SECT. 1.
Of the Act of Schism.

THat we may lie open to their full Charge, we lay the Notion in as great a Latitude, as, I think, our Adversaries themselves would have it.

Schism is a voluntary division of a Christian Church, in its external Communion, without suf­ficient cause.

1. 'Tis a Division, [...], Divisions orAct. Division in the Church particular. Rents among you: This division of the Church is made either in the Church or from it; in it, as it is a particular Church, which the Apostle blames in the Church of Corinth, c. 11. Though they came together, and did not separate from the external Communion, but divided in it and about it.

2. Division is made also in the Church asCatholick. Catholick or Universal, and some charge the Church or Court of Rome (as we shall observe hereafter) herewith, as the cause of many de­plorable Rents and Convulsions in the bowels of it, and indeed in a true sence, all that are guilty of dividing either in, or from a particular [Page 4] Church (without just cause) are guilty of Schism in the Catholick, as the Aggregatum of all par­ticular Churches.

There is division as well from, as in the Church, and this is either such as is improper­ly called Separation, or properly, or more per­fectly so.

1. Separation improperly so called, we may term, Negative; which is rather a recusancy or a denyal of Communion, where it is either due or only claimed and not due, but was never actually given.

2. 'Tis properly so, where an actual separati­on is made, and Communion broken or denyed, where it has wont to be paid.

3. Or yet more perfectly, when those that thus separate and withdraw their Communi­on from a Church, joyn themselves in an op­posite body, and erect Altar against Altar.

SECT. II.
Subject of Schism.

THus of the Act of Schism, Division: Let us briefly consider the Subject of this divi­sion,Subject. which is not a civil or an Infidel Society, but a Christian Church. I do not express it a true Church; for that is supposed: For if it be a Christian Church it must be true, otherwise it is not at all.

Some learned of our own side, distinguish here of the truth of the Church Physically or [Page 5] metaphysically considered; or morally: and ac­knowledge the Roman Church to be a true Church, or truly a Church, as some would rather have it, but deny it to be such morally: and plead for separation from it only in a moral sence, or as it is not a true Church, i. e. as it is a false and corrupt Church, not as it is a Church.

But finding this distinction to give offence, and perhaps some advantage to our Adversa­ries, at least for the amusing and disturbing the method of disputation, and being willing to reduce the difference as much as I am able, I shall not insist upon these distinctions.

I confess (pace tantorum) I see no danger in, but rather a necessity of granting the Church of Rome to be a true Church even in a moral sence, largely speaking; as moral is distinguish­ed from Physical or metaphysical: and the ne­cessity of this concession ariseth from the grant­ing or allowing her to be a true Church in any sence, or, a Church of Christ.

For to say, that a Christian Church is not a true Church morally, yet is so really, i. e. Physi­cally or Metaphysically, seems to imply that it is a Christian Church, and it is not a Christian Church; seeing all the being of a Christian Church depends upon its truth in a moral sence, as I conceive is not questioned by either side.

And when we grant that the Church of Rome or any other is a true Christian Church in any sence, we do mean that she retains so much of Christian truth in a moral sence, as is requisite to the truth and being of a Christian Church.

Indeed the very Essence of a Christian Church [Page 6] seems to be of a Moral nature, as is evident in all its causes; its Efficient, The preaching of the Gospel under divine Influence is a Moral cause; the form, living in true faith, and Re­ligion, is moral; its End and all its formal Acti­ons, in Profession and Communion, are of a Moral nature, and the Christians as they are Men, are indeed natural Beings, yet as they are Christians and the matter of the Christian Church, and more, as they are in a Society, they fall properly under a Moral Considera­tion.

But how can a Church be true and not true, and both in a Moral sence? How can we own the Church of Rome as a true Church, and yet leave her as a false Church, and true and false be both taken Morally? Very well: And our Learned Men intend no other, though they speak it not in these terms.

For to be true and false in the same (Moral) Sence; doth not imply the being so, in the same respects: Thus the Church of Rome may be granted to be a true Christian Church, with re­spect to those Fundamentals retained in her Faith and Profession, wherein the being and truth of such a Church consisteth; and yet be, very false, and justly to be deserted, for her gross Errors, in many other points, believed also and professed by her: as a Bill in Chancery, may be a true Bill for the substance of it and so admit­ted; and yet in many things falsely suggested, it may be very false, and as to them, be rejected.

2. The Church as the Subject of Schism may1. Catho­lick. be further considered as Catholick, i. e. Absolute, Formal, Essential, and as it lies spread over all [Page 7] the world, but united in one common Faith: From this Church the Donatists and other anci­ent Hereticks, are said to have separated.

2. As Particular, in a greater or lesser num­ber2. Particu­lar. or part of the Catholick: Thus the modern Separatists forsaking the Church of England are said to be Schismaticks.

3. In a Complex and mixt Sence, as the parti­cular 3. Mix'd. Roman Church pretending also to be the Catholick Church, calls her self Roman Catholick, and her Particular Bishop the universal Pastor. In which sence, the Church of England is charg­ed with separation from the Catholick Church, for denying Communion with the particular Church of Rome.

SECT. III.
Object of Schism.

SECT. IV.
The Conditions of Schism. Causless. Voluntary.

THe fourth and last thing considerableCondition: in the Definition, is the Condition; which adds the guilt and formality of Schism to Separation: which is twofold, it must be Cause­less and Voluntary.

1. It must be voluntary Separation, or denial Voluntary. of Communion: but of this, I shall say nothing; a greater man received a check from his Ro­mish Adversaries for the proof of it; saying, who knows not that every sin is voluntary? S. W, Causless.

2. It must be causless, or as it is usually ex­pressed, without sufficient cause: 'tis a Rule generally allowed, that the Cause makes the Schism; i. e. if the Church give cause of Sepa­ration, there is the Schism; if not, the cause of Schism is in the Separatist; and consequent­ly, where the cause is found, there the charge of Schism resteth.

I know, 'tis said, that there cannot be suffi­cient cause of Separation from the true Church; and, therefore, this Condition is needless: but, they ever mean (by the true Church) the Catho­lick Church.

'Tis granted, the Catholick Church cannot be supposed, to give such cause; she being the ordinary Pillar of Truth, wherein the means of Salvation can be only found; therefore, we rarely meet with any such condition, in the Definitions of Schism, given by the Fa­thers of the Ancient Church; because they had to deal with Schisms of that kind, that sepa­rated from the whole Church.

But hence to infer, that we cannot have just cause to separate from the Church of Rome, will be found bad Logick.

However, if we could grant this Condition to be needless, it cannot be denied to be true. and the lawfulness of Separation for just cause, is an eternal verity; and if the cause be supposed just, cannot be said to be unjust; seeing there cannot be supposed a sufficient cause of Sin; the Act is justified while it is condemned.

Besides it is not questioned by our Adversa­ries, but there may be sufficient cause of sepa­ration from a particular Church; then if at last we find, that the Church of Rome is no more, there is more than reason to admit this Condition in the present Controversie.

But the Cause must not be pretended to effect, beyond its influence or Sufficiency: Therefore none may be allowed to deny Communion with a Church, farther than he hath cause; for be­yond its Activity, that which is said to be a cause, is no cause.

Hence we admit the distinction of partial and total separation; and that known Rule, that we may not totally separate from a true Church; and only so far, as we cannot communicate without sin.

The Reason is evident, because the truth and very being of a Christian Church, impli­eth something wherein every Christian Church in the very Foundation and being of it, hath an agreement both of Union and Communion.

Far be it from us therefore, to deny all kind of Communion with any Christian Church, yea we franckly and openly declare, that we still retain Communion, out of fraternal charity, with the Church of Rome, so far as she is a true Church: Only protesting against her Ʋsurpations, and re­forming our selves from those corruptions of Faith and Worship, of which Rome is too fond and consequently the more guilty.

SECT. V.
The Application of Schism. Not to our Church.

IF this definition of Schism be not applicable to the Church of England, she is unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism. If the Church of England doth not voluntarily divide in or from the Catholick Church, or any particular Church, either by separation from, or denying Communion with it, much less by setting another Altar against it without sufficient cause, then the definition of Schism is not applicable to the Church of England.

But she hath not thus divided, whether we respect the Act or the Cause.

With respect to the Act, viz. Division: We1. In the Act. argue, if the Church of England be the same for Substance since the Reformation, that it was be­fore; then by the Reformation we have made no such Division: for we have divided from no o­ther Church further than we have from our own, as it was before the Reformation, as our Adver­saries grant: And therefore if we are now the same Church as to Substance that we were be­fore, we hold the same Communion for substance, or essentials with every other Church now, that we did before.

But, for Substance, we have the same Faith, the same Worship, the same Government now, that we had before the Reformation; and indeed from our first Conversion to Christianity.

Indeed, the Modern Romanists have made new Essentials in the Christian Religion, and de­termine their Additions to be such: But so Weeds are of the essence of a Garden, and Botches of the essence of a Man.

We have the same Creed to a word, and in the same sence, by which all the Primitive Fa­thers were saved; which they held to be so suf­ficient, Con. Ept. p. 2. Act. 6. c. 7. that in a general Council, they did forbid all persons (under pain of deposition to Bishops and Clerks, and Anathematization to Lay-men) to compose or obtrude upon any persons con­verted from Paganism or Judaism.

We retain the same Sacraments and Discipline; we derive our holy Orders by lineal succession from them. It is not we who have forsaken the essence of the Modern Church by substraction, [Page 18] or rather Reformation, but they of the Church of Rome, who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Roman Church, by their corrupt Additi­ons, as a learned Man observes.

The plain truth is this, the Church of Rome hath had long and much Reverence in the Church of England; and thereby we were by little and little drawn along with her into ma­ny gross errors and superstitions both in Faith and Worship; and at last had almost lost our li­berty, in point of Government. But that Church refusing to reform, and proceeding still further to usurp upon us, we threw off the Ʋsurpation first, and afterwards very deliberately Reform'd our selves from all the corruptions that had been growing upon us, and had almost over­grown both our Faith and Worship: If this be to divide the Church, we are, indeed, guilty, not else.

But we had no power to reform our selves: Here indeed is the main hinge of the Contro­versie; but we have some concessions from our worst and fiercest Adversaries, that a National Church hath power of her self, to reform abu­ses in lesser matters, provided she alter nothing in the Faith and Sacraments without the Pope: And we have declared before, that we have made no alteration in the essentials of Religion.

But we brake our selves off from the Papal Authority, and divided our selves from our lawful Governors: 'Tis confest the Papal Au­thority we do renounce; but not as a lawful Pow­er, but a Tyrannical Usurpation; and if that be proved, where is our Schism.

But this reminds us of the second thing in the [Page 19] Definition of Schism, the Cause: For, what2. The Cause. interpretation soever be put upon the Action, whether Reformation or Division and Separati­on, 'tis not material, if it be found we had suf­ficient Cause; and no doubt we had, if we had reason from the lapsed state and nature of our Corruptions, to Reform; and if we had suffici­ent Authority without the Pope, to reform our selves: But we had both, as will be evident at last.

Both these we undertake for satisfaction to the Catholick Church; but in defence of our own Church against the charge of Schism by and from the Church of Rome, one of them, yea either of them, is sufficient.

For if the pretended Authority of the Church of Rome over the Church of England be ill ground­ed, how can our Actions fall under their censure? Especially seeing the great and almost only matter of their censure, is plainly our disobedi­ence to that ill grounded Authority.

Again, however their Claim and Title stand or fall, if we have or had cause to deny that Communion which the Church of Rome re­quires, though they have power to accuse us, our Cause being good will acquit us from the guilt, and consequently the charge of Schism.

Here then we must joyn Issue, we deny the pretended Power of the Church of Rome in Eng­land, and plead the justness of our own Reforma­tion, in all the particulars of it.

SECT. VI.
The Charge, as laid by the Romanists.

THis will the better appear by the indictment of Schism drawn up against us, by our Ad­versaries; I shall receive it as it is expressed by one of the sharpest Pens, and in the fullest and closest manner I bave met with, viz. Card. Perron against Arch-Bishop Laud, thus.

Protestants have made this Rent or Schism by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining errone­neous Doctrines, contrary to the faith of Roman or Catholick Church; by their rejecting the authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors, both imme­diate and mediate: By aggregating themselves in­to a separate Body or company of pretended Christi­ans, independent of any Pastors at all, that were in lawful and quiet possession of Jurisdiction over them; by making themselves Pastors and Teachers of o­thers, and administring Sacraments without Autho­rity given them by any that were lawfully impowered to give it; by instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of their own in matters of Religion, contrary to those anciently received throughout all Christendom; by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates of and from their respective Sees, Cures, and Be­nefices; and intruding themselves into their places, in every Nation where they could get footing. A foul Charge indeed, and the fouler because in many things false. However, at present we have reason only to observe the foundation of all [Page 21] lies, in our disobedience and denying Communion with the Church of Rome; all the rest either con­cerns the grounds, or manner, or consequences of that.

Therefore if it appear at last, that the Church of England is independant on the Church of Rome, and oweth her no such obedtence as she requires; the Charge of Schism removes from us and re­coyls upon the Church or Court of Rome, from her unjust Ʋsurpations and Impositions; and that with the aggrevation of Sedition too in all such whether Prelates or Priests, as then refused to acknowledge and obey the just Power and Laws of this Land, or that continue in the same disobe­dience at this day.

SECT. VII.
The Charge of Schism retorted upon the Romanists. The Controversie to two Points.

IT is well noted by a learned Man, that while the Papal Authority is under Contest, the que­stionDr. Ham­mond. is not barely this, whether the Church of England be schismatical or no? (For a Romanist may cheaply debate that and keep himself safe, whatsoever becomes of the Ʋmpirage) but in­differently and equally, whether we, or the Ro­manist be thus guilty, or which is the Schisma­tick that lies under all those severe Censures of the Scriptures and Fathers, the Church of Eng­land or her Revolters, and the Court of Rome.

Till they have better answered to the Indict­ment than yet they have done; we do and shall lay the most horrid Schism at the door of the Church or Court of Rome: For that they have voluntarily divided the Catholick Church, both in Faith, Worship, and Government, by their in­novations; and excommunicated and damned, not only the Church of England, but as some ac­count, three parts of the Christian Church, most uncharitably and without all Authority or just cause, to the scandal of the whole world.

But we shall lay the charge more particularly, as it is drawn up by Arch-Bishop Bramhal. The Church, saith he, or rather the Court of Rome, are causally guilty, both of this Schism, and al­most all other Schisms in the Church. 1. By u­surping an higer place and power in the Body Ec­clesiastical, than of right is due unto them. 2. By separating, both by their Doctrines and Censures, three parts of the Christian World from their Communion, and as much as in them lies, from the Communion of Christ. 3. By rebelling against general Councils. Lastly, by breaking or taking away all the lines of Apostoli­cal Succession except their own; and appropria­ting all Original Jurisdiction to themselves: And that which draws Sedition and Rebellion, as the great aggravation of their Schism, they Chal­lenge a temporal Power over Princes, either di­rectly or indirectly.

Thus their Charge against us, is Disobedience; Our Charge against them is Usurpation and a­buse of Power: If we owe no such Obedience, or if we have cause not to obey; we are acquitted: If the Pope have both power and reason of his [Page 23] side; we are guilty: If he fail in either; the whole weight of Schism, with all its dreadful Consequences, remains upon him or the Court of Rome.

SECT. I.
That no one Part of Papal Jurisdiction was exercised here, for the first six hundred years; not Ordination: St. Telaus, &c. till 1100 years after Christ, &c. nor any other.

IF we consider the Pope's Jurisdiction in itsNot ple­narily. particular Acts, we find not so much as any one exercised or acknowledged here, during the space of the first six hundred years; but, as far as History gives us any account thereof, all Acts of Jurisdiction were performed by our own Governours.

First, had the Pope had any Jurisdiction here at all, it would doubtless have appeared in the Ordination or Consecration of our Bishops. Or­dinationis Jus caetera Jura sequuntur, is a known Rule in Law: but 'tis evident that our own Primates were independent themselves, and or­dainedNot Ordi­nation. new Bishops, and created new Bishop­ricks, without licence first obtained from, or giving any account thereof to the Pope. Saint Telaus Consecrated and ordained Bishops, as he thought fit: he made one Hismael Bishop of Saint Davids; and in like manner advanced many others of the same Order to the same de­gree; sending them throughout the Country, and dividing the Parishes for the best accom­modation of the Clergy and the People. Vid. Regl. apud Ʋsh. prim. Eccles. Brit. p. 56.

But were not our Primates themselves nomi­nated Quest. [Page 47] or elected by the Pope, and Consecrated by him or had license from him?

The contrary is manifest enough: all our Answ. Brittish Arch-Bishops and Primates were nomi­nated and elected by our Princes, with Synods, and ordained by their own Suffragans at home; as Dubricius, Saint David, Sampson, &c. not on­ly in the Reigns of Aurelius Ambrosius, and King Arthur; but even until the time of Hen­ry the First, after the eleven hundredth year of Christ, as Giraldus Cambrensis saith; and al­ways until the first Conquest of Wales they were Consecrated by the Arch-Bishop of Saint Davids; and he was likewise Consecrated by other Bishops, as his Suffragans, without pro­fessing any manner of Subjection to any other Church. Itinera. Cambr. l. 2. c. 2.

Now is it not fair to expect from our Ad­versaries one Instance, either of a Bishop or Arch-Bishop, ordained or Consecrated, during the first six hundred years, by Papal Authority in Brittain from their own, or our Brittish Re­cords? But this Challenge made by Arch-Bi­shop Bramhall receives no answer.

Here the Bishop of Calcedon only offers, Object. [...]. c. that few or no Records of Brittish Matters for the first six hundred years, remain.

This is no Answer (saith the Primate) while Answ. all the Roman Registers are extant: yea, so ex­tant, that Platina, the Pope's Library Keeper, is able out of them, to set down every Ordi­nation, made by the Primitive Bishops of Rome, and the Persons Ordained.

He adds, Let them shew what Bishops they have Ordained for the first six hundred years: [Page 48] I have shewed plainly (though he please to omit it) out of the List of the Bishops ordained, three by Saint Peter, eleven by Linus, fifteen by Clement, six by Anacletus, five by Evarastus, five by Alex­ander, and four by Sixtus. &c. that there were few enough for the Roman Province; none to spare for Brittain. Vid. Bramh. Tom. 1. Disc. 3. p. 207.

It is said that Saint Peter ordained here; butSt. Peter. that was before he had been at Rome: there­fore not as Pope of Rome. Nor any other. Eluth.

2. Elutherius sent Fugatius, &c. but what to do? to Baptize King Lucius: upon the same Errand he sent Victor into Scotland.

3. Palladius and Ninian are instances of menPallad. &c. sent to preach to the Picts and Scotland, as Saint Patrick into Ireland: this was kindly done; but we have not one Syllable of any Jurisdiction all this while: besides it is remarkable, though there be a dispute about Palladius his being sent; yet, 'tis certain, he was rejected, and af­terBed. in vit. S, Pat. l. 1. died; in whose place, Saint Patrick suc­ceeded, without any Mandate from Rome that we read of.

Jeffry of Monmouth saith, that Dubricius Pri­mate Object. Legates. S. W. of Brittain, was Legate of the See Apost: and we say that Jeffry tells many Fables: and that it is gross Credulity to believe him con­trary to the Authentick History, and more un­doubted practises of those Times: we read (saith the Primate) of many Legates; but cer­tainly, they were either no Papal Legates; or Papal Legates, in those days, were but ordinary Messengers, and pretended not to any Legantine Power, as it is now understood: for we read [Page 49] so much as any one act of Jurisdiction done by them, and firmly conclude, thence, that therePall. was none.

But R. C. saith St. Sampson had a Pall from Obj. Rome.

He had a Pall, but tis not proved that he hadSol. it from Rome; 'tis Certain, Arch-Bishops and Patriachs in the Primitive times had Palls, which they received not from Rome.

Besides, if he did receive that Pall from Rome, in all probability it was after the first six Irin. Cam. p. 1. c. 1. hundred years: If either, according to Cambren­sis, he was the five and twentieth Arch-Bishop after St. David, or, according to Hoveden, theR. Hoved. an. 1199. four and twentieth; and then 'tis nothing to our present question.

St. Gregory granted to Austin the use of the Pall, saith R. C. the proper badg and sign of Obj. Pall. Archiepiscopal dignity; and gave him liberty to ordain twelve Bishops under his jurisdiction, as Arch-Bishop of Canterbury.

This was done at the end of the first six hun­dred years, and therefore not to our presentSol. question: However, if the Pagan Saxons had destroyed Christianity among the Brittains, (as they say) it was very Christianly done of St. Gregory, to send Augustine to convert and re-e­stablish the Church among them; but none can imagine, that by receiving Augustine and his Bishops, they intended to submit themselves and Posterity to the See of Rome, which when pres­sed before, the Brittains so unanimously rejected.

Neither indeed, could they do it to the pre­judice of the ancient Primacy of the Brittains; existing long before; and confirmed in its inde­pendency [Page 50] upon any foreign power: For Bede him­self, as well as all our own Historians, makes it most evident, that the Brittains had Bishops long before: We find the subscriptions of three of them to the first Council of Arles; Eborius of York Restitutus of London, and Adelfius de Civi­tate Coloniae Lond. and from the presence of some of them at the Sardican Synod, and the Coun­cil of Ariminum; as appears by Athanasius and others; and that they had also an Arch-Bishop or Primate, whose ancient seat had been at Caerleon; who rejected the Papacy; then posses­sing and defending the priviledge of their free­dom from any foreign Jurisdiction.

This their priviledge was secured to them, both by the Nicene, Calcedonian, and Ephesian Councils. Contrary to these Councils, if the Pope did intend to give Augustine the primacy o­ver the Brittains, it was a plain usurpation. Cer­tainly the priviledges of the Brittannick Church returned with its Christianity; neither could Gregory dispose of them to Austin, or he to Gregory.

Besides Lastly, 'tis not possible any sober man can imagine, that that humble and holy Pope, St. Gregory, who so much detested, if in earnest, the very Title of Ʋniversal Bishop, should actu­ally invade the priviledge of the Brittains, andIf in ear­nest. hazard his own Salvation in his own Judgment, when he so charitably designed the Conversion of England by sending Austin hither.

T. C. saith, it appears that Brittain was an­ciently Obj. subject to the See of Rome: For Wilfred, Arch-Bishop of York, appealed to Rome twice;Wilfred. and was twice restored to his Bishoprick. An, 673.

We see when this was done: Seventy and three Sol. An. 673. years after the first six hundred.

He appealed indeed, but was still rejected; notwithstanding the sentence of Rome in his fa­vour, for six years together, during the Reigns of King Egbert and Alfrid his Son; so far is this instance, from being a proof of the Popes possessi­on here at that time: Yet this is the most famous, saith my Lord Bramhall, I had almost said, the only Appellant from England to Rome, that we read of before the Conquest.

Moreover, the Answer of King Alfred to theAlfred. spel. conc. an. 705. Popes Nuncio, sent hither by the Pope on purpose, is very remarkable: He told him, he honoured them as his Parents for their grave lives and honou­rable Aspects; but he could not give any assent to their Legation because it was against reason, that a Person twice Condemned by the whole Council of the English, should be restored upon the Popes Letter.

At this time it is apparent, neither the Kings of England, nor the Councils of English Church­men (as my Lord Bramhall expresseth it, two Kings successively, and the great Councils of the Kingdom, and the other Arch-Bishop Theodore, with all the prime Ecclesiasticks, and the Flower of the English Clergy, opposing so many Senten­ces and Messages from Rome) did believe, that England was under the Jurisdiction of Rome, or ought to be so.

Yea, the King and the Church, after Alfred'sAfter Al­fred. death, still made good this Conclusion; that it was against Reason, that a person twice condemned by the whole Council of the English, should be restored upon the Popes Bull.

Malmsbury would suggest, that the King and [Page 52] the Arch-Bishop Theodore, were smitten with re­morse before their deaths, for the injury done to Wilfred, &c. But not the King only, but the whole Council; not Theodore alone, but the whole Clergy opposed the Popes Letter: which is enough both to render the dream of Malmsbury, a ridiculous Fable; and for ever to confirm this truth, that England was not then, viz. in the six hundred seventy and third Year of Christ, under the Jurisdiction of the Pope, either actually or in the belief of the Church or Kingdom of Eng­land.

The Latter, viz. the non-possession of out belief of the Popes universal Jurisdiction, (which is so much insisted upon by the Romanists) will yet more evidently appear, by that which fol­loweth.

SECT. II.
No Possession of our Belief, ancient.

VVE have found the Brittains, by the good Abbot, and two several Synods; Not in En­gland. we have found the State of England in three suc­cessive Kings, their great Councils and body of the Clergy, refused to yield Obedience both to the Popes Persuasions, Injunctions, Sentences, and Legates: Therefore it seems impossible that Brittain or England should then believe either the Popes Infallibility, or their obligation to his Jurisdiction; or that there was any such thing as the Tradition of either delivered to them by [Page 53] their Ancestors or believed among them.

Indeed, by this one Argument, those four great Characters of the Papacy are deleted and blotted out for ever, viz. Possession, Tradition, Infallibility, and Antiquity.

I shall add the practice and belief of Scotland Nor in Scotland. too; that other great part of our Kings domi­nions: When the Popes Legate, more thanMath. Par. in H. 3. an. 1238. twice six hundred years after Christ, viz. about 1238. entred Scotland, to visit the Churches there; Alexander the second, then King of the Scots, forbad him so to do. Alledging, That none of his Predecessors had ever admitted any such, neither would he suffer it: And therefore willed him at his own Peril to forbear. Hence 'tis evident, there was neither Tradition nor Be­lief, either of the Popes ancient and necessary Government, and therefore not of his Infalli­bility; much less that anciently and from the beginning, the Pope had exercised his Jurisdicti­on more in Scotland than in England. We have that Kings word for it, None of his Predecessors had ever admitted any such.

SECT. III.
In Canons, Apost: Nice, Milev, &c. This Belief could have no Ground. Sardia.

VVHat could possibly sway the first Ages to such a belief of the Popes universal Vid. c. 20. Jurisdiction? Certainly nothing from the Coun­cils; nor the practice of the Church in other pla­ces, nor indeed the declared Judgment of the Pope himself, nor the words of the Laws.

1. Nothing to be found in the Canons of theNot Coun­cils. Apostles. Ancient Councils could invite to such belief. In the Apostles Canons, we find the quite contrary; [...], the first or primate among the Bishops of every Nation shall be accounted [...], as their Head; and that every one of those Pri­mates shall [...] do those things only which belong to his Province and the Re­gions under it; and in pursuance of those Ca­nons, the first Nicene Council decreed [...], [...]ic [...]. &c. that they that are cast out by some, shall not be received by other Bishops, and that this must be observed by the Bishops through every Province; and in further Harmony the Milevetan Council prohibits all appeal from theirMileve. own Bishops, but to the African Councils and Primates of their own Provinces; and that they which shall appeal to any Foreign, whether Bishop or Council shall not be received into Communion with any in Africk. And lastly, the Practice of all this is visible in the very Synodical Epistle [Page 55] of the African Council to Pope Celestine, whereVid. v. Dr. Ham. at larg. dispar. disp. 397 398, 399, &c. they beseech him for the future, that he will re­ceive none such, because he may easily find it defined in the Council of Nice. These Canons are all in the Roman Codex, and cannot be pretended to be invalid; neither can they possibly oblige any man to believe that the Pope had universal Juris­diction as is now pretended.

Moreover, as Dr. Hammond Notes, to some of these Canons the Pope himself makes Oath, Disp. disp. p. 178. Pope swears to the Ca­nons. that he will inviolably observe them (see Corp. Ju­ris can. decret. part. 1. dist. 16. c. 8.) and from that Oath, of the Pope, our Bishops made this very conclusion, that the Popes that Exercised a primacy over any other Bishops but those of their own pro­vince in Italy, transgress'd their own profession made in their Creation: as further appears by the in­stitution of a Christian man in the year 1538.

But more largly of this in the last Chapters.

Therefore, the Brittains could not believe that they then owed Subjection to the papacy, but they must charge the writers of the Apostolick Cannons (whether by Apostles or Apostoli­cal men) and the Councills, for enacting Sacri­ligious decrees; and the Pope also for swearing the Inviolable observation of them.

These things are plain, and S. W. by pre­tending in general, that Words admit of Vari­ous interpretations, without applying his Rule to the Case; gives but too just occasion to Dr. Hammond to expose him as he doth. See disp. disp. p. 181 182 183 184.

Eadmer speaks plain and home too; it wasp. 58. 43. inauditum in Britannia, quemlibet hominum su­per se vices Apostolicas gerere, nisi solum Archie­piscopum [Page 56] Cantuariae. it was a thing unheard of, no practice of it, no Tradition for it; there­fore no such thing Could be believ'd, that any other (not the Pope himself) did Apostolical­ly Govern the affairs of Brittaine, but only the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury.

SECT. 4.
Conc. Sard. Calced. Constantinop.

IT may be said, the Brittains might hearVid. Cap. 20. Sict. 9. of the Canon of the Council of Sardica; where it was decreed that Bishops grieved, might Sardica. appeal to the Bishop of Rome.

The words of the Council are these, [...],Sol. &c. In Case any Bishop thought him­self unjustly Condemned; if it seem good to you, let us honour the Memory of Peter the A­postle; that it be written by those who have Judged the Cause to Julius the Bishop of Rome; and if it seem good, let the judgment be renew'd, and let them appoint such as may take Cognizance of of it. hereupon tis plain

1 These Fathers did not acknowledge the Popes Supremacy, who thus laid it at the feet, and pleasure of others, (if it seem good to you)

2. Here is no peremptory Order, neither, and it might not Seem good to Civil Princes, to suffer such Appeals.

3. No absolute appeal it seems was intended: but only the Bishop of Rome might review the Case: and how much a review differs from A­peal; More of Conc▪ Sar. hereafter. and that nothing but power to revew is [Page 57] here given to the Bishop of Rome, are both ful­ly manifested by the Arch-Bishop of Paris, Petr. de Maro. de Concord. l. 7. c. 3. sect. 6, 7. &c.

4. The Decree (such as it is) is not ground­ed upon any prior right, from Scripture, traditi­on, or possession, or any former Council; hath no other Argument but the honour of Saint Peter; and that not in his Authority, but his Memory; who first sat in that See, where Julius was now Bishop: but we may have leave to ask, where was the Supremacy of the Church of Rome be­fore? or how should the Brittains dream of it before? or why did not these Canons take no­tice of the undoubted Canon of Nice to the contrary, made two and twenty years before, either to null or explain it?

But that these Sardic Canons, neither establi­shed the Pope's Supremacy; nor were acknow­ledged to bind the Church afterwards; nor could be accounted an Appendix to the Council of Nice; and what weakness and falsness has been practised upon this Argument, is so larg­ly, ingenuously and satisfactorily manifested by Doctor Sillingfleet, that I shall for his fuller sa­tisfaction refer the Reader to him, in his Rati­on. acc. p. 419, 420, 421. &c.

It is strongly argued in the last reasonings of my Lord Bramhall, that after the Eastern Bi­shops were departed, this Council of Sardica was no general Council; because the presence of five great Patriarchs were ever held necessa­ry to the being of a general Council; as Bellar­mine confesseth de Conc. Li. c. 17.

If this Council had been general: Why do Saint Gregory, Isiodore, and Bede, leave it out of [Page 58] the Number of general Councils? Why did Saint Austine, Alipius and the African Fathers, slight it? and which is more, why doth the Eastern Church not reckon it among their Seven; nor the Western Church among their Eight first general Councils? Why did the English Church omit it in their Number in the Synod of Hedi­feld Apud Spel. An. 680. l. 169. in the year 680. and embrace only unto this day the Council of Nice, the first of Con­stantinople, the first of Ephesus, and the first and second of Calcedon?

The five first general Councils were there­fore incorporated into our English Laws; but this Council of Sardica never was: Therefore contrary to this Canon of Appeal, 'tis the Fun­damental Law of England, in that Famous Me­morial of Clarendon: All Appeals in England must proceed Regularly from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Arch-Bi­shop, and if the Arch-Bishop failed to do ju­stice, the last Complaint must be to the King to give Order for redress.

'Tis evident, the great Council of Calcedon P. 2. ac. 14. c. 9. contradicted this Canon for Appeals to Rome: where Appeals from the Arch-Bishop are dire­cted to be made to every Primate, or the HolyCalcedon. See of Constantinople, as well as Rome: from which Evidence, we have nothing but silly Eva­sions, as that Primate truly observs, v. Sch. guarded p. 374.

Besides, if our Fore-fathers had heard of the Canons of the Councils truly general, (as no doubt they had) how could they possibly believe the unlimited Jurisdiction of Rome, the Coun­cil of Calcedon is not denied to give equal [Page 59] Priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople, with the Patriarch of Rome. And the Council of Constantinople conclude thus: for the (Nicene) Fathers did justly give Priviledges to the See of Constanti­nople. old Rome, because it was the Imperial City; and the 150 godly Bishops moved with the same conside­ration, did give equal Priviledges to the See of new Rome; that that City which was the Sear of the Empire and Senate should enjoy equal Priviledges with the Ancient Imperial City of Rome; and be ex­tolled and magnified in Ecclesiastical Affaires as well as it, being the Second in order from it: and in the last Sentence of the Judges upon Review of the Cause: the Arch-Bishop of the Imperial City of Const. or new Rome, must enjoy the same Pri­viledges of Honour; and have the same Power out of his own Authority, to ordain Metropolitans in the Asiatick, Pontick, and Thracian Dio­cess.

Are these the Words of a General Council? could these Fatbers imagine the Pope at that time Monarch of the whole Church? or could this be acknowledged by England at first, and they yet give up their Faith to the Pope's Uni­versal Power? Can these things consist? Yea, is there not something in all the Councils allowed by the Ancient Brittains, and the Ancient En­glish Church, sufficient to induce a Faith quite contrary to the Roman Pretensions?

But as to this Canon of Constantinople, S. W. Object. quits his hands; roundly telling us, that it was no free Act, but voted Tumultuously, after most of the Fathers were departed.

S. W. had been safer, if he had been wiser: Sol. for that which he saith, is altogether false; [Page 60] and besides such a cluster of Forgeries, as de­serves the Whet-stone to purpose; as my Lord Bramhall manifests against him, Sch-guard. p. 354.

1. False: the Act was made before the Bi­shops had license to depart; it had a Second Hearing; and was debated by the Pope's own Legates on his behalfe, before the most glori­ous Judges; and maturely Sentenced by them in the Name of the Council. This was one of those four Councils, which Saint Gregory ho­noured next to the four Gospels. This is one of those very Councils, which every succeeding Pope doth swear to observe to the least tittle.

2. For his Forgeries about it, he is sufficient­ly shamed by the Primate in the place cited: 'tis pity such shifts should be used; and 'tis folly to use them; when the Truth appears, what remains, but, both the Person and the Cause reproach'd.

See more of the Councils at the latter end.

SECT. V.
Arabic Canons forged; no Canons of the Council of Nice.

YEt 'tis a Marvellous thing, that the Roma­nist Object. should dare to impose upon so great and learned a Primate, as the late Arch-Bishop Land; that by the third Canon of the Council of Nice, the Patriarch is in the same manner over all [Page 61] those that are under his Authority; as he who holds the See of Rome is Head, and Prince of the Pa­triachs, resembling Saint Peter, and his Equal in Authority.

When 'tis most evident to the meanest ca­pacity, Answ. that will search into it; that, that is no Canon of the true Council of Nice; and that in stead of the third, it is the thirty ninth of the supposititious and forged Canons; as they are set forth in the Arabick Editions, both by Pi­sanus and Turrianus.

In these Editions there are no less than eighty Canons pretended to be Nicene; whereas the Nicene Council never passed above twenty: as is evident from such as should know best, the Greek Authors; who all reckon but twentyHist. Ecl. l. 1. c. 7. Canons of that Council. Such as Theodoret, Nicephorus Calistus, Gelasius Cricenus, Alphon­sus Ecl. Hist. l. 8. c. 19. Act. Conc. Nic. lib. 2. Pisanus, and Binnius himself confesseth that all the Greeks say there were no more but twenty Canons, then determined.

Yea, the Latins themselves allowed no more: for although Ruffinus make twenty two, 'tis by splitting of two into four.

And in that Epitome of the Canons, which Pope Hadrian sent to Charles the Great, for the Government of the Western Churches, Anno 773. the same Number appears: and in Hinc­marus's M. S. the same is proved, from the Testimonies of the Tripartite History, Ruffinus, the Carthaginian Council, the Epistles of Ciril of Alex. Atticus of Constant. and the twelfth Action of the Council of Calcedon: and if we may believe a Pope, viz. Stephen, in Gratian, saith, the Roman Church did allow of no moreGra. dis. 16. c. 20. than twenty.

The truth is put beyond all question, lastly, both by the proceedings of the African Fathers, in the case of Zosimus about the Nicene Canons, when an early and diligent search made it evi­dent; and also by the Codex Canonum. Eccl. A­fric. P. 363. p. 58. where it is expresly said, there was but twenty Canons.

But this matter is more than clear, by theP. 391, 392 elaborate pains of Dr. Still. defence of the late Arch-Bishop Land, to whom, I must refer my Reader.

Yet Bellarmine and Binius would prove there Obj. were more than twenty.

But their proofs depend either upon things,Sol. as suppositions, as the Arabick Canons themselves; such as the Epistles of Julius and Athanasius ad Marcum: or else they only prove, that some other things were determined by that Council, viz. Concerning Rebaptization, and the keeping of Easter, &c. which indeed might be Acts of the Council, without putting them into theAd an. 325. P. 108. Canons; as Baronius himself confesseth, and leaves the patronage of them, and Spondanus, in his contraction of Baronius, relates it as his po­sitiveAd an. 325. n. 42. Opinion, that he rejected all but twenty, whether Arabick or other, as spurious.

So that it will bear no further contest, but we may safely conclude, the Arabick Canons, and consequently this of the Popes Authority, is a mere Forgery of later times; there being no evidence at all, that they were known to the Church in all the time of the four first general Councils.Vid. [...]. 20.

SECT. VI.
Practice interpreted the Canons to the same Sence against the Pope: Disposing of Patriarchs. Cyprian. Aug.

VVE have found nothing in the Canons of the ancient Councils that might give occasion to the belief of the Popes Jurisdicti­on in England, in the Primitive Ages of the Church; but indeed, very much to the contra­ry: But the Romanist affirms against my Lord of Canterbury, that the Practice of the Church is always the best Expositor and Assertor of the Canons. We are now to examine, whether the ancient practice of the Church was sufficient to persuade a belief of the Popes Jurisdiction as is pretended. In the mean time not doubting, but that it is a thing most evident; that the Pope hath practi­sed contrary to the Canons; and the Canons have declared, and indeed been practised against the Pope.

But what Catholick Practice is found on Re­cord, that can be supposed a sufficient ground of this Faith, either in England or any part of Christendom? Certainly not of Ordinations or Appeals, or Visitations. Yea, can it be imagined, that our English Ancestors, had not heard of the practice of the Brittains in maintaining their li­berty when it was assaulted by Austin; and re­jecting his demands of Subjection to the See of Rome? No doubt they had heard of the Cyprian Priviledge; and how it was insisted on in barr [Page 64] of the universal Pastorship, by their friends the Eastern Church: from whom, they in likelihood received the Faith; and with whom they were found at first in Communion, about the observa­tion of Easter and Baptism; and in practice, di­vers from the Church of Rome.

But one great point of practice is here pitcht Obj. upon by Baronius; and after him by T. C. It is the Popes Confirmation of the Election, depo­sing and restoring of Patriarchs: which they say he did, as Head and Prince of all the Patriarchs, and consequently of the whole Church.

But where hath he done these strange feats?Sol. Certainly not in England: And we shall find the instances not many nor very early, any where else. But to each Branch.

1. 'Tis urged, that the Popes Confirmation Confirm. Patriarchs. is required to all new elected Patriarchs.

Admit it; but the Arch-Bishop of Paris, Pe­trus Dr. Still. de Marca, fully answers Baronius (and in­deed every body else) that this was no token of Jurisdiction; but only of receiving into Com­munion; De conc. l. 6. c. 5. s. 2. and as a Testimony of Consent to the Consecration. If any force be in this Argu­ment, then the Bishop of Carthage had powerCypr. Ep. 52. p. 75. over the Bishop of Rome; because he and other African Bishops, Confirm'd the Bishop of Rome's Ordination.

Baronius insists much upon the Confirmation of Anatolius by Leo I. which very instance an­swers it self. Leo himself tells us, that it wasEp. 38. to manifest, that there was but one entire Com­munion among them throughout the World.

Yet it is not to be omitted, that the practice of the Church supposeth that the Validity of [Page 65] the Patriarchs Consecration, depended not uponConsec. depends not on Confirma­tion. the Confirmation, or indeed, Consent of the Pope of Rome. Yea though he did deny his Comunicatory letters, that did not hinder them, from the Execution of their Office. There­fore Flavianus the Patriarch of Antloch; though opposed by three Roman Bishops, successively, who used all importunity with the Emperor, that he might be displaced; yet because the Churches of the Orient, did approve of him and Communicate with him, he was allowed; and their consent stood against the Bishops of Rome. At last, the Bishop of Rome, severely rebuked for his Pride by the Emperor, yielded; and his Consent was given only by renewing Communion with him. But where was the Popes power; either to make, or make void a Patriarch, while this was in Practice?

2. Doth Practice better prove the PopesDeposing▪ Patriarchs. power, to depose unworthy Patriarchs? The contrary is evident; for both before and after the Council of Nice; according to that Council, the practice of the Church placed the power of deposing Patriarchs, in Provincial Councils; and the Pope had it not, till the Council of Sardica decreed in the case of Athanasius, as P. de Mar­ca abundantly proves: Vid. de Concord. l. 7. c. 1. Sect. 6. Also, that the Council of Sardica it self, did not (as is commonly said) decree Ap­peals to Rome; but only gave the Bishop of Rome power to review their Actions; but still reser­ving to Provincial▪ Councils, that Authority which the Nicene Council had established them in.

But T. C. urgeth, that we read of no less than Obj. [Page 66] eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome.

Where doth he read it? In an Epistle of PopeSol. Nicolaus to the Emperor Michael. Well chosen saith Doctor Still. a Popes Testimony in his own Cause. And such a one, as was then in Con­troversie with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and so late too, as the Ninth Century is: when his power was much grown from the Infancy of it.

Yet, for all this, this Pope on such an occasion, and at that time, did not say, that the Patriarchs mention'd by him, were depos'd by the Popes sole Authority, but not Ejected (Sine Consensu Ro­mani Pontificis) without his Consent: and his design was, only to shew that Ignatius the Pa­triarch, ought not to have been deposed with­out his Consent v. Nic. 1. 8. Mich. Imp. Tom. 6. Con. p. 506.

Did not Sixtus the third depose Policronius Obj. Bishop of Jerusalem?

No. He only sent eight Persons from a SynodSol. at Rome to Jerusalem; who offered not, by the Popes Authority, to depose him, as should have have been proved: but by their means se­venty Neighbour Bishops, were Called; by whom, he was deposed: besides Binius himself,T [...]m. 2. Con. p. 685. Condemns those very acts, that report this sto­ry, for Spurious.

3. But have we any better proof of theRestoring Patriarchs. Popes power, to restore such as were deposed?

The only Instance in this Case, brought by T. C. is of Athanasius and Paulus, restored by Julius, and indeed to little purpose.

Tis true, Athanasius Cndemned by two Sy­nods, goes to Rome, where he and Paulus, are [Page 67] received into Communion by Julius; not liking the decree of the Eastern Bishops. Julius never pleads, his Power to depose Patriarchs; but that his consent for the sake of Ʋnity, should also have been first desired; and that so great a Matter in the Church, required a Council both of the Eastern and Western Bishops. Vid. P. de Marca l. 7. c. 4. s. 6.

But, saith Dr. Still. when we consider, with what heat and stomach this was received by theP. 401. Q. ac. Eastern Bishops; how they absolutely deny, that the Western Bishops had any more to do with their proceedings, than they had with theirs: When they say, that the Pope by this Ʋsurpa­tion, was the cause of all the mischief that fol­lowed: You see what an excellent instance you have made choice of, to prove the Popes power of Restoring Bishops, to be acknowledged by the whole Church.

Sure, so far the Churches practice abroad, could not prevail to settle his right of Jurisdi­on in the English Faith; especially, considering the Practice of our own Church, in opposing the Letters and Legates of Popes for six years toge­ther, for the Restoring of Arch-Bishop Wilfred by two of our own successive Kings; and the whole State of England Ecclesiastical and Civil, as appeared above.

Moreover St. Cyprian professeth in the Council of Carthage, neque enim quisquam, &c. for no one of us hath made himself Bishop of Bishops: or driven his Fellow Bishops to a necessity of Obedi­ence: Particularly relating to Stephen then BishopAn. 258. n. 24. of Rome; as Baronius himself resolves.

But upon a matter of Fact, St. August. gave hisSt. August. [Page 68] own judgment, both of the Popes Power and Action in that known case of the Donatists. First, they had leave to be heard by foreign Bishops. 2. Forti non debuit, yet perhaps Melciades, the Bishop of the Roman Church, ought not to ufurp to himself this Judgment which had been deter­mined by seventy African Bishops, Tigisitanus sitting Primate. 3. St. Augustine proceeds, and what will you say, if he did not usurp this Power? For the Emperor (being desired) sent Bishops, Judges; which should sit with him, and deter­mine what was just upon the whole cause: So that upon the whole, 'tis easily observed, that in St. Augustines judgment, both the Right and the Power, by which the Pope (as the rest) pro­ceeded; was to be resolved to the Emperor, as a little before, ad cujus curam; to whose care it did chiefly belong; de qua, rationem Deo reddi­turus est, of which he was to give account to God. Could this consist with the belief of the Popes universal Pastorship by Divine Right? if there can possibly, after so clear evidence needVid. Dr. Ham. disp. p. 398. &c. & Still. Rationale. p. 405. more to be said of St. Augustines judgment in this; it is only to refer you to the Controver­sies between the African Bishops, and the Bishop of Rome in case of Appeals.

SECT. VII.
Not the Sayings of Ancient Popes, or Practice. Agatho, Pelagius, Grego­ry, Victor.

VVE can find nothing in the ancient Canons, or ancient practice, to groundPopes claimed. a belief of the Popes Authority in England upon, yet sure Popes themselves claimed it; and used Expressions to let us know it.

Were it so indeed, experience tells us how little Popes are to be believed in their own cause; and all reason persuades us not to believe them, against the Councils and Practice of the Church, and the judgment of the Fathers.

But some of the ancient Popes have been found so honest, as to confess against themselves; and acknowledge plain truth against their own greatness.

The Popes universal headship, is not to be believed from the words of Pope Agatho, in hisAgatho. Letter to the Emperor; where St. Paul stands as high as St. Peter, [...],Con. To. 2. p. 61. B. both are said by him to be heads or chief of the Apostles: Besides he expresly claimed only the Western Patriarchate.

But Pope Pelagius the Second, is more plainPelagius. and home, to Rome it self. Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus, the Pope ofDecret. p. 1. dis. 99. n. 10. Rome is not to be called universal Bishop: This was the opinion of that Pope of Rome himself, as it is cited out of his Epistle, and put into the [Page 70] Body of the Law by Gratian: now, one would think, that the same Law denied the Power, that denied the Title properly expressing that Power.

How triflingly doth S. W. object: these words are not found in the Council of Carthage, while they are found in the Corpus Juris; the Law, now of as much force at Rome as that Council.

'Tis weaker to say, they are Gratians own Addition, seeing his Addition is now Law; and also proved to be the Sense of the Pope Pelagi­us: in his Epistle, he saith, let none of the Patriarchs ever use the name of Ʋniversal, ap­plying in the conclusion to himself, being then Pope, as one of that Number; and so, if he were either Pontifex Maximus, or a Patriarch, and neither himself nor any Patriarck might beDr. Ham. disp. disp. p. 418, 419. called Ʋniversalis; then sure nothing was ad­ded by him, that said in his Title to the fourth Chapter as Gratian did; Nec etiam Pontifex, not even the Bishop of Rome must be called Ʋ ­niversal Bishop.

But what shall be said to Saint Gregory: who,Gregory. in his Epistle to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, tells him, that he had prohibited him to call him Ʋniversal Father; that he was not to doEpis. ex Reg. l. 8. in­dic. 1. c. 30. &c. 4. ind. 13. c. 72 & 76. it; that, reason required the contrary; that, it's derogatory to his Brethren; that this ho­nour had, by a Council, that of Calcedon, been offered to his Predecessors, but refused, and ne­ver used by any.

Again, higher, he tells Mauritius, fidenter di­co, who ever calls himself Ʋniversal Priest, orL. 7. Ep. 30. desires to be so called; is by his pride, a Fore­runner [Page 71] of Antichrist; his pride is an Indication of Antichrist approaching: as he saith to theLib. 4. Ep. 38. Empress, l. 4. Ep. 34. Yea, an Imitation of none but the Devil; endeavouring to break out to the top of Singularity; as he saith, to John him­self: yea, elsewhere, he calls this Title, the name of Blasphemy; and saith, that, those thatIbid. Ep 32 & 40. consent to it do, fidem perdere, destroy the Faith.

A strong Title, that neither Saint Gregory, nor, as he saith, any one of his Predecessors; no Pope, that went before him, would ever accept of: and herein, saith he, I plead not my own Ibid. Ep. 32. cause, but the cause of God, of the whole Church, of the Laws, the Venerable Councils, the Com­mands of Christ; which are all disturbed with the invention of this proud pompatick stile of Ʋniversal Bishop.

Now, can any one imagine, except one pre­judiced, as S. W. that the Power is harmless, when the Title that doth barely express it, is so develish a thing? Can any one imagine, that Saint Gregory knew himself to be that indeed, which in Word he so much abominates? or that he really exercised that Ʋniversal Autho­rity, and Universal Bishoprick; though, he so prodigiously lets flie against the Stile of Ʋni­versal Bishop? yet all this is said, and must be maintained, lest we should exclude the Ʋniver­sal Pastorship out of the Primitive Church.

There is a great deal of pitiful stuff used by the Romanist, upon this Argument; with which I shall not trouble the Reader, yet nothing shall be omitted that hath any shew of Argument on their Side: among which the words of Saint [Page 72] Gregory following in his Argument, are most material.

Saint Gregory saith, the care of the whole Object. Church was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles, Saint Peter; and yet he is not called the Ʋniversal Bishop.

'Tis confessed that Saint Gregory doth saySol. that the care of the whole is committed to Saint Peter: again, that he was the Prince of the Apostles; and yet he was not called Ʋniver­sal Apostle: 'tis hence plain, that his being Prince of the Apostles, did not carry in it so much as Ʋniversal Bishop: otherwise, Saint Gregory would not have given the one, and de­nied him the other; and 'tis as plain, that he had the care of all Churches, and so had Saint Paul; but 'tis not plain, that he had Power over all Churches.

Doctor Hammond proceeds irrisistibly to prove the contrary from Saint Gregory himself in the Novels: if any Complaint be made, saith he, against a Bishop, the Cause shall be judged before the Metropolitane, Secundum Re­gulas Ex Reg. lib. 11. Ep. 54. Sanctas & Nostras Leges; if the Party stand not to his Judgment, the Cause is to be brought to the Arch-Bishop or Patriarch of that Diocess; and he shall give it a Conclusion, ac­cording to the Canons and Laws aforesaid; no place left for Appeal to Rome.

Yet it must be acknowledged, Saint Gregory Object. adds, si dictum fuerit &c. where there is no Me­tropolitane nor Patriarch, the Cause may be heard by the Apostolick See, which Gregory calls the Head of all Churches.

Now, if this be allowed, what hath the Pope Sol. [Page 73] gained, if perhaps such a Church should be found, as hath neither Primate nor Patriarch? how is he the nearer to the Ʋniversal Authori­ty over those Churches that have Primates of their own; or which way will he by this means extend his Jurisdiction to us in England, who have ever had more than one Metropolitane? the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury was once ac­knowledged by a Pope to be Alterius Orbis Apo­stolicus & Patriarch.

But admitting this extraordinary Case; that where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patri­arch there, they are to have recourse to the See Apostolick: 'tis a greater wonder that the Romanist should insist upon it, then that his late (Grace) should mention it; at which A. C. so much admires: for this one observation with the assistance of that known Rule in Law (excep­tio confirmat Regulam in non exceptis) puts a plain and speedy end to the whole Controversie: for if recourse may be had to Rome, from no other place, but where there is neither Primate nor Patriarch; then not from England, either when Saint Gregory laid down the Rule, or ever since, and perhaps then from no other place in the World; and indeed provision was thus made against any such extraordinary Case that might possibly happen; for it is but reason▪ that, where there is no Primate to appeal to, appeal should be received somewhere else; and where better, than at Rome, which Saint Gregory calls Caput omnium Ecclesiarum? and this is the ut­most advantage, the Romanist can hope to re­ceive from the Words.

But we see Saint Gregory calls Rome the Head Object. of all Churches.

'Tis true, whether he intends a Primacy, ofSol. Fame or visible Splendor and Dignity, being the Seat of the Emperor, or Order and Ʋnity, is not certain? but 'tis certain, he intends no­thing less by it, than, that which just now he denied; a Supremacy of Power and Ʋniversal ordinary Jurisdiction; he having, in the words immediately fore-going, concluded all ordinary Jurisdiction within every proper Primacy or Patriarchate.

But saith S. W. Saint Gregory practised the Object. thing, though he denied the Word of Ʋniver­sal.

What Hypocrisie! damn the Title as heSol. doth, and yet practise the thing! you must have good proof.

His first Instance, is of the Primate of Byza­cene; wherein the Emperor first put forth his Authority, and would have him judged by Gregory: Piissimus Imperator eum per nos vo­luit Vid. Ep. 65. l. 7. judicari, saith Gregory: Hence, as Doctor Hammond smartly and soundly observes, that Appeals from a Primate, lie to none but the Su­preme Magistrate.

To which purpose, in the Case of Maxi­mus Bishop of Solana, decreed excommunicate,Ep. l. 3. Ep. 20. by Gregory; his Sentence was still with this re­serve and submission, nisi prius: unless I should first understand by my most Serene Lords (the Emperors) that they commanded it to be done.

Thus, if this perfect instance (as S. W. calls it) have any force in it; his Cause is gone, what ever advantage he pretends to gain by it.

Besides, the Emperors Command was, that Gregory should judge him, juxta Statuta Cano­nica; [Page 75] and Gregory himself pleads, quicquid esset Canonicum Judicaremus.

Thus S. W's. Cause is killed twice by his own perfect instance: for if Saint Gregory took the Judgment upon him in obedience to the Empe­ror; and did proceed, and was to proceed in judging, according to the Canons; where was then the Ʋniversal Monarchy?

Yet, it is confessed by Dr. Hammond, which is a full answer to all the other, (not so perfect instances) that in case of injury done to any by a Primate or Patriarch, (there being no lawful Superior, who had power over him) the injured person sometimes, made his complaint to the Pope, as being the most Eminent Person in the Church; and in such case, he questionless might and ought, in all fraternal Charity, ad­monish the Primate or Patriarch, or disclaim Communion with him, unless he reform.

But it ought to be shewn that Gregory did formally excommunicate any such Pri­mate or Patriarch; or juridically and au­thoritively act, in any such Cause, without the express license of the Emperor, which not being done, his instances are answered: besides, Saint Gregory always pleads the Anci­ent Canons; which is far from any claim of Ʋniversal Pastorship by Divine Right, or Dona­tion of Christ to Saint Peter. I appeal (saith Doctor Hammond) to S. W. whether that were the Interpretation of secundùm Canones; and yet, he knows, that no other Tenure but that, will stand him in stead.

Indeed, the unhappiness is, as the DoctorVid. dispat. disp. p. 408. to p 423. observes, that such Acts at first, but necessary [Page 76] fraternal charity were by ambitious, men drawn into example, and means of assuming power of Ʋniversal Pastorship; which yet cannot be more vehemently prejudiced by any thing, than by those Ancient examples, which being right­ly considered, pretend no higher than Ecclesi­astical Canons, and the Universal Laws of Chari­ty; but never made claim to any Supremacy of power over all Bishops, by Divine Institution.

It yet appears not that Saint Gregory practi­sed, the thing, but to avoid Arrogance disclaims the name of Ʋniversal Bishop.

A. C. against my Lord of Canterbury, goes another way to work: he grants the Title, and also the thing signified by it, to be both re­nounced by Saint Gregory; but distinguishes of the Term Ʋniversal Bishop, into Grammatical, to the exclusion of all other Bishops, from be­ing properly Bishops; and Metaphorical, where­by the Bishops are secured, as such, in their re­spective Diocesses; yet all of them under the Jurisdiction of the Ʋniversal Bishop, viz. of Rome.

This distinction, Doctor Stillingfleet destroys,Sol. not more elaborately than fully and perfectly: shewing, that, 1. 'tis impossible Saint Gregory should understand the Term of Ʋniversal Bi­shopLib. 4. Ep. 32. in that strict Grammatical Sense: for the reason, why this Title was refused, was because it seemed to diminish the honour of other Bi­shops, when it was offered the Bishops of Rome in a Council of six hundred and thirty Bishops; who cannot be imagined to divest themselves, by their kindness, of their very Office; though they hazarded somewhat of their honour. Can [Page 77] we think the Council, that gave the same Ti­tle to John, intended thus to depose themselves? how comes it to pass that none of John's or Ciriacus's Successors, did ever challenge this Title, in that literal sence, if so it was under­stood.

But to wave many things impertinent; 'tis evident, Saint Gregory understood the Title Metaphorically, from the reasons he gives against it; which also equally serve to prove against S. W. that it was not so much the Title as the Authority of an Ʋniversal Bishop, which he so much opposed.

He argueth thus to John the Patriarch: What wilt thou answer to Christ the Head of the Ʋ ­niversal Lib. 4. Ep. 38. Church in the day of Judgment, who doest endeavour to subject all his Members to thee, under the name of Ʋniversal Bishop?

Again, doth he not arise to the height of Singu­larity, Ibid. that he is Subject to none, but Rules over all? and can you have a more perfect description of the present Pope, than is here given? or is it the Title or the Power, that makes him. Subject to none, that Rules over all?

Again, he imitates the pride of Lucifer, en­deavouringIbid. to be Head (not sure, in Title, but Power) of the Church Triumphant; as the Pope of the Church Militant: Exalting his Throne, Ibid. (not his Name) as Gregory adds, above the Stars of God, viz. the Bishops, and the height of the Clouds.

Again, Saint Peter was the first Member of the Church: Paul, Andrew, and John, what are they else but Heads of particular Churches; and yet they are all Members of the Church un­der [Page 78] one Head, i. e. Christ; as before he had said: we see he allows not Peter himself to be Head of the Church. None that was truly Ho­ly, was ever called by that name of Ʋniversal Bishop: which he makes to be the same with the head of the Church.

But Lastly, suppose St. Gregory did mean, that this Title in its strict grammatical sence, was to be abhorred, and not as Metaphorically taken, What hath the Pope gained? who at this day bears that Title in the highest and strictest sence imaginable? as the Dr. proves; and indeed needs no proof, being evident of it self, and to the observation of the whole world. Thus all the hard words of St. Gregory uttered so long agon, against such as admitted or desired that Title, unavoidably fall upon the Modern Roman Bishops, that take upon them to be the sole Pa­stors of the Church; and say that they are Oe­cumenical Bishops, and that all Jurisdiction is de­rived from them: They are Lucifers and Princes of Pride; using a vain, new, rash, foolish, proud, profane, erroneous, wicked, hypocritical, singular; presumptuous, blasphemous Name; as that holy Pope inveighed against it. Moreover, as he also adds, they transgress Gods Laws, violate the Canons, dishonour the Church, despise their Brethren, and cause Schism. Istud nomen facere L. 6. ep. 30, 31. Obj. in dissessionem Ecclesiae.

But it is said, that Pope Victor excommunica­ted the Asian Churches all at once: Therefore, saith A. C. the Pope had of right some Authori­ty over the Asian Bishops; and by confequence over the whole Church: And this appears in that, Irenaus in the name of the Gallican Bishops, [Page 79] writes to Victor not to proceed so rashly in this Action: as appears in Eusebius.

1. We answer, that those Bishops, amongSol. whom Irenaeus was one, did severely rebuke that Pope for offering to excommunicate those Asian Vid. Eus. l. 5. c. 24. Churches: Therefore they did not believe him to be the Supreme, Infallible Pastor of the whole Church.

2. His Letters declaring that Excommunica­tion,Ibid. not pleasing all his own Bishops, they countermanded him: Surely not thinking him to be what Popes would now be esteemed.

3. Hence Card. Perron is angry with Eusebi­us, and calls him an Arrian; and an enemy to the Church of Rome; for hinting, that though the Pope did declare them excommunicate, yet it took no effect, because other Bishops conti­nued still in Communion with them.

4 But the force of the whole Argument leans upon a plain mistake, of the Ancient Discipline, both in the Nature and the Root or Ground of it.

For the nature of Ancient Excommunication,Mistake of the nature. Root of Discipline. especially when practised by one Church against another, did not imply a Positive Act of Autho­rity, but a Negative Act of Charity; or a decla­ring against the Communion of such with them­selves: And therefore was done by Equals to Equals; and sometimes by Inferiors to Superiors. In Equals; thus Johannes Antiochenus in the E­phesine Council, excommunicated Cyril, PatriarchVict. Tu. nu. cro. p. 10. of Alexandria; and in Inferiors (in the sence of our Roman Adversaries) for the African Bishops excommunicated Pope Vigilius: Hence, also, Acacius the Patriarch of Const. expunged the [Page 80] Name of Foelix Bishop of Rome; out of the Di­pticks of the Church: And Hilary anethamati­zed Pope Liberius, therefore Victors declaring the Asian Churches to be excommunicate, is no argument of his power over them.

2. The Root or Ground of the ancient Disci­pline, is also as plainly mistaken, which was not Authority always, but Care and Charity. Care, I say, not only of themselves who used it, but also of the Church that was censured, and in­deed of the whole Church.

'Tis here proper to consider, that though Bishops had their peculiar Seats, and Limits for their Jurisdictions; yet they had all a charitive in­spection and care of that universal Church, and sometimes denominations accordingly.

Hence we deny not that the ancient Bishops of Rome deservedly gained the Title of Oecu­menical Bishops, a thing of so great moment in the Controversie, that if well considered, might advance very far towards the ending of it: For so the Title hath been given to others, as well as the Bishop of Rome; and therefore, it could not argue any Authority peculiar to him. Also the same universalcare of the Church (the occa­sion of the Title) hath been acknowledged in others as well as in him; and indeed the power; which is the Root of that Care, as the occasion of that Title, is founded in all Bishops.

Here are three things noted, which may be3 Notes. distinctly considered.

1. Power is given to all Bishops with an im­mediate respect to the good of the whole Church▪ So that if it were possible, that every particular Bishop could take care of the whole Church, [Page 81] they have Authority enough in their Function to do it; though it be impossible, and indeed incon­sistent with peace and order, that all should un­dertake it: And therefore they have their bounds and limits set them; hence their par­ticular Diocesses: therefore, as St. Cyprian, there is but one Bishoprick in the whole World; a part of which is held by every Bishop.

2. Thus we find in the primitive Church, that every Bishop had his particular Charge, yet they still regarded the common good; extending their care (the second thing observed) sometimes be­yond their own division, by their council and di­rection; yea and exercised their functions some­times in other places: Of which Dr. Stillingfleet Rat. ac. p. 424, 425. gives many instancesin Polycarp. Ignatius, Ire­naeus, St. Cyprian, Faustus.

Yea upon this very ground, Nazianzen saithOr. 18. p. 281. of St. Cyprian, that he not only governed the Churches of Carthage, but all the Western parts, and even almost all the Eastern, Southern, and Northern too, as far as he went.

Arsenius speaks more home to Athanasius; Atha. ap. ad Imp. Const p. 786, &c. We embrace (saith he) Peace and Ʋnity with the Catholick Church, over which, Thou, through the Grace of God, dost preside. Whence Gregory Or. 21. p. 392. Naz. saith of Athanasius, that he made Laws for the whole Earth: And St. Basil writes to him,Ep. 52. that he had care of all the Churches as of his own; and calls him the Head and Chief of all.

And St. Chrisostom in the praise of Eustathius, Tom. 5. p. 631. Savil. the Patriarch of Antioch, saith, that he was in­structed by the divine Spirit; that he was not only to have care of that Church over which he was set, but of the whole Church throughout the world.

Now what is this but to say in effect, these great men were universal Bishops; though in­deed, they, none of them, had power of Ju­risdiction over any Church but their own; as, notwithstanding the general care of the ancient good Bishops of Rome, had of the good of the whole, (and their Influence and Reverence in order thereunto) the Bishops of Rome had not.

3. Upon the former ground and occasion, some Bishops in the most famous Churches, had the honour of the Title of Oecumenical or Uni­versal Bishops.

But here we must confess, the Bishops of Rome had the advantage, being the most famous of all; both by reason of their own primitive me­rit, and the glory of the Empire, especially the latter.

The Roman Empire was it self accounted uni­versal; and the greatness of the Empire advan­ced the Church to the same Title; and conse­quently the Bishops of that Church, above o­thers.

1. That the Roman Empire was so, appearsR. ac. p. 425, 426. by a multitude of Testimonies making orbis Ro­manus & orbis humanus, Synonimous; collect­ed by Dr. Still. Hence Am. Marcellinus. callsL. 14. c. 16. Rome, Caput Mundi, the head of the World: And the Roman Senate, Asylum Mundi totius: And it was usual then to call, whatever was o [...] of the Roman Empire, Barbaria; as the same Dr.Ibid. proves at large: Therefore that Empire was called in Greek [...]. Act. 11. 28.

2. Some Bishops in the great Churches in the Roman Empire, were called Oecumenical, as that [Page 83] relates to the [...], viz. the Roman Em­pire. This appears because the very ground of the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantino­ple, was the greatness of the City; as appears in the Councils of Constantinople and Calcedon a­bout it; and the priviledges of old Rome gave the measure of the priviledges of new Rome.

And in probability, the ground of that Pa­triarch's usurping the Title of Oecumenical Pa­triarch, was but to correspond with the great­nessP. 426. of his City; which was then the Seat of the Empire, as Dr. Still. very reasonably Conje­ctures.

Moreover, all the three Patriarchs of Alex­andria, Antioch, and Constantinople, had expres­sions given them tantamount to that Title: The government of the whole World, the care of all R. ac. p. 426. the Churches, the government as it were of the whole body of the Church: as Dr. Stillingfleet particular­ly shews. But most clear and full to that pur­pose,Theod. Haer. fab. l. 4. c. 14. p. 245. To. 4. oper. as he observes, is the Testimony of The­odoret concerning Nestorius, being made Patri­arch of Constantinople: He was intrusted with the Government of the Catholick Church of the Orthodox at Constantinople; and thereby, of the whole World.

Where shall we find so illustrious a Testimony for the Bishop of Rome? or if we could, we see it would prove nothing peculiar to him.

Therefore, if the Council of Calcedon did offer the Title of universal Patriarch; or if they did not, but as the truth rather is, some Papers re­ceived in that Council, did give him that Title, it signifieth nothing to prove the Popes universal Authority.

Therefore, Sim. Vigorius ingeniously confes­seth,Comento. ad Res. Syn. Conc. Bas. p. 36. that when the Western Fathers call the Ro­man Bishops, Bishops of the universal Church, they do it from the custom of their Churches; not that they look on them as universal Bishops of the whole Church; but in the same sence, that the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, are called so; or as they are universal over the Churches, under their own Patriarchate; or that in Oecumenical Coun­cils, they preside over the whole Church: and after acknowledgeth, that the Title of universal or oecumenical Bishop, makes nothing for the Popes Monarchy.

It is too evident, that that humble Pope Gre­gory seems to glorifie himself, while he so often mentions that offer of the Title of Ʋniversal; and his refusing of it, and inveighing against it; and that these were Engines used by him to deprive others of the same Title, if not to advance his own See to the power signified by it; though if he did indeed design any such thing, it is an argument that he was ashamed openly to claim or own it, while he rails against the Title, in the effects of it, which depended upon the power it self, as such an abominable thing.

However, if the Council of Calcedon did in­deed offer, (or only record) that Title to Grego­ry, it is more than manifest, it could not possi­bly be intended to carry in it the Authority of the whole Church; or any more than that qua­lified sence of Vigorius before mentioned; be­cause other Patriarchs had the same Title; and we see no reason to believe, that that Council intended to subject themselves, and all Patriarchs [Page 85] to the Authority of the Western Pope; contra­ry to their great design of advancing the See of Constantinople to equal priviledges with that of Rome, as appears by their 16 Sess. Can. 28. and their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo.

Thus the bare Title is no Argument; and by what hath been said touching the grandure of the Roman Empire, and the answerable great­ness and renown of the Roman Church, frequent recourse had unto it from other Churches, for counsel and assistance; is of no more force to conclude her Supremacy, nor any matter of won­der at all.

Experience teacheth us that it is and will be so in all cases: not only a renowned Lawyer, Physician, but Divine, shall have great resort, and almost universal addresses. An honest and prudent Countryman shall be upon all Commis­sions: the Church of Rome was then famous both for Learning, Wisdom, Truth, Piety, and I may add Tradition it self as well as greatness both, in the eye of the world and all other Churches; and her Zeal and care for general good, keep­ing peace and spreading the grace of the Gospel, was sometimes admirable. And now no wonder that Applications in difficult cases were frequent­ly and generally made hither, which at first were received and answered with Love and Charity, though soon after, the Ambition of Popes knew how to advance, and hence to assume Authority.

From this, we see, it was no great venture,Iren. l. 3. c. 3. how ever A. C. Term it, for Arch-Bishop Laud to grapple with the Authority of Irenae­us: who saith, to this Church, meaning Rome, propter potentiorem Principalitatem, for the more [Page 86] powerful Principality of it, 'tis necessary that every Church, that is the faithful, undique, should have recourse, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est [...]ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio.

His Lordship seems to grant the whole: Rome being then the Imperial City; and so a Church of more powerful Authority than any other▪ yet not the Head of the Church Ʋniversal; this may suffice without the pleasant criticizing a­bout undique, with which, if you have a mind to be merry, you may entertain your self in Dr. Still. p. 441. &c.

But, indeed A. C. is guilty of many Mistakes in reasoning, as well as criticizing: he takes it for granted, that this Principality is attributed by Irenaeus here to Rome, as the Church, not as the City. 2. That the necessity, arising hence, was concerning the Faith, and not secular Af­fairs; neither of which, is certain, or in likeli­hood true, vid. Dr. Still. p. 444.

Besides, if both were granted, the necessity is not such as supposeth Duty or Authority in the faithful, or in Rome; but as the sense makes e­vident, a necessity of expedience, Rome being most likely to give satisfaction touching that Tradition about which that dispute was.

Lastly, the Principality here implies not pro­per Authority, or Power to decide the Contro­versie; one kind of Authority it doth imply, but not such as A. C. enquired for: not the Authority of a Governor, but of a Conserva­tor; of a Conservator of that Truth, that be­ing made known by her, might reasonably end the quarrel; not of an absolute Governour, [Page 87] that might command the Faith, or the Agreement of the Dissenters. This is evident: 1. Be­cause the Dispute was about a matter of Fact, whether there was any such Tradition or not, as the Valentinians pretended. 2. Be­cause Irenaeus refers them to Rome under this reason, conservata est, the Apostolical Traditions are kept there; being brought by the faithful undique thither: and therefore, brought thi­ther, because of the more Principality of the City, all persons resorted thither.

Lastly, It is acknowledged that Pope Gregory Obj. Eph. 65. ind. 2. doth say; that, if there be any fault in Bishops, it is subject to the Apostolical See; but when their fault doth not exact it, that then, upon the account of Humility, all were his Equals.

Indeed, this smells of his ambition and de­sign Sol. before spoken of; but if there be any truth in it, it must agree with the Canon Saint Gregory himself records; and suppose the faulty Bishop hath no proper Primate or Patri­arch to judge him: also, with the proceeding then before him; and suppose Complaint to the Emperor; and the Emperor's subjecting the Cause to the Apostolical See; as that Cause was by Saint Gregory's own Confession.

However, what he seems here to assume to his own See, he blows away with the same breath; denying any ordinary Jurisdiction and Authority to be in that See, over all Bishops, while he supposes a fault necessary to their sub­jection; and that, while there is no fault, all are equall: which is not true, where, by a lawful standing ordinary Government there is an eter­nal necessity of Superiority and Inferiority.

But of this, I had spoken before, had I thought (as I yet do not) that there is any weight or consequence in the words.

Further Evidence, that the Ancient Popes themselves, though they might thirst after it; did not believe, that they were Ʋniversal Bi­shops and Monarks over the whole Church; and that they did not pretend to it in any such manner, as to make the World believe it; I say, further evidence of this, ariseth from their ac­knowledged subjection to the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical Affairs.

Pope Leo begged the Emperor Theodosius with tears; that he, [...], that he would Command (not permit) a Council to be held in Italy: that sure was not to signifie his Authoritative desires.

That Instance of Pope Agatho, in his Epistle to the Emperor, is as pertinent as the former; [...], &c. with praise we admire your Conc. Tom. 5. p. 60. E. F. purpose well pleasing to God (not to the Pope) and for these Commands of yours we are rejoyced, and with groans, give thanks to God; and many such, Doctor Hammond saith, might be afforded.

Pope Gregory received the power of hear­ing and determining Causes several times, as he himself confesseth, from the Emperor; as we shewed before.

Hence Pope Eleutherius, to King Lucius: you are the Vicar of Christ: the same in effect which is contained in the Laws of Edward the Confessor.

And Pope Ʋrban the Second, entertained our Arch-bishop Anselm in the Council of Bar, with the Title of the Pope of another World, [Page 89] or (as some relate it) the Apostle of another World, and a Patriarch worthy to be reve­renced. Malm. pro. ad lib. de gest. pont. Angl.

Now, when the Bishops of Rome did ac­knowledge that the Civil Magistrate had power to command the assembling of general Councils, and to command Popes themselves to hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes: when they ac­knowledged the King of England to be the Vi­car of Christ; and the Arch-Bishop of Can­terbury, Pope of another World: we may, I think, safely conclude, that whatever they thought of the Primacy of dignity, they did not believe themselves; or, give occasion to others, to believe; that they had then, the Ju­risdiction of England; much less of the whole World.

Indeed, the Powers of Emperors over Popes, Vid. King James's defence, p. 50. was exercised severely; and continued long in practice, an. 654. Constantius bound and ba­nished Pope Martin. an. 963. Otho rejected Pope John 13. and made Leo 8. Pope. and John 14. Gregory 5. and Sylvester 2. were made Popes by the Otho's an. 1007. Hen. 2. deposed three Popes: this practice is confessed till Gregory 7. and before An. 679. Popes submitted to Empe­rors by purchasing their Investitures of them; by submissive terms, and bowing the knee be­fore them, Platin. Baron. Segeb.

SECT. VIII.
Nor the Words of the Imperial Law.

IF the Ancient Councils, or practice, or Popes themselves, offered nothing to perswade our Ancestors to a belief of the Pope's Ʋniver­sal Power or Possession of England; Certainly, we may despair of finding any such thing in the Ancient Laws of the Church; which are justly presumed to contain the Sense and Rule of all: were all other Records of Antiquity silent, saith our late Primate, the Civil Law is proof enough: for, that's a Monument of the Pri­mitive Church: and not only so; it being the Imperial, as well as Canon Law, it gives us the reason and Law both of the Church and the whole World.

Now, what saith the Law? it first forbids the Title, and then the Practice.

Primae sedis Apostolus, the Patriarch or BishopCor. Jur. Can. de pa. 1. dist. 99. c. 3. Can. 4. of the first See, is not to be called Prince of the Priests, or Supreme Priest; nor, as the African Canon adds, aliquid hujusmodi, any other thing of that kind.

The practice of any such Power was expresly forbidden; and not the proud Title only: the very Text of the Law saith, à Patriarcha non datur Appellatio: from a Patriarch there lies no Appeal, Cod. lib. 1. Tit. 4. l. 29. Auth. Collat. 9. Tit. 15. c. 22.

And this we have found agreeable to the Melivetane Council, where Saint Augustine wasCan. 23. present, forbidding under pain of Excommuni­cation, [Page 91] any Appeal to any Foreign Councils or Judi­catures: and this is again Consonant to the fifth Canon of Nice; as that was to the thirty fourth A­postolick, where the Primate in every Nation is to be accounted their Head.

Now what do our Adversaries say to this? Indeed, they seem to be put to it; and though their Wits are very pregnant to deliver many Answers, such as they be, in most Cases, they all seem to joyn in one poor slight Evasi­on here; namely, that the Laws concerning Appeals, did only concern inferiour Clergy-men: but Bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome; even by the African Canon, and acknowledged in that Councils Epistle to Pope Boniface.

Three bold Sayings: first, that the Law con­cerned not the Appeals of Bishops. 2. The Council of Africa decreed Bishops Appeals to Rome. 3. And acknowledged it in their Let­ter to Pope Boniface: but are these things, as truly, as boldly said? for the first which is their Comment, whereby they would restrain the sense of the Laws, to the exclusion of the Bishops, we shall consider their ground for it; and then propose our reason, and the Law expresly a­gainst it, and then their Reasons will need little answer.

They say, the Law reacheth not the diffe­rence Object. between Patriarchs themselves.

But if there should happen a difference be­twixtSol. a Patriarch and the Pope, who shall decide that? both these inconveniences are plainly solved by referring all such extraordinary diffi­culties to a General Council.

But why should the Law allow Forreign Ap­peals [Page 92] to Bishops and not to Priests? Are all Bi­shops Patriarchs? is not a Patriarch over his Bi­shops, as well as a Bishop over his Priests? may not the Gravamen of a Priest be given by his Bi­shop? or the difference among Priests, be asCaelestus necessity of Grace. Mi­lev. Con. considerable to the Church, sometimes as a­mong Bishops? or hath not the universal Pastor if the Pope be so, power over and care of Priests, as well as Bishops? or can the Summum imperi­um receive limits from Canon or Law? to say, that Priests are forbidden to appeal, but the Pope is not forbidden to receive their Appeals, is plainly to cripple the Law, and to make it yield to all the inconveniences of foreign appeals against its true end.

But what if this very Canon, they pretend to allow Appeals from Bishops to Rome, do ex­presly forbid that very thing it is brought to al­low?Can. 28. and it doth so undeniably, as appears in the Authentick Collection of the African Canons, non provocent ad transmarina Judicia, sed ad pri­mates suarum Provinciarum, aut ad universale Concilium, sicut de Episcopis saepe constitutum est. The same thing had often been determined in the case of Bishops.

Perron, and others say, this clause was not Obj. in the ancient Milevetan Canons.

Have they nothing else but this groundless Sol. conceit to support their universal Pastorship a­gainst express Law, for four hundred years after Christ? Sure it behoved highly to produce a true Authentick Copy of those Canons, wherein that clause is omitted; which because they do not, we conclude they cannot.

However it is manifest, that the same thing [Page 93] against appeals of Bishops to Rome, had been of­ten determined, by far greater Testimony than the bare assertion of Perron and his Partners, viz. that general Council of Carthage, An. D. 419. about three years after that Milevetan; at the end of the first Session, they reviewed the Canons of the seventeen lesser Councils, which Justellus mentions; and wherein, no doubt, that point had been often determined; and out of them all composed that C [...]dex canonum Ecclesia Africanae, with that clause inserted, as appears both in the Greek and many ancient latine Copies; and was so received and pleaded by the Council of Rhemes, as Hincumarmus proves as well as o­thers.

Gratius confesseth it; but adds this Antidote; Nisi forte Romanam Sedem appellaverit. i. e. None shall appeal to Rome (the main design of the Coun­cil) except they do appeal to Rome; not expound­ing the Canon, but exposing himself and that excellent Council.

But A. C. urgeth the Epistle of that Council to Obj. Boniface, as was before noted; and thence proves that the Council acknowledged, that Bi­shops had power in their own cause to appeal to Rome.

'Tis true, they do say, that in a Letter writ­tenSol. a year before to Zosimus, they had granted liberty to Bishops to appeal to Rome. This is true, but scarce honest; the next words in the Letter spoil the Argument and the sport too: for they further say, that because the Pope con­tended that the appeals of Bishops were contain­ed in the Nicene Canons, they were contented to yield that it should be so, till the true Canons were produced.

Now what can the Reader desire, to put an e­ternal end to this Controversie, and conse­quently to the claim of the universal Pastor in this Age; but an account of the Judgment of this Council, when they had received the Copy of the Nicene Canons (on which the point de­pended) out of the East.

This you have in that excellent Epistle of theirs to Pope Celastine, who succeeded Boniface, and the elaborate Dr. Stillingfleet, who search­ethR. ac. p. 410, 411. all things to the bottom, hath transcribed it at large, as a worthy Monument of Antiquity; and of very great light in the present Contro­versie: To him I shall refer the Reader for the whole; and only note some few expressions to the purpose.

We (say they) humbly beseech you to admit no more into your Communion those whom we have cast out: For your Reverence will easily perceive that this is forbid in the Council of Nice. For if this be ta­ken care for, as to the inferior Clergy and Laity, how much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops. The Decrees of Nice have subjected both the infe­rior Clergy and Bishops to their Metropolitans, for they have most wisely and justly provided, that eve­ry business be determined in the place where it begun. Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one if he be offended, to appeal to the Council of the Province, or even to an universal Council. Or how can a Judg­ment made beyond the Sea be valid, to which the Persons of necessary Witnesses cannot be brought by reason, &c. For this sending of men to us from your Holiness, we do not find it commanded by any Synod of the Fathers. And as for that Council of Nice, we cannot find it in the truest Copies, sent by [Page 95] holy Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, and the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople; which also we sent to your Predecessor Boniface. Take heed also of sending any of your Clerks for Executors, to those who desire it; lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ; and concern­ing our brother Faustinus (Apiarius being cast out) we are confident that our brotherly Love continuing, Africa shall no more be troubled with him.

This is the sum of that famous Epistle, the Pope and the African Fathers referred the point in difference to the true Canons of the Nicene Council: The Canons determine against the Pope, and from the whole story 'tis inferred e­vidently.

1. That Pope Boniface himself implieth, his Ju­risdiction was limited by the general Council of Nice, and that all the Laity and Clergy too, except Bishops, that lived beyond the Seas, and consequently in England, were exempted from his Jurisdiction by that Council.

2. Pope Boniface even then, when he made his claim and stood upon his terms with the A­frican Fathers, pleads nothing for the appeals of transmarine Bishops to Rome, but the allow­ance of the Council of Nice, no tu es Petrus then heard of.

3. Then it seems the practices of Popes themselves were to be ruled and judged by the ancient Canons and Laws of the Church.

4. The African Fathers declared the Pope fal­lible and actually mistaken, both to his own pow­er and sense of the Council: Proving substantial­ly that neither Authority from Councils, nor any foundation in Justice, Equity or order of [Page 96] Government or publick Conveniency, will allow or suffer such Appeals to Rome; and that the Pope had no authority to send Legates to hear causes in such cases.

All these things lye so obviously in prejudice both of the Popes Possession and Title, as universal Pastor at that time, both in his own & the Church­es sence, that to apply them further would be to insult; which I shall forbear, seeing Baronius is so ingenious as to confess, there are some hard things in this Epistle: And Perron hath hereupon expo­sed his Wit with so much sweat and so little pur­pose, but his own Correction and Reproach, as Dr. Still. notes.

Yet we may modestly conclude from this one plain instance; that the sence of the Nicene Coun­cil was defined by the African Council, to be a­gainst the Popes Supremacy, and consequently they did not submit to it nor believe it; and a fur­ther consequence to our purpose is, that then the Catholick Church did not universally own it: i. e. the Popes Supremacy then had not Possession of the faith of the whole Church: For as A. C. p. 191. maintains, the Africans, notwithstanding the contest in the sixth Council of Carthage, were always in true Communion with the Roman Church, even during the term of this pretended Separation: And Caelestine himself saith, that St. Augustine one of those Fathers, lived and dyed in the Com­munion of the Roman Church.

SECT. IX.
The Conclusion touching Possession Anci­ently.

VVE hope it is now apparent enough, that the Popes Supremacy had no pos­sesion in England from the beginning, or for the first six hundred years; either de facto or in fide. Our Ancestors yielded not to it; they unani­mously resisted it, and they had no reason to be­lieve it, either from the Councils or practice of the Church; or from the Edicts and Rules of the imperial Law, or the very sayings of the Popes themselves.

Thus Sampson's Hair, the strength and Pomp of their best Plea, is cut off: The foundation of the Popes Supremacy is subverted, and all other pleas broken with it.

If according to the Apostles Canons, every Nation had its proper Head in the beginning, to be ackonwledged by them under God: And according to a general Council, all such Heads should hold as from the beginning; there can be no ground af­terwards, for a lawful possession to the con­trary.

If tu es Petrus, & pasce Oves, have any force to maintain the Popes Supremacy, why did not the ancient Fathers, the Authors of those Ca­nons, see it? Why was not it shewn by the Popes [Page 98] concerned, in bar against them when nothing else could be pleaded? When both Possession and Tradition were to be begun, and had not yet laid their Foundation? Yea when actual opposition in England was made against it: when general Councils abroad, laid restraints upon it; and the Eastern Church would not acknowledge it.

Indeed both Antiquity, Universality, and Tradition it self, and all colour of Right for e­ver, fails with possession.

For Possession of Supremacy, afterwards, can­not possibly have either a divine or just T [...]; but must lay its Foundation, contrary to Gods Institution and Ecclesiastical Canon. And the Possessor is a Thief and a Robber, our Adver­saries being Judges. He invades others Pro­vinces; and is bound to Restore: And long Possession, is but a protracted Rebellion against God and his Church.

However it be with the secular Powers, Christs Vicar, must certainly derive from him; must hold the power he gave; must come in it at his door. And S. W. himself, P. 50 against Dr. Hammond, fiercely affirmeth, That Possession in this kind ought to begin ne [...] Christs Time; and he that hath begun it later, unless he can Evidence that he was driven out from an Ancient Possession, is not to be stiled a Possessor but an Ʋsurper, an Intruder, an Inva­der, Disobedient, Rebellious, and Schismatical. Good Night, S. W.

Quod ab initio fuit invalidum, tractu temporis non Convalescit, is a Rule in the Civil Law.

Yea, whatever Possession the Pope got after­wards, was not only an illegal Ʋsurpation, but a manifest Violation of the Canon of Ephesus; and thereby Condemned as Schisma­tical.

SECT. I.
Not in Austin's Time. State of Suprema­cy questioned.

VVE shall consider the Popes Supremacy here, as it stood in and near St. Au­gustine's time, and in the Ages after him to Hen. 8.

1. We have not found hitherto, that in or about the time of Augustine, Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, the Pope had any such power in En­gland as is pretended.

Indeed, he came from Rome; but he brought no Mandate with him; and when he was come, he did nothing without the King's licence: at his arrival, he petitions [...] King; the King commands him to stay in the Isle Thanet, till his further pleasure was known: he obeyed; after­ward, the King gave him licence to preach toBed. l. 1. c. 25. his Subjects; and, when he was himself con­verted, majorem praedicandi licentiam, he enlarg­ed his licence so to do.

'Tis true, Saint Gregory presumed largly, to subject all the Priests of Brittain under Augu­stine; and to give him power to erect two Arch-Bishopricks, and twelve Bishopricks under each of them; but 'tis one thing to claim, another thing to possess: for Ethelbert was then the only Christian King, who had not the twen­tieth part of Brittain; and it appears, that af­ter both Saint Gregory and Austine were dead, there were but one Arch▪bishop, and two Bishops, throughout the Brittish Islands, of the Roman Communion.

Indeed, the Brittish and Scotch Bishops wereBed. l. 2. c. 2 &c. 4. many, but they renounced all Communion with Rome, as appeared before.

We thankfully acknowledge the Pope's send­ing over Preachers; his commending, some­times Arch-Bishops when desired, to us; his di­rections to fill up vacant Sees: all which, and such like, were Acts of Charity, becoming so e­minent a Prelate in the Catholick Church: but sure these were not Marks of Supremacy.

'Tis possible, Saint Milet, as is urged, might bring the Decrees of the Roman Synod hither to be observed; and that they were worthy of [Page 102] our acceptance, and were accepted according­ly; but 'tis certain, and will afterwards appear to be so, that such Decrees were never of force here, further that they were allowed by the King and Kingdom.

'Tis not denied, but that sometimes we ad­mitted the Pope's Legates, and Bulls too; yet the Legantine Courts were not Anciently heard of; neither were the Legates themselves, or those Bulls, of any Authority without the King's Consent.

Some would argue from the great and flatte­ring Titles that were antiently given to the Pope; but sure such Titles can never signifie Possession or Power, which at the same time, and perhaps by the very same Persons that gave the Titles, was really and indeed denied him.

But the great Service the Bishop of Calcedo [...] hath done his Cause by these little Instances be­fore mentioned, will best appear, by a true stateVid. Bramh. p. 189. &c. of the question touching the Supremacy be­twixt the Pope and the King of England; in which, such things are not all concerned.

The plain question is, who was then the Po­litical Head of the Church of England? the King or the Pope? or more immediately, whe­ther the Pope then had possession of the Supre­macy here in such things, as was denied him by Hen. 8. at the beginning of our Reformation? and the Pope still challengeth? and they are such as these.

1. A Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Cau­ses.

2. A Dispensative Power, above and against the Laws of the Church.

[Page 103]3. A liberty to send Legates, and to hold Legantine Courts in England, without Licence.

4. The Right of receiving the last Appeals of the King's Subjects.

5. The Patronage of the English Church, and Investitures of Bishops; with power to impose Oaths upon them, contrary to their Oath of Allegiance.

6. The First Fruits and Tenths of Ecclesia­stical Livings; and a power to impose upon them what Pensions, or other Burthens, he plea­seth.

7. The Goods of Clergy-men, dying Inte­state.

These are the Flowers of that Supremacy which the Pope claimeth in England, and our Kings, and Laws, and Customs deny him; as will appear afterwards in due place: for this place, 'tis enough to observe, that we find no foot-steps of such possession of the Pope's Power in England, in or about Augustine's time.

As for that one instance of Saint Wilfred's Appeals, it hath appeared before; that it be­ing rejected by two Kings successively, by the other Arch-Bishop, and by the whole Body of the English Clergy, sure, 'tis no full instance of the Pope's Possession of the Supremacy here at that time; and needs no further answer.

SECT. II.
No clear or full possession in the Ages af­ter Austine, till Hen. 8. Eight Distin­ctions; the Question stated.

IT may be thought that though the things mentioned were not in the Pope's possession so early; yet, for many Ages together they were found in his Possession, and so continued, without interruption, till Hen. 8. ejected the Pope, and possest himself and his Successors, of them.

Whether it were so or not, we are now to examine; and least we should be deceived with Colours and generalities, we must distin­guish carefully.

1. Betwixt a Primacy of Order and Dignity and Unity; and Supremacy of Power, the only thing disputed.

2. Betwixt a Judgment of direction result­ing from the said Primacy; and a Judgment of Jurisdiction depending upon Supremacy.

3. Betwixt things claimed; and things grant­ed and possessed.

4. Betwixt things possessed continually; or for some time only.

5. Betwixt Possession partial, and of some lesser Branches; and plenary or of the main bo­dy of Jurisdiction.

6. Betwixt things permitted of curtesie; and things granted out of duty.

7. Betwixt incroachment through craft, or power or interest, or the temporary Ossitancy of [Page 105] the People; and Power, grounded in the Laws, enjoyed with the consent of the States of the Kingdom in times of peace.

8. Lastly, betwixt quiet possession; and inter­rupted.

These Distinctions, may receive a flout from some capricious Adversary; but, I find, there is need of them all, if we deal with a subtle one.

For the Question is not, touching Primacy in the Bishop of Rome; or an acknowledged Judg­ment of direction flowing from it; or a claim of Jurisdiction, which is no Possession; or a partial possession of power in some lesser things; or a larger power in greater matters, yielded out of curtesie, ossitancy, or fear, or surprize; and held only for a time, while things were unsetled; or by power, craft or interest; but soon after dis­claimed, and frequently interrupted: for, this is not such a Possession as our Adversaries plead for; or, indeed, will stand them in stead.

But the Question in short, is this; whether the Pope had a quiet and uninterrupted possession of the Supreme Power over the Church of England in those great Branches of Supremacy denied him by Henry the Eighth, for nine hundred years together, or for many Ages together before that time?

This, strictly, must be the Question: for the Complaint is; that Hen. 8. disposessed the Pope of the Supremacy which he had enjoyed for so ma­ny Ages; and made himself Head of the Church of England: therefore, those very things which that King then denied to the Pope, or took from him, must be those Flowers of the Supremacy, which the Papists pretend, the Pope [Page 107] had possession of, for so many Ages together be­fore his time.

Two things, therefore, and those only, are needful to be sought here: what those Branches of Power are, which Henry the Eighth denied to the Pope, and resumed to himself and his Suc­cessors? and whether the Pope and quietly, and without plain interruption, possest the same for so many Ages before his time? and in order thereunto, when and how he got it?

SECT. I.
Of Appeals to Rome. Three Notions of Appeal. Appeals to Rome Locally, or by Legates. Wilfrid. Anselm.

Appeals to Rome, we have found among these things which were prohibited by Henry the Eighth: Therefore no doubt the Pope claim­ed, and in some sort possessed the power of re­ceiving [Page 110] such Appeals before. But what kind of Possession, how free, and how long, is worthy to be enquired.

Appeal, is a word taken several ways: Some­times it is only to accuse; so we find it in the3 Senses of Appeal. Statutes of the 11 and 21 Rich. 2. Sometimes to refer our selves for judgment, to some wor­thy person; so Francfort, &c. appealed to John Calvin. 3. But now it is chiefly used for a re­moving a cause from an inferior to a Superior Court, that hath power of disanulling what the other did.

In this last sense, Historians tell us, that Ap­peals to Rome were not in use with us, till about five hundred years agon, or a little more, viz. the year 1140.

These Appeals to Rome were received and judged either in the Popes Court at Rome; or by his Legates in England. A word or two of each.

For Appeals to the Pope at Rome, the two famous instances of Wilfred and Anselm, take up much [...]. Locally. of our History.

But they both seem, at least at first, to haveWilfred. appealed to the Pope, under the second notionAnselm. of appeal: Not to him as a proper or legal Judge; but as a great and venerable Prelate.

But not to stick there; 'tis well known what effect they obtained: As for Wilfred, his account was of elder date; and hath appeared before, to the great prejudice of the Popes Possession in En­gland at that time.

But Anselm is the great monument of Papal O­bedience; Anselm. and, as a learned man observes, the first promoter of Papal Authority in England. [Page 111] He began his Enterprise with a pretence, that he ought not to be barr'd of visiting the Vicar of St. Peter, causâ Regiminis Ecclesiae; but he was not suffered to do that: So far was the Pope then, from having the power of receiving ap­peals, that he might not receive the visit of a person of Anselm's quality, without the Kings leave.

First, he was told by the Bishops, as well as Lay-Lords, that it was a thing unheard of, and altogether against the use of the Realm, for any of the great men, especially himself to presume any such thing, without the Kings Licence.

Notwithstanding, he would, and did go; but what followed? His Bishoprick was seiz'd in­to the Kings hand: And the Pope durst not, or thought not good, to give him either Consilium or Auxilium, as Sir Rog. Twisd. p. 11. & 12. makes appear out Eadmer, p. 20, 26, 38, 39, 53.

In the dispute, the King told Anselm, the Pope had not to do with his Rights; and wrote that free Letter, we find in Jorvalensis Col. 999, 30. and upon the ambiguous answer of the Pope, the King sent another letter by Anselm himself to Rome, who spake plainly, his Master, nec amis­sione Eadem. 73. 13. Regni, &c. for the loss of his Kingdom, he would not lose the investiture of his Churches.

But Anselm, as Arch-Bishop, took the Oath, Obj. that was appointed by the Pope to be taken at the receiving of the Pall, which allowed his Power to receive Appeals.

'Tis true; but Pope Paschalis himself, who Ans devised that Oath, acknowledgeth, that it was as Anselm signified to him, not admitted; but wondred at; and lookt on as a strange innovation [Page 112] both by the King and the great men of the King­dom.Baron. an. 1102. nu. 8. The King pleaded the Fundamental Laws and customs of the Land against it; it is a custom of my Kingdom instituted by my Father, that no Pope may be appealed unto, without the Kings li­cence. He that takes away the customs of the King­dom, doth violate the Power and Crown of the King. And 'tis well noted by Arch-Bishop Bramhall, Malms. l. 1. degest. Pont. Ang. that the Laws established by his Father, viz. William the Conqueror, were no other than the Laws of Edward the Confessor; that is to say, the old Saxon Laws, who had before yielded to the [...] Hen. 2. request of his Barons (as Hoveden notes) to confirm those Laws.

But, though Anselm had obliged himself by the said Oath to the Pope, yet the rest of the Bi­shops refused the Yoke; and thereupon, Malms [...], tells us, in his &c. that, in the execution of these Malm. ibid. things, all the Bishops of England did deny their Suffrage to their Primate.

Consequently, the Ʋnanimity of the whole Realm, appeared in the same Point, in the Reign of this Kings Grandchild, in the Statute of Clarendon; confirming the former Brittish, Math. Par. 1164. Hoved. in Hen. 2. English custom, not only by their consents, but their Oaths: wherein generally every man is in­terdicted to appeal to Rome.

This Statute of Clarendon was made, when Po­pery seemed to be at the height in England: It was made to confirm the Customs and Liberties of Henry the Seconds Predecessors; that is to say, as the words of the Statute are, his Grandfather Henry the first, Son of the Conqveror, and other Kings. Now the Customs of England are our common Laws, and the customs of his Predecessors [Page 113] were the Saxon, Danish, and Norman Laws;P. 73. and therefore ought to be observed of all, as my Lord Bramhall reasons.

What these customs were, I may shew more largely hereafter; at present this one is perti­nent. All appeals in England must proceed regu­larly, from the Arch-Deacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Arch▪Bishop; and if the Arch-Bishop fail to do his duty, the last must be to the King, to give order for redress, that is, by fit delegates.

In Ed. the Thirds time, we have a plain Law to27 Ed. 3. c. 1. the same purpose in these words; Whosoever should draw any of the Kings Subjects out of the Realm in plea about any caufe, whereof the Cognizance be­longeth to the Kings Court, or should sue in any foreign Court to defeat any Judgment given in the Kings Court, (viz. by appealing to Rome) they should in­cur the same penalties; and upon the same ground, the body of the Kingdom would not suffer Ed­ward the First, to to be cited before the Pope.

'Tis confest, that in the Laws of Hen. 1. 'tis granted, that in case a Bishop erring in Faith; and Obj. on Admonition, appearing incorrigible, ad sum­mos Pontifices (the Arch-Bishops) vel sedem Apo­stolicam, accusetur: which passage, as Sir Ro▪ Twisden guesses, was inserted afterwards; or the grant gotten by the importunity of the then Pope.

But the same learned Mans Note upon it, is, Ans. P. 32. that, this is the only Cause wherein I find any En­glish Law approve a foreign Judicature.

'Tis plain, Anselm's Appeal (now on foot) was disapproved by the whole Kingdom: 'tis e­vident, that this Clause was directly repugnant to the Liberties and Customs of the Realm; upon [Page 114] which Anselm's Appeal was so ill resented.

'Tis manifest in those days, and after, ap­peals to Rome were not common: yea this very Pope Paschalis complains to this King, Vos op­pressis Apostolicae sedis appellationem substrahitis, Eadm. p. 113 3. which was an. 1115. and that they were held, a cruel intrusion on the Churches Liberty; so as at the Assize at Clarendon, 1164. this Law, if it were so, was annulled and declared to be con­trary to the liberties and customs of the Realm; the eighth Chapter whereof, is wholly spent in shewing the Right of the Kingdom in this point, quod non appellaretur, for any Cause, ad sedem Apo­stolicam, without leave had first, from the King and his Officials, as Joh. Sarisb. interprets, Ep. 159. p. 254.

Indeed, the King did personally yield after­wards, an. 1172. not to hinder such appeals in Obj. Ecclesiastical Causes.

But the whole Kingdom four years after, would Ans. not quit their interest; but did again renew the assize of Clarendon, 1176. using this close expression. Justitiae faciant quaerere per consuetu­dinem Hoved. f. 314. b. 3. terrae illos qui a regno recesserunt, & nisi redire voluerint, & stare in curia domini Regis, [...] legentur, &c. as Gervase also notes. au. 1176. Col. 1433. 19.

Accordingly, was the practice, during K. Rich. the seconds time: Geffrey Arch-Bishop of York, was complained of; that he did not only refuse Appeals to Rome, but imprisoned those that made them: and though upon that complaint, a time was assigned to make his defence to the Pope, yet he refused to go; because of the Kings Prohibition and the indisposition of the Air.

After this, upon a difference with the King, the Arch-Bishop went to Rome; and made his peace with the Pope, and returns; but the King offended with it, committed the care even of the spirituals of his Arch-Bishoprick to others, till he had reconciled himself to the Crown, which was nere two years after, about 1198.

After this, again, he received complaint from Innocentius III. non excusare te potes, &c. Thou canst not excuse thy self as thou oughtest, that Hov. an. 1201. thou art ignorant of the priviledge of Appeals to us; seeing thou thy self has sometimes done the same.

And near about the same time (as Twisden observes) Robert Abbot of Thorney, deposed by Hubert Arch-Bishop, was kept in Prison a year and an half, without any regard had to his ap­peal Hov. f. 430. b. 37. made to the Pope.

Indeed, that Pope Innocent the Third and his Obj. Clergy, great instruments in obtaining Magna Charta from that Prince, had got that clause inserted, liceat unicuique, it is lawful for any one to go out of our Kingdom, and to return, nisi in tem­pore Guerrae, per aliquod breve tempus. After which, saith Twisden, it is scarce imaginable how every petty cause was by appeals removed to Rome; which did not only cause Jealousie at Rome, that the grievance would not long be born; and put the Pope, in prudence to study and effect a mitigation, by some favourable pri­viledges, granted to the Arch-Bishoprick: but it did also awaken the King and Kingdom, to stand upon, and recover their ancient liberty in that point.

Hereupon, the Body of the Kingdom, in theirMatth. Par. p. 668. 3. querelous Letter to Innocent the fourth, 1245. [Page 116] or rather to the Council at Lions, claim, that no Legate ought to come here, but on the King's desire, & ne quis extra Regnum trahatur in Causam: which Math. Par. left out; but is found in Mr. Roper's M. S. and Mr. Dugdale's; as Sir Roger Twisden observes; agreeable to one of the Gravamina Angliae, sent to the same Pope 1246. viz. quod Anglici extra Regnum in Causis, Aposto­lica Authoritate trahuntur.

Therefore, it is most remarkable, that at the revising of Magna Charta by Edw. 1. the former clause, liceat unicuique &c. was left out. Since which time, none of the Clergy mightReg. 193. Coke Inst. 3. p. 179. 12 R. 2. c. 15. go beyond Seas, but with the King's leave; as the Writs in the Register, and the Acts of Par­liament assure us; and which is more, if any were in the Court of Rome, the King called them home.

The Rich Cardinal, and Bishop of Winchester, knew the Law in this case; and that no man was so great, but he might need pardon for the offence: and therefore, about 1429. caused a Petition to be exhibited in Parliament, that neither himself, nor any other, should be trou­bled by the King &c. for cause of any provisi­on or offence done by the said Cardinal againstRot. Parl. 10 Hen. 6. n. 16. any Statute of Provisions &c. this was in the Eighth of Henry the Sixth, and we have a plain Statute making such Appeals a premunire in Ed­ward 9 Ed. 4. 3. the Fourth. Sir Roger Twisden observes, the truth of this barring Appeals, is so constantly P. 37. averred, by all the Ancient Monuments of this Nation, as Philip Scot, not finding how to deny it, falls upon another way; that, if the Right of Appeals were abrogated, it concludes not the [Page 117] See of Rome had no Jurisdiction over this Church: the Concession gives countenance to our present enquiry; the consequence shall be considered in its proper place.

What can be further said, in pretence of a quiet possession of Appeals, for nine hundred years together? since it hath been found to be in­terrupted all along, till within one hundred years before Hen. 8.

Especially seeing my Lord Bramhall hath made it evident by clear Instances, that it is the Ʋnanimous Judgment of all Christendom, that, not the Pope, but their own Sovereigns in their Councils, are the last Judges of their National Liberties, vid Bramh. p. 106. to 118.

SECT. II.
Of the Pope's Possession here by his Legates; Occasion of them; Entertainment of them.

IT is acknowledged by some, that citing En­glishmen to appear at Rome, was very incon­venient; therefore the Pope had his Legates here, to execute his Power without that incon­venience to us.

How the Pope had possession of this Legantine Power, is now to be enquired.

The Correspondence betwixt us and Rome, at first, gave rise to this Power; the Messengers from Rome, were sometimes called Legati; though at other times Nuncii.

After the Erection of Canterbury into an Arch-Bishoprick: the Arch-Bishop, was held, quasi Alterius Orbis Papa, as, Ʋrban. 2. stiled him: he exercising Vices Apostolicas in Anglia; Malms. f. 127. 15. that is, used the same Power, within this Island, the Pope did in other Parts.

Consequently, if any question did arise, the determination was in Council; as the deposingWigorn. An. 1070. Stygand, and the setling the precedency be­twixt Canterbury and York. The Instructions mentioned of Henry the First, say, the Right of the Realm is, that none should be drawn out of it, Authoritate Apostolicâ, and do assure us, that our Ancient Applications to the Pope were Acts of Brotherly Confidence in the Wisdom, Piety and Kindness of that Church; that it was able and willing to advise and assist us in any difficul­ty; and not of obedience, or acknowledgment of Jurisdiction; as appear, by that Letter of Ke­nulphus &c. to Pope Leo the Third, An. [...]797.Malms. de Reg. l. 1. f. 16. quibus Sapientiae Clavis, the Key of Wisdom, not Authority, was acknowledged therein.

Much less can we imagine, that the Pope's Messengers, brought hither any other Power, than that of Direction and Counsel at first, ei­ther to the King or Arch-Bishop; the Arch-Bishop was, nullius unquam Legati ditioni addi­ctus: Therefore, none were suffered to wear a Miter, within his Province; or had the Cre­cier carried; nor laid any Excommunication, upon this ground; in Diaecesi Archiepiscopi Apo­stolicam non tenere Sententiam, Gervas. Col. 1663. 55. & An. 1187. Col. 1531. 38. The Church of Cant. being then esteemed, omnium nostrum Ma­ter Communis sub sponsi Jesu Christi dispositione, ibid.

True, the Pope did praecipere; but, that did not argue the acknowledgment of his Power; so John Calvin commanded Knox: the questi­onKnox Hist. Scot. 93. is, how he was obeyed? 'tis certain, his Pre­cepts, if disliked, were questioned, Eadm. p. 92. 40. opposed Gervas. Col. 1315. 66. and those he sent not permitted, to medle with those things they came about, ibid. Col. 1558. 54.

But Historians observe, that we might beOccasion of Legates. wrought to better temper, some Persons were admitted into the Kingdom, that might by de­grees, raise the Papacy to its designed height: these were called Legates; but we find not any Courts kept by them, or any Power exercised with effect, beyond what the King and King­dom pleased, which indeed was very little.

The Pope's Legate was at the Council touch­ing the precedence of the Arch-Bishops; but he subscribed the sixteenth, after all the English Bishops, and not like the Pope's Person, or Pro­ctor; as Sir Roger Twisden proves, p. 20.

The first Council, wherein the Pope's Legate preceded Arch-Bishops, was that of Vienna, a little more than three hundred years agon, viz. 1311. as the same Author observes; wherein he looked like the Legate of his Holiness in­deed.

But let us examine what entertainment the Power of a Legate found here: the Arch-Bishop Math. Par. p. 440. 17. An. 1237. was jealous that a Legate residing here, would prove in suae dignitatis praejudicium: and the King himself, was not without suspitions; and therefore, would suffer none, so much as to be taken for Pope, but whom he approved; nor a­ny to receive so much as a Letter from Rome, [Page 120] without acquainting him with it; and held it an undoubted Right of the Crown, that, ut ne­minem Eadm. p. 125. 53. p. 6. 25. p. 113. 1. &c. none shauld be admitted to do the office of a Legate here, if he himself did not desire it.

Things standing thus in 1100. the Arch-Bi­shop of Vienna, coming over, reported himself that he had the Legantine Power of all Brittain committed no him; but, finding no encou­ragementEadm. p. 58. 41. to use his Commission, departed, (à ne­mine &c.) by none received as Legate, nor do­ing any part of that office.

Fourteen years after, Paschalis the Second, by Letters, expostulates, with the King aboutEadm. p. 113. p. 116. several things; in particular, his non-admitting either Messenger or Letter▪ without his leave.

A year after, addrest Anselm, Nephew to the late Arch-Bishop; shewing his Commission Vices gerere Apostolicas in Angliâ: this made known; the Clergy and Nobility, in Council at London, sent the Arch-Bishop to the King in Normandy, to make known unto him, the Ancient Custom ofEadm. p. 118. 120. the Realm; and, by his advice to Rome, ut haec nova annihilaret.

After this, An. 1119. the King sent his Bi­shops to a Council held by Calixtus the Eleventh, at Rhemes, with Instructions, among other things, that they should humbly hear the Pope's Precepts, but bring no superfluas adinventiones into his Kingdom.

In November following, the Pope and King had a meeting at Gisors in Normandy; where Calixtus confirmed unto him his Father's Usages; in special, that of sending no Legate hither, but on the King's desire: and when the same Pope, not full two years after his Grant to the con­trary, [Page 121] addrest another Legate to these parts;Eadm. p. 137, 46. p. 138. 21. the Kings wisdom so ordered it, that (qui Le­gati &c.) he which came to do the office of a Legate in all Brittain, was sent as he came, with­out doing any part of that Office.

But it is said that Calixtus confirmed unto the Obj. King, his Fathers usages: Therefore, it was in the Popes power originally and by delegation, and not in the King. Accordingly in our best Authors, and in particular, Eadmer, we find these words; Collata, Concessa, Impetrata, Per­missa; as is urged in answer to my Lord Cook.

These words indeed intimate the Popes kind­ness Ans. and peaceable disposition at present, viz. that he will not disturb, but allow our enjoyment of our ancient priviledges: Concessa, fungi permissa; the same Eadm. calls Antiqua Angliae consuetudo, libertas Regni p. 118. 33, 40.

2. The words do seem also to intimate, the Popes claim at that time; but the true question is, about his Possession; which in placing Legates there, was ever denied him not as a thing grant­ed formerly by the Pope, but as one of the dig­nitates, usus, & consuetudines, as Hen. 1. claimed and defended.

3. Lastly, they rather intimated the Popes want of power, than proved his Authority here: and what our Princes did in their own right, he would continue to them as a Priviledge: for no other reason but because he could not take it from them; or durst not deny it to them; so he dealt with Edw. the Confessor. Vobis Regibus Angliae committimus advocationem ejusdem loci; but long before that, our Kings looked upon it [Page 122] as their Office, regere populum Domini & Eccle­siam Baron. an. 1059. n. 23. ejus; which the Pope knew well enough▪ Therefore, a Legate landing in England in Ed. 4. time, was obliged to take Oath, that he would attempt nothing to the derogation of the Rights of the King or Crown.

In Hen. 4's Nonage, his Ʋncle was sent Legate Edw. 4. 16. by Martin. 5. Rich. Cawdry the Kings Attorney, made protestation; that None was to come as Le­gate from the Pope, or enter the Kingdom without the Kings appointment: a Right enjoyed from all memory.

In the Reign of Hen. 5. the design of sending a Legate from Rome, though it were the Kings own Brother, was opposed; the enterprise took no effect during that Kings Reign: Vit. Arch. chic. p. 78, 80. And in the eleventh of the same King, the Judges unanimously pronounce, that the Statutes mentioned were only declaratory of the common custom of England. fol. 69, 76.

It was in the Year 1242. when the wholeMatth. par. 1245, 1246. State of England complained of the Popes infa­mous Messenger, (non obstante) by which Oaths, Customs &c. were not only weakned but made void: And unless the grievances were removed, Opportebit nos ponere Murum pro domo Domini, & libertate Regni.

Yea long after this, in the year 1343. Edw. 3. made his Addresses likewise to Rome, which the Pope branded with the Title of Rebellion: But to requite him, that wise and stout Prince, made the Statutes of Proviso's and Praemunire, directly opposed to the Incroachments and Ʋsur­pations Walsing. p. 161. of the Court of Rome; whereby he so aba­ted their power in England for sundry Ages fol­lowing, [Page 123] that a Dean and Chapter was able to dealBramhall p. 99. with the Pope in England, and to foil him too. an. 1420.

The Sum is, during the Reigns of all the Brit­tish and Saxon Kings, until the Norman Conquest, Legations from Rome were seldom, and but Messengers: A Legantine or Nuncio's Court we find not. Gregory, Bishop of Ostium, the PopesSpel. conc. an. 784. own Legate, did confess, that he was the first Roman Priest that was sent into those parts of Brit­tain, from the time of St. Austin.

When these Legates multiplied, and usurped Authority over us, the Kingdom would not bear it; as appears by the Statute of Clarendon, con­firming the ancient Brittish English Custom, with the consent and Oaths of all the Prelates and Peers of the Realm: and upon this custom was the Law grounded, Si quis inventus, &c. If any one be found bringing in the Popes Letter or Man­date, let him be apprehended, let justice pass up­on him without delay, as a Traitor to the King and Kingdom. Math. Par. an. 1164. Hoved. in Hen. 2.

And all along afterwards we have found, that still as occasion required, the same custom was maintained and vindicated both by the Church and State of the Realm till within an hundred years before Hen. 8.

So that the rejection of the Popes Legate is founded in the ancient Right, the common and Statute Laws of the Realm; and the Legantine power is a plain Ʋsurpation contrary thereunto; and was ever lookt upon as such, it never ha­ving any real possession among us by Law, or quiet possession in Fact, for any considerable time to­gether; [Page 124] but was still interrupted by the whole Kingdom, by new declaratory Laws against it.

Thus, we have seen how the Popes Possession of the formal branch of Jurisdiction, by Appeals and Legates, stood here, from St. Austin to Hen. 8. and that it was quiet and uninterrupted for nine hundred together, passeth away as a Vapour. The Contrary being evident by as Authentick Testimonies as can be desired: and now what can he imagined to enervate them?

If it be urged that it was once in the body of Obj. our Laws, viz. In Magna Charta; liceat unicuique de caetero exire de Regno nostro, & redire salvo & securè per terram & per aquam, salva fide nostra, nisi in tempore Guerrae per aliquod breve Tempus; 'tis confest.

But here is no expression, that plainly and in Ans. terms, gives license of Appeals to Rome: 'Tis indeed said, that it is lawful for any to go out of the Kingdom and to return safe: But mark the Conditions following, Nisi in &c. 'Tis likely, these words were inserted in favour of Appeals, but it may be the Authors were time­rous to word it in a more plain contradiction to our ancient Liberties.

2. The very form of words as they are, would seem to intimate that the Custom of England was otherwise.

3. Lastly, If it be considered, how soon after, and with what unanimity and courage our ancient Liberty to the contrary, was redeemed and vin­dicated; and that clause left out of Magna Char­ta ever since, though revised and confirmed by so many Kings and Parliaments successively, it is only an argument of a sudden and violent tor­rent [Page 125] of Papal Power in King John's time, &c. not of any grounded or well settled Authority in the English Laws, as our English Liberties have. I Conclude, with those weighty words of the Statute of Ed. 3. an. 27. c. 1. Having regard to the said Statute made in the time of his said Grandfa­thers, which Statute holdeth always in force, which was never annulled or defeated in any point: And for as much as he is bound by his Oath to do the same, to be kept as the Law of the Realm, though, that by sufferance and negligence it hath been since attempted to the contrary. Vid. Preamble of the Statute.

Whereupon, it is well observed, that Queen Acts & Mon. Mary her self denyed Cardinal Pelow to appear as the Popes Legate in England, in her time: And caused all the Sea-ports to be stopped, and all Letters, Briefs, and Bulls to be intercepted and brought to her.