 145] it will be lesse strange, that this Su­preme power of the Popes should be by the Bishops in the reigne of Hen­ry VIII. disclaimed, and ejected.

§. 12. Upon this bottome the foundation of Reformation being laid in England, the superstructure was accordingly erected by the King and Bishops and Clergie in Convocation, but this not all at once, but by di­stinct steps and degrees. Somewhat in the reigne of this Henry the VIII. as in the number of the Sacraments, the use of the Lords Prayer &c. in the English tongue, and the transla­tion of the Bible, all resolved on in Synod, the King which duly assem­bled it, presiding in it by his Vicar General.

§. 13. This was much farther ad­vanced in the time of his son Edward the VI. who being a childe, The advance of the Refor­mation in K^ng Edward's daies. and the Laws and Constitution of this Realm committing the exercise of the Su­preme power in that case, into the hands of a Protector, what was thus regularly done by that Protector, can­not be doubted to be of the same force, and validity, as if the King had been of age, and done it himself; Or [Page 146] if it should, it would be an unanswer­able objection against all hereditary, successive Monarchy, a maim in that form of Government, which could no way be repaired, there being no amu­let in the Crown, which secures the life of each King, till his successor be of age, nor promise from heaven that the children of such Princes shall, by succeeding to the Crown, advance by miracle to the years, and abilities of their Parents, So irrational is the scoffe, and exception of some, that what was done in King Edward's daies being the Acts of a childe is as such to be vilified ▪ and despised.

§. 14. In the Reign of this Prince, many Changes were made in the Church, and Recessions from the Do­ctrines, and practises of Rome; Beside that of Images, the lawfulnesse of the marriage of the Clergie was asserted, a body of an English Liturgie formed, and setled for publick use, the Eu­charist appointed to be administred to the people in both kindes, &c. and though Bishop Gardner of Winchester, and Bishop Bonner of London made opposition against these changes, and for some misbehaviours herein, were [Page 147] imprison'd, (and two more moderate, learned men, Bishop Tunstal of Dur­ham, and Bishop Day of Chichester, upon another score) yet Archbishop Cranmer, and the rest of the Bishops making up the farre greater number, joyned with the Supreme power in the Reformation. And as it is no great marvell, that there should be some (so few) dissenters, so the punishment inflicted on them will not be deemed excessive by any, that shall compare it with the farre severer executions, the fire, and fagot, which were soon after in Queen Mary's daies inflicted on Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Rid­ley, and Bishop Latimer, as the reward of their disputing in the Synod against Transubstantiation, (and the like cruelties on multitudes more) and the Exiles, and deprivations, which befell so many others in her Reigne; However this can be no prejudice to the regularity of the Reformation in the reigne of King Edward, wrought, as hath been said, by the Supreme power, with the consent of the major part of Bishops.

§. 15.In Queen Elizabeth's. That which afterward fol­lowed in the beginning of Qu. Eliza­beth's [Page 148] reigne, may be thought more distant, and lesse reconcileable to our pretensions, (not that of her sex, her being a woman, for so was Qu. Mary before, which acted so vigorously for the contrary way, and the constitution of our Monarchy invests equally ei­ther sex in the plenitude of Regal power, in sacred, as well as civil af­fairs, and it was but to raise envie a­gainst the Reformation that Queen Elizabeth's sex, as before King Ed­ward's non-age hath by some been thought fit to be mention'd, and can­not by any sober judgment be admit­ted to have any force in it) but be­cause, as it is from our histories more pertinently objected, most of the Bi­shops were by her divested of their dignities, and new created in their stead, To this therefore in the last place, I must apply my self to give satisfaction. And 1.

§. 16. In this matter, as much as concerns the Ordination of those new Bishops, that it was performed regu­larly, according to the Antient Ca­nons, each by the Imposition of the hands of three Bishops, hath been evi­dently set down out of the Records, [Page 149] and vindicated by M^r Mason in his Booke de Minist: Anglic: and may there be view'd at large, if the Reader want satisfaction in that point.

§. 17.The Creation of new Bishops in Queen Eli­zabeth's time, vindicated. As for the second remaining part of the objection which alone is pertinent to this place, it will receive answer by these degrees, First that the death of Cardinal Pool Archbishop of Canterbury, falling neer upon the death of her Predecessor Queen Mary, it was very regular for Queen Eliza­beth to assigne a successor to that See, then vacant, Archbishop Parker; 2^dly, that those Bishops, which in Queen Mary's daies had been exiled, and deprived, and had survived that ca­lamity, were with all justice restored to their dignities; 3^dly, that the Bi­shops by her deprived, and divested of their dignities, were so dealt with, for refusing to take the oath of Supre­macy, formed and enjoyned in the daies of Henry the VIII. and in the first Parliament of this Queen revi­ved, and the statutes concerning it re­stored to full force, before it was thus imposed on them. So that for the justice of the cause of their depriva­tion, it depends Immediatly upon the [Page 150] Right and power of the Supreme Ma­gistrate to make laws, to impose oathes for the securing his Govern­ment, and to inflict the punishments, prescribed by those laws, on the dis­obedient, but Originally upon the truth of that decision of the Bishops, and Clergie, and Ʋniversities, in the reigne of Henry the VIII. that no au­thority belonged in this Kingdome of England to the Bishop of Rome, more then to any other forein Bishop. The former of these I shall be confident to look on as an undoubted truth, in the maintenance of which all Go­vernment is concerned, and hath no­thing, peculiar to our pretensions, which should suggest a vindication of it in this place, And the second hath, I suppose, been sufficiently clea­red in the former chapters of this discourse, which have examined all the Bishop of Romes claims to this Supremacy, And both these grounds being acknowledged (or, till they be invalidated, or disproved, supposed) to have truth, and force in them, the conclusion will be sufficiently indu­ced, that there was no injustice in that Act of the Queens, which divested [Page 151] those Bishops, which thus refused to secure her Government, or to approve their fidelity to their lawful▪ Sove­raign.

§. 18. Fourthly, that those Bishops being thus deprived, it was most Re­gular, and Necessary, and that against which no objection is imaginable, (that of their due Ordination being formerly cleared) that other Bishops should be nominated, and advanced to those vacant Sees, and that what should be for the future acted by those new Bishops in Convocation was regular, Synodical, and valid beyond all exception in respect of the forma­lity of it.

§. 19. Fiftly, that as by the Ʋni­form and joynt consent of these Bi­shops thus constituted a Declaration of certain Principal Articles of Reli­gion was agreed on, and set out by Order of both Archbishops, Metropo­litans, and the rest of the Bishops, for the Ʋnity of doctrine, to be taught, and holden of all Parsons, Vicars, and Curates &c. and this not before the third year of that Queens reigne, So before this time there had not been, as farre as appears, any debate in any [Page 152] former Convocation of that Queens reigne concerning Religion (only an offer of a disputation betwixt eight Clergie-men on each side, which came to nothing) but all done by the Par­liaments restoring what had been de­bated, and concluded by former Sy­nods, in the reigns of King Henry the eight, and Edward the sixt, without any new deliberation in any present Synod. By this means were revived the Statutes for the Regal Suprema­cy, as also of the book of Common-prayer, as it was in the time of Ed­ward the sixt, (with few alterations) which included the abolition of the Romish Missalls. And so all this again, as farre as it concerned Queen Eli­zabeth's part in the Reformation, is regularly superstructed on the fore­mentioned foundation of Regal Su­premacy (with the concurrence, and advise of Synods) which hath been in the former part of this discourse (I hope, sufficiently) vindicated.

§. 20. And that being granted, it cannot be here necessary, or pertinent to descend to the consideration of each several matter of the Change thus wrought in this Church, either [Page 153] as branches of the Reformation, or under the name, or title of it. For our present enquirie being no farther extended, then this, whether the true Church of England, as it stands by Laws established, have in Reforming been guilty of Schisme, as that signi­fies in the first place a recession, and departure from the obedience of our lawful Superiours, and this being cleared in the Negative, by this one evidence, that all was done by those, to whom, and to whom only, the rightful power legally pertained, viz: the King, and Bishops of this Nati­on, supposing (as now regularly we may, having competently proved it, and answered all the colours, that have been offered against it) that the Pope had no right to our obedi­ence, and consequently that our de­parture from him is not a depar­ture from our obedience to our su­periours, it is presently visible, that all other matters will belong to some o­ther heads of Discourse, and conse­quently must be debated upon other principles, All variation from the Church of Rome in point of Doctrine if it should (as I believe it will ne­ver) [Page 154] be proved to be unjust, falling under the head of Heresie, not of schisme; and for acts of sacrilege, and the like impieties (as certainly Henry the eighth, and some others, cannot be freed from such) they are by us as freely charged upon the actors, as by any Romanist they can be, But yet sacrilege is no more schisme, then it is adulterie, and the Church, on which one sin hath been committed, cannot be from thence proved to be guilty of every other.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Second sort of Schisme, as that is an Offence against mutual Chari­ty, This divided into three species, and the first here examined.

§. 1. BUT beside that first species of schisme, as it is an offence a­gainst the subordination, which Christ hath by himself and his Apostles set­led in the Church, (from the guilt of which I have hitherto indevoured to vindicate our Church) another was taken notice of, as it signifies an of­fence against the mutual unity, and peace, and charity, which Christ left among his Disciples; And to that I must now proceed, as farre as the Ac­cusations of the Romanist give us oc­casion to vindicate our innocence.

§. 2. Three bran­ches of the se­cond sort of Schisme.And for method's sake, this branch of Schisme may be subdivided into three species. The first is a breach in the doctrines, or Traditions, a de­parture from the unity of the Faith, which was once delivered to the saints; under that head also comprehending the institutions of Christ, of his A­postles, and of the Ʋniversal Church [Page 156] of the first and purest ages, whether in Government, or other the like ob­servances and practises: The second is an offence against external peace and Communion Ecclesiastical: The third and last is the want of that charity, which is due from every Christian to every Christian. Beside these I cannot foresee any other species of schisme, and therefore the vindicating our Re­formation from all grounds of charge of any of these three, will be the ab­solving the whole task undertaken in these sheets.

§. 3.1. A departure from the Unity of Doctrines, or Traditions Apostolical. For the first it may be consi­dered either in the Bullion, or in the coyn, in the grosse, or in the retail, ei­ther as it is a departure from those rules appointed by Christ for the founding and upholding his truth in the Church, this Ʋnity of Doctrine &c. or else as it is the asserting any particular branch of Doctrine, con­trary to Christs, and the (Apostolical, pure) Churches establishment.

§. 4. Our Church vindicated from this, in two branches.And here it is first suggested by the Romanist, that by casting out the authority of the Bishop of Rome, we have cast off the head of all Chri­stian Ʋnity, and so must needs be [Page 157] guilty of Schisme in this first respect. To which the answer is obvious, 1.In the first, Christs Rules for upholding the truth. that that Bishop of Rome was never appointed by Christ to be the head of all Christian unity, or that Church to be the conservatory (for ever) of all Christian truth, any more then any other Bishop, or Church of the A­postles ordaining, or planting; and whatever can be pretended for the contrary will be easily answered from the grounds already laid, and cleared in the former part of this discourse concerning the Ʋniversal Pastorship of S. Peter's successors, which must not be here so unnecessarily re­peated.

§. 5. 2^dly, That the way provided by Christ, and his Apostles for the preserving the unity of the faith, &c. in the Church, is fully acknowledged by us, and no way supplanted by our Reformation. That way is made up of two acts of Apostolical providence, First their resolving upon some few heads of special force, and efficacie to the planting of Christian life through the world, and preaching, and deposi­ting them in every Church of their plantation. 2. Their establishing an [Page 158] excellent subordination of all inferior officers of the Church to the Bishop in every city, of the Bishops in every Province to their Metropolitanes, of the Metropolitanes in every region or [...] to Patriarchs, or Primates, allowing also among these such a Primacie of Order, or dignity, as might be proportionable to the [...] in the scripture, and agree­able to what is by the antient Canons allowed to the Bishop of Rome; And this standing subordination sufficient for all ordinary uses, and when there should be need of extraordinary re­medies, there was then a supply to be had by congregating Councels, Provincial, Patriarchal, General, as hath formerly been shewed. And all this, it is most certain, asserted, and acknowledged by every true son of the Church of England, as zealously, as is pretended by any Romanist. And from hence, by the way, that speech of the learned and excellent Hugo Gro­tius (which I discern to be made use of by the Romanists, and look'd on with jealousie by others) will, I sup­pose, receive its due importance, and interpretation, in his Rivet: Apologet: [Page 159] Discuss: p. 255. Restitutionem Chri­stianorum in unum idém (que) corpus &c.

§. 6. As for the subjection (and de­pendence) of this Church to the Mo­narchick power of the Bishop of Rome, this will never be likely to tend to the unity of the whole body, un­lesse first all other Churches of Chri­stians paid that subjection too, and were obliged, and so by duty morally ascertain'd alwaies to continue it (which it is evident the Eastern Chur­ches had not done long before the time of our pretended departure) and 2. unlesse the Bishop of Rome were in probability able to administer that vast Province, so as would be most to the advantage of the whole body, For which whether he be fitly quali­fied or no, as it is not demonstrable in the causes, so is it to be looked on, as a Politick Probleme, the truth of which belongs to prudent persons, and and such as are by God intrusted with the Flock to judge of, i. e. to the Princes, the nursing Fathers of every Church, who are prudentially, and fatherly to determine for themselves and those that are under them, what is most ordinable to that end, and [Page 160] cannot be obliged to conclude, far­ther then the motives or premises will bear, to decree what they doe not reasonably, and cordially believe.

§. 7. In the Second, Particular doctrines. Lastly, for the particular doctrines wherein we are affirmed by the Romanists to depart from the Ʋ ­nity of the Faith, and so by departing from the unity, to be schismatical, as heretical by departing from the faith, this must be contested by a strict sur­vey of the particular doctrines, where­in as we make no doubt to approve our selves to any that will judge of the Apostolical doctrine and traditions by the Scriptures, and consent of the first 300 years, or the four General Councels, The Church of Englands tem­per in respect of particular doctrines. (the most competent witnes­ses of Apostolical traditions) so we shall secure our selves of our inno­cence in this behalf, by that principle acknowledged in our Church, and owned, as the rule by which we are concluded in any debate, or contro­versie: That whatever is contrary to the doctrine, or practises of those first and purest ages, shall by us (assoon as it thus appears) be renounced, and disclaimed also. Which resolution of rulinesse, and obedience, will, I sup­pose, [Page 161] conserve us in the unity of the Faith, and render us approveable to God, though our ignorance (thus un­affected) should betray us to some misunderstandings of those first times, and be an instrument much more pro­bable to lead us into all truth, then the supposed infallibility of the Church of Rome can be imagined to be, which as it leaves the proudest presumer re­ally as liable to error, as him that ac­knowledgeth himself most fallible, so it ascertains him to persevere incorri­gible whether in the least, or greatest error, which by fault, or frailty he shall be guilty of.

§. 8. This consideration of the hum­ble, docible temper of our Church (together with our professed appeal to those first and purest times, to stand or fall, as by those evidences we shall be adjudged) as it necessa­rily renders it our infelicity, not our crime, if in judging of Christ's truth we should be deemed to erre, so may it reasonably supersede that larger trouble of the Reader, in this place, which the view and examination of the severals would cost him, it being thus farre evident, that it is our a­vowed [Page 162] wish and our care (should it be denied to be our lot) a special mark of the Church of England's Reforma­tion, to preserve the Ʋnity of the Apo­stolical Faith and Primitive practi­ses, as intire, as we would have done Christ's body or garment, and the pro­bability being not weak on our side, that the fact of the crucifying soul­diers which hath so much of our ab­horrence and detestation, shall never be our choice, our known, or wilfull guilt, or if it be, that we so farre re­cede from our Profession.

CHAP. IX. The Second species of this Schisme exa­mined, as it is an offence against ex­ternal peace, or Communion Eccle­siastical.

§. 1.This Church free from breach of Communion Ecclesiastical. NOW for the second branch of this second sort of Schism, as it is an offence against external peace or communion Ecclesiastical. This cannot with any colour be charged on us,As appears by six Conside­rations. of whom these 6 things are manifest, and that by the tenure of our Reformation, 1.The first. that we have al­waies retained the form of Govern­ment ▪ in, and under which the Apostles founded Ecclesiastical assemblies, or Communion, viz: that of the Bishop, and his inferiour officers in every Church, and so in that respect are, in Ignatius his phrase [...], within the altar, have no part of that breach of Ecclesiastical communion up­on us, which consists in casting out that order. 2.The second. That as we maintain that Order, so we regularly submit to the exercise of it, acknowledge the due authority of these Governors, pro­fess Canonical obedience to them, sub­mit [Page 164] to their Censures, and Decrees, and give our selves up to be ruled by them in all things that belong to their cognizance secundum Deum, ac­cording to God. 3.The third. That the circum­stances which are necessary to the [...] the assembling our selves together for the publick worship, whe­ther 1. that of place, (our Churches consecrated to those offices) or 2. that of time, (the Lords day, and other primitive festivals, and Fasts, and, in their degree, every day of the week) or 3. that of forms of Prayer, and Praises, celebration of Sacraments, and sacramentals, Preaching, Cate­chizing, &c. or 4. that of Ceremo­nies, such as the practise of the Pri­mitive Church hath sent down recom­mended to us; or lastly, that of Di­scipline to binde all these performan­ces upon every member of the Church in his office, or place, are all entered into our Confessions, setled by Ar­ticle, as part of our establishment, and so the want of either, or all of those are not imputable to our Reforma­tion.

§. 2. The fourth. Fourthly, That in every of these three, whatsoever the Romanist [Page 165] requires us to adde farther to that which we voluntarily, and profes­sedly receive, (1. the supreme, tran­scendent, monarchick power of the Pope, 2. the acknowledgment of, and obedience to his supremacy, 3. the use of more ceremonies, festivals, &c.) is usurpation, or imposition of the pre­sent Romanists, absolutely without Authority, or Precedent from the an­tient, Primitive Church, from whom we are so unwilling to divide in any thing, that we choose a conformity with them, rather then with any later modell, and if by receding from the Ordo Romanus in any particular, we doe not approve our selves to come neerer to the first, and purest times, it is the avow'd Profession of our Church, the wish, and purpose of it, which I may justly style part of our establish­ment, to reduce, and restore that, (whatsover it is) which is most pure, and Primitive in stead of it.

§. 3. The fift. Fiftly, That as we exclude no Christian from our communion, that will either filially, or fraternally embrace it with us, being ready to admit any to our assemblies, that ac­knowledge the Foundation laid by [Page 166] Christ, and his Apostles, so we as ear­nestly desire to be admitted to the like freedome of external Communi­on with all the members of all other Christian Churches, as oft as occasion makes us capable of that blessing of the one heart, and one lip, and would most willingly, by the use of the an­tient method of literae Communicato­riae, maintain this Communion with those, with whom we cannot corpo­rally assemble, and particularly with those which live in obedience to the Church of Rome.

§. 4. The sixt. Sixtly, that the onely hin­drances that interpose and obstruct this desired freedome of external Communion, are wholly imputable to the Romanists.

§. 5. First, their excommunicating, and separating from their assemblies all that maintain communion with the Church of England, which we know was done by Bull from the Pope a­bout the tenth year of Q. Elizabeth (before which time those English, which had not joyned in our Refor­mation, might, and did come to our assemblies, and were never after re­jected by us, but upon their avowed [Page 167] contumacie against the orders of our Church, which consequently brought the censures on them) and to that it is visibly consequent, that we that were cast out, cannot be said to separate, as in the former part of this discourse hath been demonstrated.

§. 6. Secondly, their imposing such conditions on their Communion (be­lief of doctrines, and approbation of practises, which we neither believe, nor approve of, and are ready to con­test and maintain our Negatives, by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by) that we cannot without sinning, or seeming to sin against conscience, without wil­full falling on one side, or dissembling and unsound confession on the other side, or at least the scandal of one of these, accept of their communion up­on such conditions, as hath formerly been demonstrated also.

§. 7. A considerati­on concerning our Church.And in this matter it were very well worthy our considering, how farre the Articles of our Church of England proceed in accord with the present Roman doctrines and pra­ctises, and in what particulars [...], we cannot perswade our selves [Page 168] to consent to them, and then to offer it to the Ʋmpirage of any rational arbitrator, whether we that unfeign­edly professe to believe so much and no more, nor to be convinced by all the reasons, and authorities, proofs from Scripture, or the first Christi­an writers, (those of the first three hundred years) or the four General Councels) produced by them (being in full inclination and desire of minde, ready to submit upon conviction) are in any reason, or equity, or according to any example, or precept of Christ, or his Apostles, or the antient, Pri­mitive Church, to be required to of­fer violence to our mindes, and to make an unsound profession, or else (for that one guilt of not doing so) to be rejected as hereticks, and denied the benefit of Christian Communion, which we heartily desire to extend and propagate to them which deny it to us. All this thus put together, and applied to this present matter will certainly vindicate us from all ap­pearance of guilt of this second branch of the second sort of Schisme.

CHAP. X. The third species of this Schism, as an offence against that charity due from every Christian to every Christian, examined.

§. 1. Contrary to charity due from all to all. LAstly, as Schism is an offence against that charity which is due from every Christian to every Christian, so it will be best distributed (according to what we see noted by by the Apostle, Rom. 14. in the Jewish, and Gentile Christians) 1. Judging▪ 2. Despising.into the judg­ing, and the despising of others, either of which was, if not formally Schism, yet soon improveable into it, when it would not be repressed by the A­postles admonitions, Separating the effect of both. The Jewish Chri­stians we know judged, and damned all that would not observe the Mo­saical law, and would not associate, or communicate with the Gentiles, and the like height Diotrephes, and some of the Gentile believers, who began with the other branch, that of vilify­ing the weak Jew, at last arrived to, not receiving, forbidding to receive, and casting out the brethren, 3 Joh. 10. And whether the Romanists or we, [Page 170] are thus guilty, will soon be discer­nible.

§. 2. Of Judging & separating the Romanists guilty ex ConfessoFor the former, that of judg­ing, and so separating from their bre­thren (if yet we may be allowed that title) it is evident by their own ac­knowledgment, how guilty they are, and how guiltlesse we.

§. 3. It hath been a special motive, and argument to gain proselytes to their party for some years, that by our Confession there is salvation to be had among them, but in their judg­ment no possible hope of it for us. This weapon of their's used so studiously against us, to anticipate and prejudge, in general, whatsoever can be parti­cularly said to assert our doctrines, and practises, will certainly be as use­full in our hands, as Goliah's sword in David's to give this wound (I wish it may not prove as fatal) to our vaunting enemies: For certainly, if there be any truth in that motive, then are they professedly the men, that judge their brethren, and as confessedly we the men, that doe not judge them. And if S. Cyprian's rule be true (who had as well considered the nature of Schism, and as diligently armed the [Page 171] Christians of his age against it, and given us as sure rules to judge by, in this matter, as any) that they that maintain any difference in opinion a­gainst other Christians, must, if they will avoid the evil of schism, manage it with this temper (neminem damnan­tes, neminem à communione nostrâ ar­centes) never condemn any, or forbid them our communion, then is the schism (because the uncharitableness) on their parts, not on ours. And it is not the saying, we are Hereticks, and so certainly excluded salvation, Schis­maticks, and so out of the Church, the way to salvation, that can give this sanguinarie judgment any meeker a title; For that we are such, being as much denied, as any thing, and that negative offered to be proved, and vindicated by all those evidences, by which any matter of doctrine, (from whence this question depends) can duly be cleared, this unproved affir­mation, that we are such, is certainly a petitio principii, a begging of the question, a supposing that in the de­bate, which they know we are as farre from confessing, as they from having proved, and that is the most certain [Page 172] proof, that such judging is unchari­table; I wish there were not many other as pregnant indications of it.

§. 4. And for that of despising or setting at nought the brother, which is the ApOf despising. We are guilt­lesse of it.ostles argument also that they walk not charitably, and the effect whereof is evident, the casting them out of the Church, if the cause may be concluded by the effect, the guilt lies on the Romanists side, not on ours (as hath formerly appeared) And truly we are so sensible of the many pre­possessions, and strong prejudices, which by the advantage of education, the prescribed credulity to all that the Church shall propose, the doctrine of infallibility, the shutting up the scri­ptures in an unknown language, the impossibility that the multitude should search ▪ or examine tradition with their own eyes, the prosperous flourishing estate of the Roman Church (and the persecutions, and calamities ▪ and ex­pressions of God's displeasure on the Church of England) the literal sound of [Hoc est corpus meum] for their principal (espoused) doctrine of Tran­substantiation, and som other the like means, are infused into the multitude [Page 173] of men and women, that are brought up without any knowledge of ours, in a firm belief of all their pretensions, that we are as farre from setting them at nought, or despising them, as from that (which by their doing it first is made impossible for us to be guilty of) the casting them out of the Church.

§. 5. I foresee not any objection, which may give me temptation, or excuse farther to enlarge on this mat­ter, And professe not to know any other branch of Schism, or colour of fastening that guilt upon our Church, made use of by any, which hath not been either prevented in the grounds of this discourse, or distinctly taken notice of, and competently vindicated, as farre as the design'd brevity would permit.

CHAP. XI. Concerning the present Persecution of the Church of England, and the ad­vantages sought from thence.

§. 1. OUr Establishment being thus freed from Schism, I shall not now entertain my self with any fear, that the Persecution, which we are under, will involve us in it. The Roma­nists argument frō our present condition of Persecution.Yet can I not but take notice of the style, that some Romanists have in these last years, on this occasion, chosen to make use of, calling us [the late Church of England] The interpretation where­of is to my understanding this, that the calamities, under which now we suffer, have made us cease to be a Church: And therefore having lear­ned, and abundantly experimented, what scandal the Crosse hath alwaies carried along with it, how willing enemies are to take advantage, and ground arguments on afflictions, and how ordinary it is for friends, to take impressions from such sensible, carnal motives, and being secured by the storie of the Antient Gnosticks, that it is neither scandalous excesse of fear, [Page 175] nor want of charity, to think it pos­sible, that this, as other antient here­sies, may now as in a Platonick year (if not carefully warded) return on us, as in a revolution, I shall there­fore conclude this paper with an at­tempt to remove this prejudice; The utmost whereof being formed into an objection, is this, that it is absolute­ly necessary to communicate with some one visible Church, that now the Church of England is not such, and consequently that it must be cast off, and the Roman Church so illu­striously visible, be taken up in stead of it.

§. 2.Answered. To this reserve I shall make my returns by these degrees, First that by the making this objection, or drawing any argument against any member of the Church of England, from the present [...], or impro­sperous circumstances of affairs, It must be supposed, that twenty years since, this person, the supposed subject of discourse, living regularly in this Church, under his superiours, was not then chargeable w^th this crime of not communicating with a visible Church.

§. 3. This consequent I shall not be [Page 176] so much my own flatterer as to think it will be allowed me▪ by the Roma­nist, who will, I know, at another time accuse the whole Church of England (ever since the Reformation) of schism from the Catholick Church, and make the communicating with it 20 years since, as dangerous as now the not communicating with any: But the reason of my laying this founda­tion is, to shew the vanity of the pre­sent objection, For if the Church of England 20 years since, were not a Church, but a society of Schismaticks, not a particular Church (which, if so, must be a part, or member of the Ʋ ­niversal, and such it is not, if it be truly separated from that body, in the unity of which it is obliged to re­main) but a separated, and torn off, and so a livelesse, ejected branch, then whatsoever hath now befallen us, and the consequence of that, the supposed impossibility of cōmunicating with the Church of England, will but leave us where we were, the impossibility of communicating with a schismatical so­ciety, being not chargeable on us, as a crime, by them, who make the com­municating with all such societies so [Page 177] damnable; And therefore I say, to the making this any objection, 'tis ne­cessary, that that be supposed, which I have for that cause laid as my foun­dation, that 20 years since a member of the English Church was not under this guilt of not communicating with some one visible Church; And if then he were not, (or, for discourse sake, be by the objecter supposed not to have been) then it infallibly, and irrefragably follows (which is the second proposition) that he that 20 years since was not under this guilt of not communicating — is either not guilty of it now, or else hath volun­tarily committed or omitted some­what, which commission or omission hath been the contracting of this guilt. For that somewhat, which hath not been his choise, shall become his crime, that what hath been his saddest part of infelicity, the evil a­gainst which he hath most industri­ously contended, should be accounted his offence ▪ when it is his punishment, I shall not fear will be affirmed by any.

§. 4. Thirdly then, the businesse is brought to this issue, that that per­son, which is the subject of our dis­course [Page 178] (he that 20 years since, was a member of the Church of England) be now proved by some commission or omission of his, voluntarily to have contracted this guilt, or else be ab­solved, and freed from it; If he have contracted it, it must be by some ir­regularity of actions, contrary to the standing rule and Canons of this Church; or by disobedience to some commands of his Ecclesiastical supe­riors; And as in neither of these I shall excuse any that hath been guil­ty, so if, being not fallen under the actual Censures of the Church for it, he now timely and sincerely return with contrition, and reformation, I shall hope it will not be imputed to him; But however this cannot be insisted on by the objecter, because I speak, and so must he, of him that hath lived regularly (not of him that hath not) And of him 'tis apparent, that all that he hath done, is, to ad­here to his former principles, when others have not, to have testified his constancy with (not only venturing but) actually losing either possessions, or liberty (and the benefit of Eccle­siastical assemblies) rather then he [Page 179] would joyn, or appear to joyn with Schismaticks, when others have made all worldly advantages by the ru­pture; In a word, that he hath been patient, and not fainted; and never departed from his rule, though it have cost him dear to stick fast to it; And I hope no body will be so unchari­table, as to grieve, and gall him, whom God hath thus suffered to be chastised, upon no other provocation, but this, his having been thus afflicted and per­secuted. This is too clear a truth to need confirming, and yet this is the utmost, that it can be driven to, sup­posing the most that the objection can be imagined to suppose, viz: that the Church of England is now invisible.

§. 5. But then in the fourth place, it must be added, that as yet, Blessed be God, the Church of England is not invisible; It is still preserved in Bi­shops and Presbyters rightly ordained, and multitudes rightly baptized, none of which have fallen off from their profession; And the only thing imagi­nable to be objected in this point, be­ing this, that the schism hath so farre been extended by the force, that ma­ny, if not most Churches parochial [Page 180] are filled by those, who have set up a new, or a no-form of worship, and so that many men cannot any other­wise▪ then in private families, serve God, after the Church-way, that sure will be of little weight, when the Romanists are remembred to be the objecters, who cannot but know, that this is the only way, that they have had of serving God in this Kingdome, these many years, and that the night-meetings of the Primitive Christians in dens and caves are as pertinent to the justifying of our condition, as they can be of any, and when 'tis certain, that the [...], the forsaking of the assemblies, Heb. 10.25. is not [...], our wilfull fault v. 26. but only our unhappy lot ▪ who are forced either not to frequent the assemblies, or else to incourage (& incurre the scandal of seeming to ap­prove) the practises of those that have departed from the Church. That we doe not decline order, or publick com­munion ▪ and consequently are not to be charged for not enjoying those benefits of it, which we vehemently thirst after, is evident by the exten­sive nature▪ of our persecution, the [Page 181] same tempest having with us thrown out all order, and form, Bishops, and Liturgie together, and to that curst­nesse of theirs, and not to any obsti­natenesse, or unreconcileablenesse of ours (which alone were the guilt of non-communion) is all that unhappi­nesse of the constant sons of the pre­sent English Church to be imputed, in which alone this whole objection is founded.

§. 6.What this may come to in the future. I cannot discern any farther appearance of difficulty in this mat­ter, and therefore shall no farther lengthen this Appendage, then by of­fering it to the consideration of the indifferent Reader, whether this ob­jection can ever in future times be improveable into a charge against us, or our posterity, as long as either Bi­shops stand, and continue to ordain a­mong us, or it is not our faults that they doe not stand. To which pur­pose it may be remembred▪ what be­fell the Jewes whether under the Ze­lots fury, or the Romans yoke; The former threw out the lawfull succes­sive High Priests, and Priests of the sons of Aaron, and put into those sa­cred offices the most ignorant rusticks, [Page 182] some so void of all degree of know­ledge, saith Josephus, that they knew not what the very word [Priest] sig­nified. The Roman Conquerours by their Procurators put in annually whom they pleased to choose (with­out consideration of the Aaronical line) into the chief Priest's office; I shall here demand of any, Whether (supposing and granting it as unde­niable, that the Zelots were formally Schismaticks, or with some improve­ment, in Josephus his style [...], seditious) there can be any ground of reason, or equity, to involve, or con­clude under the same guilt those that lived under those imposed, usurping High Priests, supposing those inferi­ors to have been as farre from con­senting to the continuance, as to the beginning of such usurpation, and that the circumstances were such, that they lay not under the appearance of doing, what they did not, and so had not the scandal, any more, then the reality of that guilt. The Reader, I suppose, will be able to answer this Quaere to himself, and supersede all necessity of making up the Parallel.

[Page 183]§. 7.The Conclu­sion. And then I have at this time no farther exercise for him, but that he will joyn in ardent prayers with me, that God will restore that which is lost, reduce that heavenly grace, and incomparable blessing of Christian peace and holy communion among all, that have received the honour of be­ing called by his name, that we may all minde the same thing, fix the same common designes, love, and aid, and promote one anothers good, unani­mously glorifie him here with one tongue, and heart, that we may all be glorified with him, and sing joynt Hosannah's, and Hallelujah's to him to all eternity.