Ex Libris C. K. OGDEN
ROMA RU1T.
THE
PILLARS OF ROME
BROKEN:
WHEREIN
ALL THE SEVERAL PLEAS FOR THE POPE'S AUTHORITY .IN
ENGLAND, WITH ALL THE MATERIAL DEFENCES OF THEM,
AS THEY HAVE BEEN URGED BY ROMANISTS FROM
THE BEGINNING OF OUR REFORMATION TO THIS
DAY, ARE REVISED AND ANSWERED.
TO WHICH IS SUBJOINED
.
A SEASONABLE ALARM
TO ALL SORTS OF ENGLISHMEN, AGAINST POPERY, BOTH FROM THEIR OATHS AND THEIR INTERESTS.
BY FR. FULLWOOD, D.D.,
ARCHDEACON OF TOTNES IN DEVON.
A NEW EDITION REVISED
BY
CHARLES HARDWICK, M. A.,
FELLOW OF ST. CATHARINE'S HALL, CAMBRIDGE.
CAMBRIDGE :
J. AND. J. J. DEIGHTON.
JOHN W. PARKER, WEST STRAND, LONDON.
M.DCCC.XLVII.
[TOUTO yap /cat (popriKov xal ov rroppo) TTJS 'lov8a'iKtjs VOTTJTOS TTfpiypd(pfiv TTJ 'PCO^IT/ TTJV fKK\T)ariav. Nilus, archiep. Thessal. de Primatu Papec Romani, Lib. n. p. 34 ; ed. Salinas.]
at tile Ztnlbcrsltp Sress.
object of the following reprint is to supply on the subject of the papal jurisdiction a well-digested text-book. Many persons who take an interest in that question, are wholly precluded from historical investigation through their want of the necessary leisure ; while others by studying the con- troversy under one single aspect, or for the satisfac- tion of particular doubts, have frequently arrived at very partial conclusions. To both these classes a careful synopsis of the whole body of testimony will not fail to be of service ; and such a synopsis has been already provided in this Treatise of Arch- deacon Fullwood1. He would have 'the difference clearly stated, and the arguments stripped of their cumber, and the controversy so reduced, that the world may perceive where we are ; and that doubt- ful inquirers after truth and the safest religion may satisfy their consciences and fix their practice2.'
1 The name is written indifferently FuKwood and FuZwood.
2 See Introduction and Epistle Dedicatory.
2000195
IV
On the three qualities of comprehension, per- spicuity, and arrangement, are rested his chief claims to consideration ; nor can any one, in ques- tions like the present, possess qualities more likely to obtain it.
Should it appear, therefore, that the elaborate Treatises of Jewel, Rainolds, Laud, Morton, Bram- hall, Twysden, Hammond, and Stillingfleet, have been faithfully reduced and methodized, the Church of England will have cause to welcome the reap- pearance of this portion of Fullwood's writings, and to cherish anew the remembrance of one who can still, as in his lifetime, serve among the number of her champions.
Very few particulars have come down to us respecting the private history of FRANCIS FULLWOOD. His own testimony assures us that he was educated at the Charter-house1. From thence he was in all probability removed to the University of Cam- bridge. His name occurs in the Admission-book of Emmanuel College, with the further information that he became B. A. in 1647e. Of his connexion
1 In the Dedication of his ' Discourse of the Visible Church,' where he speaks of himself as ' formerly a plant in that excellent nursery.'
2 Obligingly communicated by the Master of Emmanuel College.
with this society he himself makes mention in the dedication of the ' Roma Ruit,' induced most pro- bably by the circumstance that Archbishop Sancroft whom he addresses was also of Emmanuel College.
o
The increase of the revolutionary troubles would prevent his graduating in the usual course : accord- ingly we find no trace of him in the University till the period of the Restoration, 1660, when he was created D. D. by royal mandate. On the 31st of August in the same year he was installed as Arch- deacon of Totton or Totnes'. — During the interval of thirteen years, which had elapsed since his B. A. degree, Fullwood was labouring for the cause of truth and order in the south-western dioceses. His first publication appears to have been 'Vindicise Mediorum et Mediatoris.' The date is 1651, and he describes himself as ' Minister of the Gospel at Staple Fitz-pane in the county of Somerset,' (8vo, Lond. 1651). In this Treatise as in others, Full- wood is refuting the extravagancies of the age respecting the immediate communication of spi- ritual influences. Prefixed is a kind of pastoral letter which he addressed to the 'pious flock at Totnes,' warning them, through their clergyman,
1 Le Neve, Fasti, p. 97. The archdeaconry had remained vacant since the death of Edward Cotton in 1647. After one interval Fullwood was succeeded by Francis Atterbury.
VI
against the errors then prevalent. This circum- stance indicates a more than ordinary interest in the town, which afterwards gave the name to his archdeaconry1. — In the following year he published 'The Churches and Ministry of England true Churches and true Ministry, proved in a Sermon at Wiviliscombe,' (4to, Lond. 1652).— In 1656, ap- peared ' A true Relation of a Dispute between him and one Thomas Salthouse,' (4to, Lond.) He is at this time described as ' Minister of West Alvington, in the county of Devon.' His antagonist was a very unlearned Quaker. — The next publication of our Author was 'A Discourse of the Visible Church, in a large Debate of this famous Question, viz. Whether the Visible Church may be considered to be truly a Church of Christ, without respect to saving grace?' (4to, Lond. 1658.) In this Treatise (which contains 296 pages, besides an Appendix on Confirmation) Fullwood is still described as Min-
1 About the same time Fullwood appears to have published an Examination of ' Want of Church Government no warrant for omis- sion of the Lord's Supper.' The author of this treatise was Henry Jeanes (the antagonist of Bp. Taylor); it bears the date 1650, but no copy of Fullwood's ' Examination' has been met with. Wood (Athen. Oxon. Vol. n. p. 299) in mentioning this controversy gives a few particulars respecting Fullwood. See also Blisso's Edition, Vol. in. p. 591. Two slight notices occur in Wood's Fasti, ed. Blisse, but both are unimportant. The same may be said of passing- references to Fullwood in Sylvester's ' Life of Baxter,' and other contemporary writers.
VI 1
ister of West Alvington in Devon. — His elevation to the archdeaconry of Totnes in 16(50 did not abate his former activity, nor lessen the usefulness of his labours. In 1661, he put forth 'Some necessary and seasonable Cases of Conscience about things indifferent in matters of Religion, briefly yet faith- fully stated and resolved1,' (8vo, Lond.); in 1667, ' The General Assembly, or the Necessity of receiv- ing the Communion in our public Congregations, a sermon on Heb. xii. 23;' in 1672, 'The Necessity of Keeping our Parish Churches, argued from the Sin and Danger of the Schisms in the Church of Corinth, and of the present Separation, in a Sermon before the Judges at the Assizes at Exeter.' — In 1679 appeared the 'Roma Ruit9,' at a time when Churchmen were beginning to look forward with apprehension to the reign of a Romish proselyte. Its character and object are clearly described in the 'Epistle Dedicatory' and the 'Preface to the Reader.' — In 168f was published 'Leges Angliae; the Lawfulness of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Church of England, asserted and vindicated.' The
1 This treatise was published anonymously, and is assigned to Fullwood on the authority of the Bodleian Catalogue. In the same Catalogue mention is made of two pamphlets on ' Toleration not to be abused,' (Lond. 1672), both anonymous, but there classed among Fullwood's writings.
2 The title was perhaps suggested by Featley's ' Roma Ruens.'
Vlll
main Treatise here assailed by Fullwood bears the title 'Naked Truth, the 2nd Part:' it was one of the many scurrilous productions of Edmund Hickeringil, formerly Fellow of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. The ' Leges Anglise' and the 'Roma Ruit' were bound up together, and pub- lished in 1681, with the title 'The Established Church.' There was, however, at this time no new edition of the 'Roma Ruit1.' — The remaining works of Fullwood (so far as the Editor can discover) are as follows : ' The Case of the Times discussed ; being an Exercitation of two cases upon Rom. xiii. 1—5,' (8vo, Lond. 1683); 'The Socinian Controversy touching the Son of God reduced, in a brief Essay to prove the Son one in Essence with the Father, upon Socinian principles, concessions, and reason,' (8vo, Lond. 1693); 'A Parallel wherein it appears that the Socinian agrees with the Papist, if not exceeds him, in Idolatry, Antiscripturism, and Fana- ticism,' (8vo, Lond. 1693).
On the 27th of August, in this same year, Francis Fullwood died2.
1 This statement rests on internal evidence of paging, typogra- phical errors, &c. ; yet in Clavel's ' Catalogue of Books printed since the Fire/ 'the Established Church' is classed among the 'New Works' published in Easter Term, 1681.
2 Le Neve, as above.
IX
It remains to be stated that the present reprint of Full wood's labours was undertaken at the sug- gestion of Professor Corrie, as a supplement to the recent edition of Sir Roger Twysden's Historical Vindication of the Church of England. The refer- ences throughout have been verified, and authorities supplied within [ ], where Full wood had given none, or the name only of some writer in a side- note. In a few instances, inaccuracies have been detected, but they are generally such as may be accounted for by the Author's inability to correct the press, — a circumstance dwelt upon by his Printer, who begs that the 'escapes be not laid upon the Author.' The Editor would enter a like plea, if it be found that either in the foot-notes, or in the Appendix on English Romanists, he has inserted anything unworthy of the subject.
CHARLES HARDWICK.
ST. CATHARINE'S HALL, CAMBRIDGE, Sept. 22, 1847.
REVERENDISSIMO IN CHRISTO PATRI
GULIELMO1
ARCHIEPISCOPO CANTUARIENSI, TOTIUS ANGLIC PRIMATI,
ET REGI/E SERENISSIM^E MAJESTATIS A SANCTIORIBUS CONCILIIS,
FRANCISCUS FULLWOOD,
OI.IM COLLEGI1 EMMANUEL, APUD CANTABR1GIENSKS,
LIBRUM HUNC, HUMILLIME D. D. D.
1 [i.e. William Sancroft.]
TO THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD
GEORGE1 LORD BISHOP OF WINTON,
PRELATE OF THE MOST NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER.
MY VERY GOOD LORD,
BLESSED be God that I have survived this labour, which I once feared I should have sunk under, and that I live to publish my endeavours once more in the service of the Church of England ; and thereby have obtained my wished opportunity, to dedicate a monument of my deep sense of your lordship's mani- fold obligations upon me.
In particular, I rejoice in the acknowledgment, that I owe my public station, next under God and his sacred Majesty, to your lordship's assistance and sole interest, though I cannot think so much out of kind- ness to my person (then, altogether unknown to your lordship) as affection and care of the Church ; grounded in a great and pious intention (however the object be esteemed) truly worthy of so renowned a prelate, and (many other ways) excellent and admired patriot of the Church of England.
If either my former attempts have been anywise available to the weakening the bulwarks of Noncon- formity, or my present essay may succeed, in any 1 [i. e. George Morley.]
xiv THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
measure, to evince or confirm the truth in this greater controversy, I am happy ; that, as God hath some glory, and the Church some advantage, so some ho- nour redounds upon your lordship, who with a virtuous design gave me a capacity at first, and ever since have quickened and animated my endeavours in those services.
I may be permitted to name our controversy with the Church of Rome, the great controversy : for having been exercised in all the sorts of controversy with adversaries on the other hand, I have found, that all of them put together are not considerable, either for weight of matter, or copiousness of learning, or for art, strength, or number of adversaries, in com- parison of this.
It takes in the length of time, the breadth of place, and is managed with the height of wit and depth of subtilty ; the hills are covered with the shadow of it, and its boughs are like the goodly cedars.
My essay in these Treatises is to shorten and clear the way ; and therefore, though I must run with it through all time, I have reduced the place, and removed the wit and subtilties, that would impede our progress.
I have endeavoured to lop off luxuriant branches, and swelling excrescences, to lay aside all personal reflections, captious advantages, sophistical and sar- castical wit, and to set the arguments on both sides free from the darkness of all kind of cunning, either of escape or reply, in their plain light and proper strength ; as also to confine the controversy, as near
THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. xv
as I can, within the bounds of our own concern, i. e our own Church.
And when this is done, the plain and naked truth is, that the meanest of our other adversaries (I had almost said the silly Quaker himself) seems to me to have better grounds, and more like Christian, than the glorious cause of the papacy.
But to draw a little nearer to our point, your lordship cannot but observe, that one end of the Roman compass is ever fixed upon the same centre, and the sum of their clamour is, our disobedience to the See of Rome. Our defence stands upon a two- fold exception, (1) Against the Authority. (2) A- gainst the Laws of Rome ; and if either be justified, we are innocent.
The first exception (and the defence of our Church against the authority of that See) is the mat- ter of this Treatise ; the second is reserved.
I have determined that all the arguments for the pope's authority in England are reducible to a five- fold plea, the right of conversion as our apostle, the right of a patriarch, the right of infallibility, the right of prescription, and the right of universal pas- torship : the examination of them carries us through our work.
Verily, to my knowledge, I have omitted nothing argumentative of any one of these pleas ; yea, I have considered all those little inconsiderable things, which I find any Romanists seem to make much of. But, indeed, their pretended right of possession in Eng- land, and the universal pastorship (to which they adhere as their surest holds,) have my most intended
xvi THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.
and greatest strength, and care and diligence ; that nothing material, or seemingly so, might escape either unobserved, or not fully answered ; — let not the con- trary be said, but shewn.
I have further laboured to contract the contro- versy two ways.
(1) By a very careful, as well as large, and I hope, as clear state of the question, in my definition and discourse of schism, at the beginning ; whereby mis- takes may be prevented, and much of matter disputed by others excluded.
(2) By waving the dispute of such things as have no influence into the conclusion ; and (according to my use) giving as many and as large concessions to the adversary, as our cause will suffer.
Now my end being favourably understood, I hope, there is no need to ask your lordship's, or any other's, pardon, for that I have chosen not to dispute two great things :
(1) That in the words ' Tu es Petrus, et super hanc Petram,' there is intended some respect, peculiar to St Peter's person. It is generally acknowledged by the most learned defenders of our Church, that St Peter had a primacy of order, and your lordship well knows, that many of the ancient fathers have expressed as much ; and I intend no more.
(2) That tradition may be infallible, or inde- fectible, in the delivery of the essentials of religion, for aught we know. By the essentials, we mean no more, but the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Deca- logue, and the two Sacraments. In this I have my second, and my reason too ; for then Rushworth's
THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. xvii
Dialogues, and the new methods of Roman opposition, need not trouble us.
My good Lord, it is high time to beg your pardon, that I have reason to conclude with an excuse for a long epistle : the truth is, I thought myself account- able to your lordship for a brief of the book, that took its being from your lordship's encouragement ; and the rather, because it seems unmannerly to expect that your good old age should perplex itself with controversy, which the good God continue long and happy, to the honour of His Church on earth, and then crown with the glory of heaven. It is the hearty prayer of,
My Lord,
Your Lordship's most obliged and devoted servant,
FR. FULLWOOD.
A PREFACE TO THE READER.
GOOD READER,
OUR Roman adversaries claim the subjection of the Church of England by several arguments, but insist chiefly upon that of Possession, and the Universal Pastorship. If any shall deign to answer me, I think it reasonable to expect they should attack me there, where they suppose their greatest strength lies ; otherwise, though they may seem to have the advantage by catching shadows, if I am left unan- swered in those two main points, the substance of their cause is lost.
I. For if it remain unproved that the Pope had quiet possession here, and the contrary proof continue unshaken, the argument of possession is on our side.
I doubt not but you will find that the Pope had not possession here before ; that he took not posses- sion by Austin the Monk ; and that he had no such possession here afterwards, sufficient to create or evince a title.
It is confessed, that Austin took his arch- bishopric of Canterbury as the gift of Saint Gregory, and having recalled many of the people to Christi- anity, both the converts and the converter gave great submission and respect to Saint Gregory, then bishop of Rome ; and how far the people were bound to obey their parent that had begotten them, or he his mas-
62
xx A PREFACE
ter, that sent him and gave him the primacy, I need not dispute.
But these things to our purpose are very certain. (1) That conversion was anciently conceived to be the ground of their obedience to Saint Gregory, which plea is now deserted, and that Saint Gregory himself abhorred the very title of universal bishop, the only thing now insisted on.
(2) It is also certain that the addition of autho- rity, which the King's silence, permission, or conni- vance gave to Austin, was more than Saint Gregory's grant, and yet that connivance of the new-converted King, in the circumstances of so great obligation and surprise, (who might not know, or consider, or be willing to exercise his royal power then in the point) could never give away the supremacy, inherent in his crown, from his successors for ever.
(3) It is likewise certain, that neither Saint Gregory's grant, nor that King's permission, did or could obtain possession for the Pope, by Austin, as the Primate of Canterbury, over all the British Churches and Bishops ; which were then many, and had not the same reason from their conversion by him to own his jurisdiction, but did stiffly reject all his arguments and pretences for it. King ^Ethelbert, the only Christian king at that time in England, had not above the twentieth part of Britain within his jurisdiction ; how then can it be imagined that all the king of England's dominions, in England, and Wales, and Scotland, and Ireland, should be con- cluded within the primacy of Canterbury, by Saint Augustine's possession of so small a part ?
TO THE READER. xxi
(4) It is one thing to claim, another to possess. Saint Augustine's commission was, to subject all Bri- tain ; to erect two archbishoprics and twelve bishop- pries, under each of them ; but what possession he got for his master, appears in that, after the death of that Gregory and Austin, there were left but one archbishop and two bishops, of the Roman commu- nion, in all Britain.
(5) Moreover, the succeeding archbishops of Canterbury soon after discontinued that small pos- session of England which Augustine had gotten ; acknowledging they held of the crown, and not of the Pope, resuming the ancient liberties of the English Church, which before had been, and ought always to be, independent on any other ; and which of right returned, upon the return of their Christianity : and accordingly our succeeding kings, with their nobles, and commons, and clergy, upon all occasions, denied the papal jurisdiction here, as contrary to the King's natural supremacy, and the customs, liberties, and laws of this kingdom.
And as Augustine could not give the mitre, so neither could King John give the crown of England to the bishop of Rome. For (as Matth. Paris relates) ' Philip Augustus answered the Pope's legate, no king, no prince, can alienate or give away his kingdom, but by consent of his barons (who, we know, protested against King John's endeavour of that kind) bound by knight's service to defend the said kingdom ; and in case the Pope shall stand for the contrary error, his holiness shall give to kingdoms a most pernicious example :' — so far is one unwarrantable act of a fear-
xxii A PREFACE
ful prince, under great temptations, from laying a firm ground for the Pope's prescription. And it is well known, that both the preceding and succeeding kings of England defended the rights of the crown, and disturbed the Pope's possession, upon stronger grounds of nature, custom, and plain statutes, and the very constitution of the kingdom, from time to time, in all the main branches of supremacy, as, I doubt not, but is made to appear by full and authentic testimony beyond dispute.
II. The other great plea for the Pope's authority in England is that of Universal Pastorship. Now if this cannot be claimed by any right, either Divine, civil, or ecclesiastical, but the contrary be evident, — and both the Scriptures, Emperors, Fathers, and Councils did not only not grant, but deny and reject, the Pope's Supremacy as an usurpation, — what reason hath this, or any other Church, to give away their liberty upon bold and groundless claims ?
The pretence of civil right, by the grant of Em- perors, they are now ashamed of, for three reasons ; it is too scant, and too mean, and apparently ground- less ; and our discourse of the Councils hath beaten out an unanswerable argument against the claim by any other right, whether ecclesiastical or Divine : for all the general Councils are found, first, not to make any such grant to the Pope, whereby the claim by ecclesiastical right is to be maintained ; but, secondly, they are all found making strict provisions against his pretended authority, whereby they and the Ca- tholic Church in them deny his Divine right.
It is plainly acknowledged by Stapleton himself,
TO THE READER. xxiii
that, before the Council of Constance, Non Divino sed humano jure, et positivis Ecclesice decretis, primatum Romani Pontificis niti senserunt, speaking of the Fa- thers ; that is, the Fathers before that Council thought the primacy of the Pope was not of Divine right, and that it stood only upon the positive decrees of the Church ; and yet he further confesseth in the same place, that the power of the Pope now contended for (nullo sane decreto publico deftnita est) ' is not defined by any public Decree,' tacito tamen doctorum consensu.
Now what can remain, but that which we find him immediately driven to, viz. to reject the pretence of human right by positive Decrees of the Church, and to adhere only (as he himself affirmeth they generally now do) to the Divine right : Nunc (inquit) autem nemini amplius Catholico dubium est, prorsus Divino jure, et quidem illustribus Evangelii testimoniis hunc Primatum niti.
Thus, how have they entangled themselves! If they pretend a human right, he acknowledgeth they cannot find it, where it ought to be found, in the public decrees of the Church : if a Divine right, he confesseth the Fathers denied it, before the Council of Constance ; and he knows that Council condemned it.
Stapleton at length affirms, that now no Catholic doubts but the Pope's primacy is of Divine right; whence the heart of the Roman cause is stabbed, by these clear and sharp conclusions, —
1st Conclusion : That all Catholics of the present Roman Church do now hold a new article, touching the Pope's primacy, not known to the Fathers before
xxiv A PREFACE TO THE READER.
the Council of Constance, A.D. 1415, and condemned by that Council as an error.
2nd Conclusion : That therein the faith of the present Roman Church stands counter to the faith, decrees, and practices of all the first general Councils, consisting of Fathers that flourished therein, long before the Council of Constance, i. e. in their own sense, the ancient Catholic Church.
You will find that the evidence hereof ariseth, not only from the words of Stapleton, but from the decrees of all the first eight general Councils, every one of them, one way or other, expressly disclaiming that supremacy which the Pope and his present Church would arrogate ; and in those Councils all the Fathers and the Catholic Church are confessedly con- cluded; and consequently, antiquity, infallibility, and tradition are not to be found at Rome.
The sum is, the Church of England, — that holds the true, ancient, Catholic faith, and the first four general Councils, and hath the evidence of four more on the point, — cannot be blamed for rejecting, or not readmitting, a novel and groundless usurpation, con- trary to them all, and contrary also to the profession of the present Roman Church, that pretends to be- lieve that the ' faith of the first eight general Councils is the Catholic faith.'
Imprimatur,
GUIL. JANE, R. P. D. HEN. Episc. LOND.,
a Sacris Domest. Jan. 24, 1678.
THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS AND SECTIONS.
PAGE
THE INTRODUCTION. THE DESIGN. THE CONTROVERSY CON- TRACTED INTO ONE POINT, VIZ. SCHISM * . 1
CHAPTER I.
THE DEFINITION OF SCHISM.
Sect. 1. Of the Act of it .3
Sect. 2. The Subject of Schism ..... 4
Sect. 3. The Object of Schism 7
(1) Faith 7
(2) Worship 9
(3) Government .... . 12 Sect. 4. The Conditions. Causeless. Voluntary . .14 Sect. 5. The Application of Schism; it is not applicable
to us . . . . . . . . 17
In the Act 17
Or Cause 19
Sect. 6. The Application of it to the Romanists . . 20 Sect. 7. The Charge retorted upon them ... 22 The Controversy broken into two Points. The Autho- rity. The Cause 24
CHAPTER II.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE PAPAL AUTHORITY m ENGLAND. FIVE
ARGUMENTS PROPOSED AND BRIEFLY REFLECTED ON . 25
1. Conversion. 2. Prescription. 3. Western Patriarchate. 4. Infallibility. 5. Succession . . . .26
xxvi THE CONTENTS.
CHAPTER III.
PAGE
OF THE POPE'S CLAIM FROM OUR CONVERSION, BY ELEUTHERIUS,
GREGORY ..... .29
CHAPTER IV.
His CLAIM AS PATRIARCH. FOUR PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN.
(1) The Pope was Patriarch of the West ... 34
(2) He had then a limited Jurisdiction ... 35
(3) His Patriarchate did not include Britain . . 38
(4) A Patriarch and Universal Bishop inconsistent . 40
CHAPTER V.
THE THIRD PAPAL CLAIM, PRESCRIPTION. THE CASE STATED 43
Their Plea. Our Answer in three Propositions, viz.
(1) The Pope never had possession absolutely . 44
(2) That which he had could never create a Title . ib.
(3) However his Title extinguished with his possession . ib.
CHAPTER VI.
THE PAPACY OF NO POWER HERE FOR THE FIRST 600 YEARS
(AUGUSTINE, DIONOTH) m FACT, OR FAITH, &c. . . 45
Sect. 1. No one part of Papal Jurisdiction was exercised here for 600 hundred years; not Ordination till 1100 years after Christ, &c. nor any other ... 50
Sect 2. No possession of belief of his Jurisdiction then, in
England or Scotland ...... 58
Sect. 3. This belief could have no ground in the Ancient
Canons. Apostolic, Nicene, Milevitan, &c. . . 60
Sect. 4. Of Councils. Sardica, Chalcedon, Constantinople . 62 Sect. 5. Arabic Canons forged ; not of Nice . . 68
Sect. 6. Ancient practice interpreted the Canons against the Pope: Disposing of Patriarchs: S. Cyprian, S. Augus- tine's sense, in practice . . . . . .71
Sect. 7. The sayings of Ancient Popes, Agatho, Pelagius,
Gregory, Victor, against the pretence of Supremacy . 78 Sect. 8. The words of the Imperial Law against him . 104 Sect. 9. The Conclusion, touching possession in the first
Ages, viz. 600 years from Christ . . . .112
THE CONTENTS. xxvii
CHAPTER VII.
PAGK
THE POPE HAD NOT FULL POSSESSION HERE BEFORE HENRY
VIII. .... 115
Sect. 1. Not in St. Augustine's time . . . . ib. A true state of the question betwixt the Pope and the
King of England in seven particulars . . . 118
Sect. 2. No clear or full possession in the Ages after Austin,
till Henry VIII. 119
In eight distinctions of Supremacy ib.
The question stated by them ..... 120
CHAPTER VIII.
WHAT SUPREMACY HENRY VIII. TOOK FROM THE POPE ; THE
PARTICULARS OF IT ; WITH NOTES UPON THEM, &C. . 122
CHAPTER IX.
WHETHER THE POPE'S POSSESSION HERE WAS A QUIET POSSES- SION TILL HENRY VIH. AS TO THE POINT OF SUPREMACY 124
Sect. 1. Of Appeals to Rome. Three Notions of Appeal. Appeals to Rome locally, or by Legates. Wilfrid. An- selm ......... ib.
Sect. 2. Of the Possession by Legates ; the occasion of them
here; their entertainment . . . . .134
CHAPTER X.
OF THE POPE'S LEGISLATIVE POWER HERE, BEFORE HENRY VIII. CANONS OBLIGE us NOT WITHOUT OUR CONSENT. OUR KINGS, SAXON, DANISH, NORMAN, MADE ECCLESIASTICAL LAWS ........ 144
CHAPTER XI.
OF THE POWER OF PAPAL LICENCES, &c. IN EDWARD L, III. ; RICHARD II., HENRY IV., HENRY V., HENRY VI., HENRY VII.'s TIME 152
CHAPTER XII.
THE PATRONAGE OF THIS CHURCH; EVER IN OUR OWN KINGS;
BY HISTORY; BYLAW ...... 160
xxviii THE CONTENTS.
CHAPTER XIII.
PAGE
OF PETER-PENCE, AND OTHER PAYMENTS TO THE POPE 170
First-fruits 172
Payments Extraordinary ..... 175
Casual ...... • 178
CHAPTER XIV.
THE CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT OF PRESCRIPTION ; IT is ON
OUR SIDE ....... 180
On their side, of no force . . . . . .181
CHAPTER XV.
THE PLEA FROM INFALLIBILITY CONSIDERED ; IN ITS CONSE- QUENCE RETORTED . . . . . .183
Sect. 1. Scripture Examples for Infallibility . . . 185
High Priest not Infallible; nothing to the Pope . 186
Apostles ........ 188
Sect. 2. Scripture-promises of Infallibility . . . 189
CHAPTER XVI.
SECOND ARGUMENT FOR INFALLIBILITY, viz. TRADITION ; FOUR CONCESSIONS; THREE PROPOSITIONS ABOUT TRADITION. ARGUMENTS, OBJECTIONS, &c. . . . . .194
CHAPTER XVII.
THE THIRD WAY OF ARGUMENT FOR INFALLIBILITY, VIZ. BY REA- SON ; THREE REASONS ANSWERED ; THE POINT ARGUED ; RETORTED ........ 201
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE UNIVERSAL PASTORSHIP; ITS RIGHT, DIVINE OR HUMAN; THIS, CIVIL OR ECCLESIASTICAL ; ALL EXAMINED. CONSTAN- TINE, KING JOHN, JUSTINIAN, PHOCAS, &c. AS TO CIVIL RIGHT 206
THE CONTENTS. xxix
CHAPTER XIX.
PAGE
His ECCLESIASTICAL RIGHT BY GENERAL COUNCILS; THE EIGHT FIRST, TO WHICH HE IS SWORN. JUSTINIAN'S SANCTION OP THEM. CANONS APOSTOLICAL ALLOWED BY THE COUNCIL OP NICE AND EPHESUS . . . . . . .216
Sect. 1. Canons of the Apostles ..... 219
Sect. 2. First General Council of Nice. Bellarmine's Eva- sion ......... 220
Sect. 3. Concil. (third General) Constantinop., A. D. 381 . 222 Sect. 4. Concil. Ephesin. (third General,) A. D. 431 . . 223 Sect. 5. Concil. Calced. (fourth General,) A.D. 451 . 225
Sect. 6. Concil. Constantin. 2, (the fifth General Council,)
A. D. 553 ....... 228
Sect. 7. Concil. Constant, (sixth General,) A. D. 681, v. 685.
Nicene. (seventh General,) A. D. 781 .... 229
Sect. 8. Concil. Constant, (eighth General) A.D. 869 . 230 Seven Conclusions from Councils ..... 231
Sect. 9. Of the Latin Church. The Councils of Constance,
Basil, &c. A. D. 1415, 1431 233
Sect. 10. The Greek Church. African Canons. Synod. Carthag. Concil. Antiochen. The Faith of the Greek Church since in the Point ..... 235 Sect. 11. The Sardican Canons. No Grant from their mat- ter, manner, or authority. No Appendix to the Council of Nice. Zosimus his forgery; they were never rati- fied, nor received, as Universal ; and were contradicted by after Councils ...... 239
CHAPTER XX. THE POPE'S TITLE BY DIVINE RIGHT. THE QUESTION, WHY NOT
SOONER ? IT IS THEIR LAST REFUGE .... 245
Sect. 1. Whether the Government of the Church be Mo- narchical, Jure Divino ? Bellarmine. Reason. Scrip- ture ........ 246
Promises, Metaphors, and Example of the High Priest in
Scripture ........ 249
Sect. 2. Of St. Peter's Monarchy. Tu es Petrus . . 252 Fathers' Expressions of it . . . . . 258
Fathers corrupted, and Council of Chalcedon, by Thomas . 260
xxx THE CONTENTS
CHAPTER XXI.
I'AUK
OP THE POPE'S SUCCESSION ... . . 269
Sect. 1. Whether the Primacy descended to the Bishop of Eome as such, by Succession from St. Peter. Neg. — Bellarmine's Twenty-eight Prerogatives of St. Peter; personal or false ...... 270
Application of this Section . . . . . .274
By three great Inferences : the Pope's ancient Primacy not that of St. Peter : not Jure Divino : not to descend to succeeding Popes . . . . . ib.
Sect. 2. Whether the Pope have Supremacy as Successor to St. Peter. Neg. not Primate as such; Peter himself not Supreme ; the Pope did not succeed him at all . 276
Sect. 3. Argument I. Peter assigned it to the Pope : an- swered ........ 277
Sect. 4. Argument II. The Bishop of Rome succeeded
Peter, because Antioch did not : answered . . 278
Sect. 6. Argument III. St. Peter died at Rome : answered ;
question de facto, not de fide . . . . 279
Sect. 6. Argument IV. From Councils, Popes, Fathers . 281
Sect. 7. Argument V. For prevention of Schism. St. Je- rome ........ 282
Sect. 8. Argument VI. The Church committed to his care.
St. Chrysostom ....... 283
Sect. 9. Argument VII. ' One Chair.' Optatus, Cyprian,
Ambrose, Acacius ...... 284
Sect. 10. The Conclusion touching the Fathers. Reasons why we are not more particular about them. A Chal- lenge touching them. There cannot be a consent of the Fathers for the Papacy, as is evident from the General Councils. Reasons for it. Rome's Contradiction of Faith. The Pope's Schism, Perjury, &c. . . 289
The Sum of the whole matter. A Touch of another Treatise.
The material Cause of Separation . . . 294
THE CONTENTS. xxxi
THE POSTSCRIPT:
OBJECTIONS TOUCHING THE FIRST GENERAL COUN- CILS; AND OUR ARGUMENTS FROM THEM ANSWERED MORE FULLY.
SECTION I.
THE ARGUMENT FROM COUNCILS DRAWN UP. IT is CONCLUSIVE OP
THE FATHERS, AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH . . . 296
SECTION II. OBJECTIONS TOUCHING THE COUNCIL OF NICE ANSWERED . 299
SECTION III. OBJECTIONS TOUCHING THE COUNCIL OP CONSTANTINOPLE. SECOND
GENERAL ........ 301
SECTION IV. THE THIRD GENERAL COUNCIL, viz. THE EPHESINE . . 305
SECTION V.
OF THE FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH GENERAL COUNCILS. BINIUS HIS QUOTATIONS OF ANCIENT POPES CON- SIDERED ........ 307
Conclusion .... ... 313
[APPENDIX ON ENGLISH ROMANISTS .... 314]
A SERIOUS ALARM TO ALL SORTS OP ENGLISHMEN AGAINST PO- PERY ; FROM SENSE AND CONSCIENCE, THEIR OATHS AND THEIR INTEREST ....... 319
The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy . . . 326
THE INTRODUCTION.
THE DESIGN.— THE CONTROVERSY CONTRACTED INTO ONE POINT, viz. SCHISM.
THE Church of England hath been long possessed both of herself and the true religion, and counts it no necessary part of that religion to molest or censure any other Church. Yet she cannot be quiet, but is still vexed and clamoured with unwearied outcries of Heresy and Schism from the Church of Rome, provoking her defence.
The ball hath been tossed as well by cunning as learned hands, ever since the Reformation ; and it is complained, that by weak and impertinent allegations, tedious altercations, unnecessary excursions, and much sophistry, needlessly lengthening and obscuring the controversy, it is in danger to be lost.
After so great and so long exercises of the best champions on both sides, it is not to be expected, that any great advance should be made on either : yet how desirable is it, that at length the true dif- ference were clearly stated, and the arguments stripped of their said cumber, and presented to us in their proper evidence, and the controversy so reduced, that the world might perceive where we are ; and doubtful inquirers after truth and the safest religion, might satisfy their consciences and fix their practice.
This is in some measure the ambition of the present Essay. In order to it, we have observed that 1
2 INTRODUCTION.
the shop out of which all the arms, both offensive and defensive, on both sides are fetched, is Schism ; and the whole controversy is truly contracted into that one point, which will appear by two things —
1. By the State of the allowed nature of Schism.
2, By the Application of it so explained.
CHAPTER I.
THE DEFINITION OF SCHISM.
SECTION I. OF THE ACT OF SCHISM.
rpHAT we may lie open to their full charge, we -L 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) It is a Division — 1 ^i^oo-Tcwi'ai, divisions or Act. rents among you. This division of the Church is made either in the Church or from it. In it, as it is
a particular Church, which the Apostle blames in the Division in Church2 of Corinth ; though they came together, and particular. did not separate from the external Communion, but divided in it and about it.
(2) Division is made also in the Church as Catholic Catholic. or universal ; and some charge the Church or court of Rome (as we shall observe hereafter) herewith, as the cause of many deplorable rents and convulsions in
the bowels of it : and indeed in a true sense, all that are guilty of dividing either in, or from a particular Church (without just cause) are guilty of Schism in the Catholic, as the aggregatum of all particular Churches.
There is division as well from, as in the Church ; i [1 Cor. iii. 3.] 2 [1 Cor. xi. 20, 33.]
1—2
4 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
and this is either such as is improperly called sepa- ration, or properly, or more perfectly so.
(1) Separation improperly so called, we may term negative ; which is rather a recusancy or a denial of Communion, where it is either due, or only claimed and not due, but was never actually given.
(2) It is properly so, where an actual separation is made, and Communion broken or denied, where it has wont to be paid.
(3) Or yet more perfectly, when those that thus separate and withdraw their Communion from a Church, join themselves in an opposite body, and erect altar against altar.
SECTION II. SUBJECT OF SCHISM.
Subject. rPHUS of the Act of Schism, Division. Let us -L briefly consider the Subject of this division, 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 metaphy- sically 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 sense, or as it is not a true Church, i. e. as it is a false and corrupt Church, not as it is a Church.
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 5
But finding this distinction to give offence, and perhaps some advantage to our adversaries, — at least for the amusing and disturbing the method of dispu- tation,— and being willing to reduce the difference as much as I am able, I shall not insist upon these dis- tinctions.
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 sense, 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 sense, or a Church of Christ.
For to say, that a Christian Church is not a true Church morally, yet is so really (i. e. physically or me- taphysically), seems to imply that it is a Christian Church, and it is not a Christian Church ; seeing all the being of a Christian Church depends upon its truth in a moral sense, as I conceive is not questioned by either side.
And when we grant that the Church of Rome or any other is a true Christian Church in any sense, we do mean that she retains so much of Christian truth in a moral sense, as is requisite to the truth and being of a Christian Church.
Indeed the very essence of a Christian Church 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 though Christians as they
6 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
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 sense ? 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) sense, 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 funda- mentals retained in her faith and profession, wherein the being and truth of such a Church consisteth ; and yet be very false, and justly to be deserted for her gross errors, in 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.
i. Catholic. (1) The Church as the subject of Schism may be further considered as Catholic ; that is, absolute, formal, essential, and as it lies spread over all the world, but united in one common faith. From this Church the Donatists, and other ancient heretics, are said to have separated.
(2) As Particular, in a greater or lesser number or part of the Catholic. Thus the modern separatists forsaking the Church of England are said to be Schismatics.
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 7
(3) In a complex and mixed sense ; as the parti- 3- Mixed, cular Roman Church, pretending also to be the Catholic Church, calls herself Roman Catholic, and her particular bishop the Universal Pastor. In which sense, the Church of England is charged with separation from the Catholic Church, for denying communion with the particular Church of Rome.
SECTION III. FIRST OBJECT OF SCHISM FAITH.
THE third point is the object, about and in which, External separation is made — namely, external commu- nion. nion ; in those three great means or bonds of it, Faith, Worship, and Government — under that notion, as they are bonds of Communion.
The first is Faith or doctrine : and it must be Faith, acknowledged, that to renounce the Church's Faith, is a very great Schism : yet, here, we must admit two exceptions. It must be the Church's Faith ; that is, such doctrine as the Church hath defined as necessary to be believed, if we speak of a particular Church : for in other points, both authorities allow liberty. Again, though the Faith be broken, there is not Schism presently or necessarily, except the external Communion be also, or thereby disturbed. Heretical principles not declared, are Schism in principle, but not in act — ('Hast thou faith? have it to thyself"). It is farther agreed, that we may and sometimes must differ with a particular Church in doctrine, wherein she 1 [Rom. xiv. 22.]
8 DEFINITION. [CHAP. 1.
departs from the Catholic Faith : but here we must take care, not only of Schism, but damnation itself, as Athanasius warns us.
Every one should therefore endeavour to satisfy himself in this great question, What is Truth ? or the true Catholic Faith ? To say presently, that it is the doctrine of the Roman Church, is to beg a very great question, that cannot easily be given. I should think Athanasius is more in the right ; when he saith, ' This is the Catholic Faith,' &c. In my opinion they must stretch mightily that can believe, that the Catholic Faith, without which no man can be saved — and therefore, which every man ought to understand — takes in all the doctrines of the council of Trent.
Till the contrary be made evident, I shall affirm after many2 great and learned men, that he that believes the Scriptures in general, and as they are interpreted by the Fathers of the primitive Church ; the three known Creeds ; and the four first general councils, and knows and declares himself prepared to
1 ["Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith." Athanasian Creed.]
2 [e.g. Bishop Taylor, 'Letter I. to one seduced to the Church of Rome ' : " For its doctrine, it is certain it (the Church of Eng- land) professes the belief of all that is written in the Old and New Testament, all that which is in the three Creeds, the Apostolical, the Nicene, and that of Athanasius, and whatsoever was decreed in the four general councils, or in any other truly such ; and whatsoever was condemned in these, our Church hath legally declared it to be heresy. And upon these accounts, above four whole ages of the Church went to heaven ; they baptized all their catechumens into this faith, their hopes of heaven were upon this and a good life, their saints and martyrs lived and died in these alone, they denied communion to none that professed this faith." Works, Vol. xi. p. 184, ed. 1822.]
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 9
receive any further truth that he yet knows not, when made appear to be so, from Reason, Scripture, or just Tradition, cannot justly be charged with §chism from the Catholic Faith.
Methinks, those that glory in the old religion should be of this mind ; and indeed, in all reason, they ought to be so, unless they can shew an older and better means of knowing the Catholic Faith than this. What is controverted about it, we shall find hereafter in its due place.
In the mean time, give me leave to note, that our more learned and moderate adversaries do acquit such a man or Church, both from Heresy and Schism ; and indeed come a great deal nearer to us, in putting the issue of the controversy very fairly upon this unquestionable point : " They who first separated themselves from the primitive pure Church, and brought in corruptions, in faith, practice, liturgy, and use of Sacraments, may truly be said to have been heretics, by departing from the pure faith ; and schismatics, by dividing themselves from the external communion of the true uncorrupted Church V
SECOND OBJECT OF SCHISM.— WORSHIP. A second band of external communion is Public 2-
Worship.
\\ orship ; in which, separation from the Church is notorious.
But here 'Public Worship' must be understood, only so far, as it is a bond of communion, and no farther ; otherwise, there is no breach of communion, 1 Mr Knott, Infidelity Unmasked, c. rii, § 112, p. 534.
10 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
though there be difference in worship, and conse- quently no schism.
This will appear more plainly, if we distinguish of Worship in its essentials or substantials, and its modes, circumstances, rites and ceremonies.
It is well argued by the bishop of Chalcedon1, that none may separate from the Catholic Church, (or indeed from any particular) in the essentials or sub- stantial parts of Worship : for these are God's ordinary means of conveying his grace for our salvation ; and by these, the whole Church is knit together, as Christ's visible Body for Divine Worship.
But what are these essentials of Worship ? Surely nothing else but the Divine ordinances, whether moral or positive, as abstracted from all particular modes, not determined in the Word of God. Such as Prayer, the reading the holy Canon, interpreting the same, and the Sacraments : therefore, that Church that worships God in these essentials of Worship, cannot be charged, in this particular, with Schism, or dividing from the Catholic Church.
And as for the modes and particular rites of Wor- ship, until one public Liturgy and Rubric be produced, and proved to be the rule of the Catholic Church, if not imposed by it, there is no such bond of union in the circumstantial Worship in the Catholic Church ; and consequently, no Schism in this respect.
Much less may one particular Church claim from another — par in par em non habet imperium — exact
1 [Cf. Archbp. Bramhall's Replication : Works, Vol. n. p. 37, Ed. 1842.]
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 11
communion in all rites and ceremonies, or for want thereof, to cry out presently, Schism, Schism !
Indeed, our Roman adversaries do directly and plainly assert, that about rites and ceremonies the guilt of Schism is not concerned ; and that particular Churches may differ from one another therein, with- out breach of communion.
Though, for a member of a particular Church to forsake the communion of his own Church, in the essentials of Worship, merely out of dislike of some particular innocent rites, seems to deserve a greater censure.
But the Roman recusants in England, have a greater difficulty upon them, to excuse their total1 separation from us, in the substantials of our worship — at which they can pretend to take no offence ; and wherein they held actual communion with us many years together, at the beginning of queen Elizabeth's reign — against the law of cohabitation, observed in the Scripture, where a city and a Church were com- mensurate ; contrary to the order (as one well ob- serves) which the ancient Church took for preserving unity, and excluding Schism ; by no means suffering such disobedience or division of the members of any national Church, where that Church did not divide itself from the Catholic. And lastly, contrary to the common right of government, both of our civil and ecclesiastical rulers, and the conscience of laws, both of Church and State.
But their pretence is, obedience to the Pope ; which leads us to consider the third great bond of communion — Government.
[l See Appendix A.]
12 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
THIRD OBJECT [OF SCHISM].— GOVERNMENT.
Thirdly, the last bond of ecclesiastical external communion is that of Government ; that is, so far as it- is lawful in itself, and exerted in its Public Laws.
This government can have no influence from one national Church to another, as such ; because so far they are equal — par in parem — but must be yielded by all members of particular Churches, whether national, provincial, or truly patriarchal, to their proper governors in all lawful things, juridically re- quired ; otherwise, the guilt of Schism is contracted.
But for the government of the Catholic, we cannot find it wholly in any one particular Church, without gross usurpation ; as is the plain sense of the ancient Church. Indeed, it is partly found in every Church : it was at first diffused by our Universal Pastor and common Lord into the hands of all the Apostles l ; and, for ought hath yet appeared, still lies abroad among all the pastors and bishops of particular Churches, under the power, protection, and assistance of civil authority — except when they are collected by Just power and legal rules into synods or councils, whether provincial, national, or general. Here, in- deed, rests the weight of the controversy; but, I doubt not, it will at last be found to make its way against all contradiction from our adversaries.
In the mean time we da- conclude, while we pro- fess and yield all due obedience to our proper pastors,
1 [See our Lord's language addressed to all the apostles, collect- ively and individually, John xiv. 16; xvii. 13; xx. 21 — 23; Matt, xxviii. 18 — 20.]
CHAP. 1.] DEFINITION. 13
bishops and governors, when there are no councils sitting ; and to all free councils, wherein we are con- cerned, lawfully convened; we cannot be justly charged with Schism from the government of the Catholic Church : though we stiffly deny obedience to a foreign jurisdiction, and will not rebel against the government that God hath placed immediately over us.
This fair respect the Church of England holds to the Communion both of the Catholic and all particular Churches, both in Doctrine, Worship and Govern- ment : and the main exception against her is, that she denies obedience to a pretended power in the see of Rome ; a power not known, as now claimed, to the ancient Church ; a power, when once foreseen, warned against as antichristian by a pope1 himself; and when usurped, condemned by a General Council2: and lastly, such a power as those that claim it, are not agreed about among themselves3.
But the charge of Schism falls after another sort, upon our Roman adversaries ; who have disturbed the Universal, and all particular Churches by ma- nifest violation of all the three bonds of external Communion : —
The Doctrine and Faith — by adding to the Canon of the Scripture, Apocryphal books ; by adding to the revealed will of God, groundless Traditions; by
1 [Infra, c. vi. § 7.] 2 [Infra, c. xix. $ 7.]
3 [All their theologians maintain that communion with the papal see is necessary, in order to union with the Church : yet the Galli- can or Cisalpine party deny the pope's infallibility, and the whole of that power which they call temporal.]
14- DEFINITION. [CHAI>. I.
making new Creeds without the consent of the present, and against the doctrine and practice of the ancient Churches.
And as for Worship — how have they not cor- rupted it? by subtraction, taking away one essential part of a divine ordinance, the Cup from the Laity, &c. ; by additions infinite to the material and cere- monial parts of Worship ; and by horrid alterations of the pure and primitive Worship, to childish super- stitions, and some say, dangerous idolatry.
Lastly, as to Government — they have plainly sepa- rated themselves both from the ancient and present Catholic Church, and all other particular Churches ; by usurping a dominion, condemned by the ancient, and that cannot be owned, without betraying the liberty of the present Church ; by exerting this usur- pation in unlawful and unreasonable conditions of communion ; and as it is said, by excommunicating for non-obedience to these impositions, not only the Church of England, but three parts of the Christian world.
The proof, on both sides, we are to expect in due place.
SECTION IV.
THE CONDITIONS OF SCHISM— CAUSELESS- VOLUNTARY.
Condition ^11 HE fourth and last thing considerable in the J- definition, is the condition, which adds the guilt and formality of Schism to separation — which is two- fold ; it must be causeless and voluntary.
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 1 5
(1) It must be voluntary separation, or denial of Voluntary. communion. But of this, I shall say nothing ; a greater man received a check from his Romish adver- saries for the proof of it, saying, ' Who knows not
that every sin is voluntary ? l '
(2) It must be causeless, or as it is usually ex- Causeless. pressed, without sufficient cause. It is 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, it is said, that there cannot be sufficient cause of separation from the true Church ; and there- fore this condition is needless : but they ever mean by the true Church, the Catholic Church.
It is granted, the Catholic Church cannot be sup- posed to give such cause ; she being the ordinary 2 pillar of Truth, wherein the 3 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 Eome, will be found bad logic.
1 S. W. [i. e. William Sergeant, whose exceptions to Bram- hall's 'Just Vindication' are answered by the archbishop in an Appendix to his ' Replication to the Bishop of Chalcedon.' He also assailed Dr Hammond, who replied in ' An Answer to Schism Dis- armed'.]
2 [1 Tim. Hi. 15.] 3 [Acts ii. 47.]
16 DEFINITION. [CIIAI- I.
However, if we could grant this condition to be needless, it cannot be denied to be true; and the law- fulness of separation for just cause is an eternal verity ; and if the cause be supposed just cannot be said to be unjust, seeing there cannot be supposed a sufficient cause of sin ; the act is justified while it 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 con- troversy.
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 frankly 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
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 17
her usurpations, and reforming ourselves from those corruptions of Faith and Worship, of which Rome is too fond, and consequently the more guilty.
SECTION 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 Catholic 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 came.
With respect to the act, viz. Division — we argue, I.
In the Act.
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 2
] 8 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
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 sense, by which all the primitive Fathers were saved ; which they held to be so sufficient, that in a General1 Council, they did forbid all persons (under pain of deposition to bishops and clerks, and anathe- matization to lay-men) to compose or obtrude upon any persons converted from Paganism or Judaism [another confession of Faith].
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 Roman Church by subtraction (or rather reformation), but they of the Church of Rome who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Roman Church by additions," as a learned man observes2.
The plain truth is this, the Church of Rome hath had long and much reverence in the Church of Eng- land ; and thereby we were by little and little drawn
1 Concil. Ephes. Act. vi. [apud Labb. Concil. Tom. in. 689, A : Toiiy 8t ToA/ioJiras rj <rwridevai iriarriv trepav, rjyovv irpOKOftifct*, tj 7Tpocr(pfptiv rots (SfXovaiv fniarrpffpfiv tls (Triyvaxriv TTJS a\r)6elas, 77 e'£ (\Xrjv t<7 fioO, r) (£ touSai'cr/ioO, 17 «£ aipt(rea>s olaadrjTTOTovv' TOVTOVS ft fj.ev fifv fnifrKonoi TJ K\T)piKo\, aXXorplovs flvai rovs (irurKOTrovs TIJS fTTKTKo- irfis, KOI TOVS K\r)piKovs TOV tcXjpov- el 8( XaiVot flev, avaQ(^ari^((T6ai..~\ 2 [Bramhall, Replication to the Bp. of Chalcedon, Vol. 11. p. 39.]
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 19
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 fur- ther to usurp upon us, we threw off the usurpation first, and afterwards very deliberately reformed our- selves from all the corruptions that had been growing upon us, and had 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 ourselves : here indeed is the main hinge of the controversy. But we have some l concessions from our worst and fiercest adversaries, that a national Church hath power of herself 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 ourselves off from the papal autho- rity, and divided ourselves from our lawful governors.' It is confessed the papal authority we do renounce, but not as a lawful power, but a tyrannical usurpa- tion : and if that be proved, where is our Schism ?
But this reminds us of the second thing in the _, n-
The cause.
definition of Schism, the Cause : for what interpreta- tion soever be put upon the action, whether reforma- tion or division and separation, it is not material, if it be found we had sufficient cause ; and no doubt we had, if we had reason from the lapsed state and nature of our corruptions to reform ; and if we had
1 [Cf. Bossuet, Defensio Decl. Cleri. Gallican, Lib. in. c. 2.]
2 2
20 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
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 Catholic 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 ? Espe- cially seeing the great and almost only matter of their censure is plainly our disobedience to that ill ground- ed 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 join issue : — we deny the pre- tended power of the Church of Rome in England, and plead the justness of our own Reformation in all the particulars of it.
SECTION VI. THE CHARGE AS LAID BY THE ROMANISTS.
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
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 21
I have met with, viz. Cardinal Perron against Arch- bishop Laud, thus1 —
" Protestants have made this rent or schism by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneous doctrines, contrary to the faith of Roman or Catholic Church ; by their rejecting the authority of their lawful ecclesiastical superiors, both immediate and mediate ; by aggregating themselves into a separate body or company of pretended Christians, indepen- dent 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 admi- nistering 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 re- ceived throughout all Christendom ; by violently ex- cluding and dispossessing other prelates of and from their respective sees, cures, and benefices ; and in- truding themselves into their places, in every nation where they could get footing." A foul charge indeed, and the fouler because in many things false. How- ever, at present we have reason only to observe the foundation of all lies in our disobedience and denying communion with the Church of Rome; all the rest either concerns the grounds, or manner, or conse- quences of that.
Therefore, if it appear at last that the Church of
i [The Editor has not been able to find any treatise correspond- ing to this description. The Rejoinder of Du Perron to King James's Reply (CEuvres du Cardinal du Perron, Tome II. a Paris, 1622) abounds in charges substantially tho same.]
22
DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
England is independent on the Church of Home, and oweth her no such obedience as she requires, the charge of Schism removes from us and recoils upon the Church or court of Home, from her unjust usur- pations and impositions ; and that with the aggrava- tion of sedition too in all such, whether prelates or priests, as then refused to acknowledge and obey the just power and laws of this land, or that continue in the same disobedience at this day.
SECTION VII.
THE CHARGE OF SCHISM RETORTED UPON THE
ROMANISTS. THE CONTROVERSY TO
TWO POINTS.
IT is well noted by a learned man, that while the papal authority is under contest, " the question 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 be- comes of the umpirage — but indifferently and equally, whether we, or the Romanist be thus guilty, or which is the schismatic that lies under all those severe cen- sures of the Scriptures and Fathers1," 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 Catholic Church, both in Faith, Worship, and Go-
1 Dr Hammond [Answer to Schism Disarmed, chap. iii. s. i. : Works, Vol. n. p. 67].
CHAP. I.] DEFINITION. 23
vernment, 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 Archbishop Bramhall1. "The Church of Rome," saith he, " or rather the Pope and the court of Rome, are causally guilty, both of this Schism, and almost all other Schisms in the Church. First, by seeking to a higher place and power in the body ecclesiastical than of right is due unto them. Secondly, 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. Thirdly, 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 them- selves. And that which draws sedition and rebellion, as the great aggravation of their Schism, they chal- lenge 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 side, we are guilty. If he fail in either, the whole weight of Schism, with all its dreadful consequences, remains upon him or the court of Rome. -' [Just Vindication, chap. viii. ; Works, Vol. i. p. 246; ed. 1842.]
24 DEFINITION. [CHAP. I.
THE CONCLUSION.
THUS we see the controversy is broken into two great points :
(1) Touching the Papal Authority in England.
(2) Touching the cause of our denying Commu- nion, in some things, with the Church of Rome, re- quired by that authority1.
Each of these I design to be the matter of a dis- tinct treatise.
This ^rst book therefore is to try the title betwixt ^ne pOpe an(j the Church of England : wherein we shall endeavour impartially to examine all the pleas and evidences, produced and urged by Romanists on their master's behalf, and shew how they are answered. And where there appears greatest weight and stress of argument, we shall be sure to give the greatest diligence ; omitting nothing but unconcluding imper- tinencies, and handling nothing lightly but colours and shadows that will bear no other.
**
Now to our work.
1 [This second design of the author does not appear to have been executed. See the list of his works in the ' Introductory Notice.*]
CHAPTER II.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE PAPAL AUTHORITY IN ENGLAND. FIVE ARGUMENTS PROPOSED, AND BRIEFLY REFLECTED ON.
is their Goliah, and indeed their whole army : J- if we rout them here, the day is our own ; and we shall find nothing more to oppose us, but skir- mishes of wit, or (when they are at their wits' end) fraud and force, — as I am troubled to observe, their use hath been.
For if the see of Rome hath no just claim or title to govern us, we cannot be obliged to obey it : and consequently these two things stand evident in the light of the whole world. We are no schismatics, though we deny obedience to the see of Rome, see- ing it cannot justly challenge it. Secondly, though we were so, yet the see of Rome hath no power to censure us, that hath no power to govern us. And hereafter we shall have occasion further to conclude, that the papal authority — that hath nothing to do with the English Church, and yet rigorously exacts our obedience, and censures us for our disobedience — is highly guilty, both of ambition in its unjust claim, and of tyranny in unjust execution of an usurped power, as well in her commands as censures : which is cer- tainly Schism, and aliquid amplius.
They of the Church of Rome do therefore mightily bestir themselves to make good their claim ; without
26 PAPAL AUTHORITY. [CHAP. II.
which they know, they can never hope either to gain us, or secure themselves.
I find five several titles pretended, though me- thinks the power of that Church should 'be built but upon one Eock.
1. Con- I The Pope being the means of our first con- version.
version (as they say) did thereby acquire a right for himself and successors, to govern this Church.
2. Patri- II. England belongs to the Western Patriarchate ;
and the Pope is the Patriarch of the West (as they would have it).
3. Pre- III. Others found his right in Prescription and
scription.
long continued possession before the Reformation.
4. infalli- IV. Others flee much higher, and derive this
power of Government from the infallibility of the Governor ; and indeed who would not be led by an unerring guide ?
n. Succes- V. But their strong hold, to which at last resort is still made, is the Pope's universal Pastorship, as successor to St Peter and supreme Governor not of Rome and England only, but of the whole Christian world.
Before we enter upon trial of these severally, we shall briefly note, that where there are many titles pretended, right is justly suspected, especially if the pretences be inconsistent.
(1) Now, how can the Pope, as the Western Pa- triarch, or as our first Converter, pretend to be our Governor ; and yet at the same time pretend himself to be universal Bishop ? These some of our subtlest adversaries know to imply a contradiction, and to de- stroy one another.
sion.
CHAP. II.] PAPAL AUTHORITY. 27
(2) At first sight therefore, there is a necessity on those that assert the universal Pastorship, to waive the arguments, either from the right of conversion, or the Western Patriarchate : or if any of them will be so bold as to insist on these, he may not think the chair of St Peter shall be his sanctuary at a dead lift.
(3) Also for Possession, what need that be pleaded, if the right be evident ? Possession of a part if the right be universal ; — unless by England the Pope took livery and seizin for the whole world. Besides, if this be a good plea, it is as good for us, — we have it and have had it time out of mind ; if ours have not been quiet, so neither was theirs before the Reformation.
(4) For Infallibility — that is but a qualification, no commission : fitness sure gives no authority ; nor desert a title, and that by their own law. Otherwise they must acknowledge the Bishops of our Church, that are known to be as learned and holy as theirs, are as good and lawful Bishops, as any the Church of Rome hath.
Thus we see where the burthen will rest at last ; and that the Romanists are forced into one only hold. One great thing concerns them to make sure, or all is lost. The whole controversy is tied to St Peter's chair ; the supremacy of the Pope must be maintained, or the Roman and Catholic are severed, as much as the Church of England and the Church of Rome ; and a great breach is made indeed, but we are not found the schismatics.
But this is beside my task. Lest we should seem to endeavour an escape at any breach, all the said
28 PAPAL AUTHORITY. [CHAP. II.
five pleas of the Romanists shall be particularly exa- mined, and the main arguments and answers on both sides faithfully, and exactly as I can, produced ; and where the controversy sticks, and how it stands at this day, noted ; as before we promised.
CHAPTER III.
OF THE POPE'S CLAIM TO ENGLAND FROM OUR CONVERSION— ELEUTHERIUS— GREGORY.
argument is not pressed with much confidence J in print, though with very much in discourse, to my own knowledge. Perhaps it is rather popular and plausible than invincible.
Besides, it stands in bar against the right of St Peter, which they say was good, near six hundred years before ; and extends to very many Churches, that received grace neither by the means of St Peter or his pretender successor : — except they plead a right to the whole Church first, and to a part afterwards ; or one kind of right to the whole, and another to a part.
The truth is, if any learned Komanist shall insist on this argument in earnest, he is strongly suspected, either to deny or question the right of St Peter's successor, as universal Pastor1.
But we leave these advantages, to give the argu- ment its full liberty ; and we shall soon see either its arms or its heels.
The argument must run thus : If tlie Bishop of Rome was the means of the English Church's conversion,
1 [The plea of conversion has been revived in our own time by writers in the ' Dublin Review.' For a refutation of their argu- ments see Mr Palmer's ' Apostolical Jurisdiction and Succession of the Episcopacy in the British Churches,' sect, xiii.]
30 CONVERSION. [CHAV. III.
then the English Church oweth obedience to him and his successors.
We deny both propositions — the minor, that the Pope was the means of our first conversion ; and the consequence of the major, that if he had been so, it would not follow that we now owe obedience to that see.
For the minor, Bishop Jewel knocked it down so perfectly at first, it was never able to stand since : he saith, " It is certain the Church * of Britain now called England, received not first the faith from Rome2."
The Romanist's proof is his bare assertion, ' that Eleutherius the Pope was the first Apostle of the Britains, and preached the Faith here by Damianus and Fugatius within little more than one hundred years after Christ's death.' Bishop Jewel answers3, ' that king
1 [In a side-note, Fullwood makes the following addition : "We were converted nine years before Rome. Baron, ad an. 35, n. 5 et marg. et ad an. 39, n. 23 : et Suarez, adv. Angl. Sect. Error. Lib. i. c. i." — Both these writers ascribe the foundation of the British Church to Joseph of Arimathsea ; and Baronius places the event in the year 35. The Church of Rome, according to the same authority, was founded A. D. 45. A passage in the History of Gildas (c. vi. apud Scriptores xv.) asserts that the Gospel was introduced into Britain " tempore summo Tiberii Csesaris."]
2 [Defence of the Apology, p. 12: ed. 1570.]
3 [Ibid. The various accounts respecting the conversion of Britain may be seen in Spelman, Concil. Tom. i. 'Apparatus.' Parker, Camden, Ussher, Stillingfleet, Cave, and Godwin ascribe the foundation of the British Church to St Paul, in the interval between his first and second imprisonment. Mr Williams (' Eccle- siastical Antiquities of the Cymry,' pp. 51, et seqq.) has recently ad- vocated the view that Christianity was introduced, about A.I). 58, by Bran, father of Caradog (or Caractacus), who was detained at Rome seven years as hostage for his son ]
CHAP. III.] CONVERSION. 31
Lucius was baptized well near one hundred and fifty years before the Emperor Constantine ; and the same Constantine, the first christened emperor, was born in this island : and the Faith had been planted here long before, either by Joseph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes, or the Greeks, or some others ;' which is plain, because the king, being Christian before, re- quested Pope Eleutherius to send hither those per- sons, Damianus and Fugatius, to reform the bishops and clergy which were here before ; and to put things into better order1.
They also urged, that ' as Pope Eleutherius in Britain, so Saint Gregory, in England, first planted the Faith by Austin.'
But Bishop Jewel at first dashed this argument *•£• |io. out of countenance ; plainly proving out of Tertullian, A-D- 1^4-
A.D. OOU.
Origen, Athanasius, Constantinus the emperor, Chry- A-D- |M.
A-l). tJu/ •
sostom, Theodoret, that the Faith was planted in England long before Austin's coming hither2.
Some would reply, that ' the Faith was utterly rooted out again upon the invasion of heathen English.' It was not so, saith he, "for Beda saith the queen of England was then christened ; and that
1 [There is now extant no copy of the letter which king Lucius is said to have sent to Eleutherius. Bede's mention of the circum- stance is as follows : " Misit ad eum Lucius Brittaniarum rex epi- stolam, obsecrans ut per ejus mandatum Christianus efficeretur." Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. c. iv. According to Bp Pearson (Minor Theolo- gical works, Vol. ii. p. 409) this notice is transcribed from the ' Liber Pontificalis.' The whole transaction is much amplified by Matthew of Westminster, ad an. 185 — On the reply attributed to Eleutherius, see the ' Animadversiones' in Spelman, Concil. Tom. i. pp. 35, 36.]
2 See his Defence of his Apology, p. 13.
32 CONVERSION. [CHAP. III.
there were then in this realm seven bishops, and one archbishop, with other more great learned Christian men1." And Galfridus saith, "There were then in England seven bishoprics, and one archbishopric, possessed with very many godly prelates, and many abbeys in which the Lord's flock held the right religion2."
Yet we gratefully acknowledge that Saint Gre- gory was a special instrument of God for the further spreading and establishing the Gospel in England ; and that both Eleutherius and this Gregory seem to have been very good men, and great examples both of piety and charity to all their successors in that see ; and indeed of a truly apostolical spirit and care, though not of authority: — but if all history deceive us not, that Austin the monk was far enough from being Saint Augustine.
But what if it had been otherwise, and we were indeed first converted by the means of these popes ; will it therefore follow, that we ought ever to be sub- ject to the papacy ? This is certainly a non-sequitur, only fit to be imposed upon easy and prepared under- standings : it can never bear the stress and brunt of a severe disputation ; and indeed the Roman adver- saries do more than seem to acknowledge as much.
However, the great Archbishop and Primate of Armagh hath slurred that silly consequence with such arguments as find no answer. I refer the reader, if need be, to his Just Vindication3, pp. 131, 132. Where
1 [Defence of the Apology, p. 14.]
2 [Lib. viii. c. 4, quoted by Bp Jewel, ubi supra.]
3 [Vol. i. p. 266; ed. 1842.]
CHAP. III.] CONVERSION. 33
he hath proved beyond dispute that Conversion gives no title of jurisdiction ; and more especially to the prejudice of a former owner dispossessed by violence, or to the subjecting of a free nation to a foreign prelate without or beyond their own consent.
Besides, in more probability, the Britains were first converted by the Eastern1 Church (as appeared by our ancient customs) ; yet never were subject to any Eastern patriarch. And sundry of our English and British Bishops have converted2 foreign nations, yet never pretended thence to any jurisdiction over them.
Lastly, whatever title Saint Gregory might ac- quire by his deserts from us, [it] was merely personal, and could not descend to his successors.
But no more of this, for fear of the scoffing rebukes of such as S. W., who together with the ' Catholic Gentleman,' do plainly renounce this plea : asking Doctor Hammond3 with some shew of scorn, 'What Catholic author ever affirmed it' ? There is no doubt — though some other Romanists have insisted upon this argument of Conversion — some reason why these should think fit to lay it aside ; and we have no reason to keep it up, having otherwise work enough upon our hands.
An end therefore of this first plea.
1 [Cf. Twysden's Historical Vindication, p. 9.]
2 [See Dr Grant's ' Missions to the Heathen,' pp. 109 — 111.]
3 [Hammond's Answer to ' Schism Disarmed,' chap. v. sect. i. ; Works, Vol. n. p. 102 ; ed. 1684.]
CHAPTER IV.
OF THE POPE'S SUPPOSED CLAIM AS PATRIARCH.
THIS point admits likewise of a quick dispatch, by four propositions ; and the rather, for a reason you will find in the close of our discourse upon the last of them.
PROP. I.
Tfie Pope was anciently reputed the Western Patriarch.
To this dignity he proceeded by degrees. The Apostles left no rule for a foreign jurisdiction from one nation to another : but, according to the 33rd Canon of the Apostles (if they were indeed theirs), ' it behoved the Bishops of every nation to know him, who is their first (or primate), and to esteem him as their head1.'
The adventitious grandeur which the ancient Patriarchs afterwards obtained, is judged to arise three ways ; by the Canons of the Fathers, the edicts of Princes, or ancient Custom.
Upon the last ground (viz. of Custom,) the Council of Nice2 settled the privileges of those three famous
1 [Al. Can. XXXV. Tows eirumnrou? (Katjrov Wvovs eiSeVai xpy TOV fv avrols TrpS>Tov, KOI yyelcrdat avrov cos Kf(pa\^v, K. r. X. Apud Coteler. Patres Apost. Tom. i. p. 442, cd. Antvcrp 1698.]
2 [Can. VI. Ta ap^nia edrj KpaTfirw, TCI ev AtyvTrrw KOI Aifivrj KOL
CHAP. IV.] WESTERN PATRIARCH. 35
patriarchal sees, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, saying, " Let ancient Customs prevail" ; which cus- toms proceeded from the honour such Churches had, as being founded by the Apostles, if not rather from the emineiicy of the cities : therefore the Council of Chalcedon 1 gives this as a reason of the greatness of the sees of Rome and Constantinople, ' because they were the seats of the Emperors.'
PROP. II. The Pope, as Patriarch, had but a limited Juris- Limited
jurisdic-
diction. tion.
(1) A Patriarchate, as such, is limited ; especially, if the title restrain it to the West : for East, North, and South, are not the West, in the same respect.
(2) It is further evident, from the first number of Patriarchs ; for, if there were more than one of the same dignity and jurisdiction, they must be therefore limited : for a Patriarch, as such, could have no juris- diction over a Patriarch, as such ; for so they were equal ; et par in parem non habet imperium.
(3) But indeed, the first time we hear of three,
and then of five Patriarchs at once, viz. of Rome, Fiye Patri-
archs. Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem ;
and that these had all their jurisdictions limited to
i, wore TOV 'AX({-av8peias tTriarKOTrov jrdvrow TOVTWV f\fiv TT)V (f-ovcriav. (irei8f) Kal rw eV TT; 'P<ap.fl eVtCTKOTro) roCro crvvrjOes fffTiv,
K. T. X. See Routh's Opuscula, Vol. i. p. 374, and note, p. 404.]
1 [Can. XXVIII. Keu yap TO> dpovtp rfjs 7rpe<r/3vrepas 'P<ap.r}s, 8ia TO {iaaiXeveiv rrjv TroXti* (MIVTJV ol Trarepfs ewcorcos aTToSeSaiKacrt ra Trpftr- |3e?a' Kal T<U avroi (TKOTTW Kivovfitvoi ol fnarov irevr^Kovra 6eo(pi\f(rTa- TOI eV/crKorroi, TO «ra Trpecr/Seta dir(V(ip.av TU TTJS veas 'Ptap.r)s ayia>- rdra) dp6va>, K. T. X. Apud Routh. Opuscula, Vol. H. p. 69.]
3—2
36 WESTERN PATRIARCH. [CHAP. IV.
them, and no one of them had any thing like a universal monarchy, — is evident both from canons and history, and also by this undeniable observation ; that several parts of the world had their own primates iridependent, and exempt from all these, in the height of their power : as Africk at Carthage ; the rest of Italy at Milan ; France at Aries, or Lyons ; Germany at Vienna ; and Britain also had the same privilege l.
(4) The sixth Canon of the Council of Nice saith thus expressly : " Let ancient Customs prevail ; according to which, let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them of Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis ; because this was likewise the Custom for the Bishop of Eome ; and accordingly, in Antioch, and other provinces, let the privileges be preserved to the Churches2."
The occasion of this Canon is said to be this3: Meletius, a Bishop of Egypt, ordained Bishops and others in Egypt, without the consent of the Bishop of Alexandria. The case heard in the Council, they pronounce such ordinations null, depose Meletius, and by this Canon — the more venerable because the first in such cases — confirm the ancient Customs of that, and all other Churches.
The Eomanists object, 'the Council did not assign any limits to those jurisdictions.'
1 [Before the institution of Patriarchs all Metropolitans were avroKf(f)a\oi. Some retained this independence for a long time, admitting no earthly superiors except a General Council. That the British Archbishop of Caerleon was in this number, is shewn by Bingham, Antiquities, Book n. c. xviii. s 2.]
2 [Vid. supra, p. 34, note 2.]
3 [See the particulars in Fleury, Histoire Eccles. Liv. XT. s. 15.]
CHAP. IV.] WESTERN PATRIARCH. 37
But it is fully answered, that the Council supposed Answer, such limits, and proceed upon that supposition, to allow of them, and to enjoin the observation of them ; and that is so much the more than a present limita- tion, as it is a proof of the greater antiquity of such limitation.
Sure Bellarmine was hard put to it, when the Objection, words ' because the Roman Bishop hath so accus- tomed,' must be forced to speak against all sense of words, and scope of the matter : thus, " that is," saith he, " the Roman Bishop hath so accustomed to let the Alexandrian Bishop govern them1."
The occasion of the Canon we had before ; the Answer. words themselves are these, 'ETreiStj KOI Ttp ev Trj 'P<J/u>7 €7Ti07co7r<w TOVTO avvrjOes effTiv. Who but Bellarmine seeth not that TOVTO awrjOe? imports a like Custom in the Church of Rome, as the excellent and learned Doctor Stillingfleet2 observes ? The Bishop of Rome had such jurisdiction over the Churches under him ; and therefore ought the Bishop of Alexandria over the Churches under him : upon this consideration the Council concludes, that so it should be3.
1 [Do Romano Pontifice, Lib. n. c. xiii. ; in Disputat. Tom. I. p. 165, o; ed. Colon. 1628.]
2 [Stillingfleet's Rational Account, Vol. n. p. 168; ed. Oxf. 1844.]
3 [The following extract will shew the view taken of this Canon by Nilus, Archbishop of Thessalonica, in the fourteenth century : Ei Se ns KdTfxw ra avrov KOI ras tTtpav irapoiKias ddiKois o(f>6dkp.dis opq, TOVTOV OVK earn [if) KaToXvfii/ TO. dpxaia rS>v Trartptov edrj. aXX' 6 (cai/eoi/ oi TOVTO jSovXeTat, aXXa. Ta ap^ata, (prjcrlv, (&rj KpaTeira). ov fj.fv aXXa, (I fj.fv TOT KXi'piTa rrjs yrfs cAcacrrw TWV Ka0o\uc£>v (i 8iavfv(fiT]p.tva, <api(rp.fva>s ovftev two TOV TTJS 'Pw/iTjs ffpovov
aXXo povov avrov TIJV ap\T)v t<\rj<p(vai eXfytv 6 Kavmv, tlicbs fjv BIJT
38 WESTERN PATRIARCH. [CHAP. IV.
If it be replied, ' The Pope had limits as a Metro- politan, but not as Head of the Church ' ; this grants the thing in present question ; that, as a Patriarch, the Pope's jurisdiction was limited. What power he had as Head of the Church, shall be examined in its due place.
What power the Pope had anciently in confirm- ing, deposing and restoring Patriarchs, will hardly be found so ancient as the Council of Ephesus ; and indeed was challenged by him, not as a private Patriarch, but as Head of the Church : and there- fore is to be considered under that head also.
PROP. III.
The ancient Patriarchate of Rome did not include Britain.
But, according to Ruffinus1, (a Roman, who lived not long after the Council of Nice) it was limited to the 'suburbicary' Cities ; i.e. a part of Italy, and their islands, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica : much less did it ever pretend to Britain, either by custom, canon, or edict of any of our Princes.
\oyi£fa-6cu Travav TTJV oiKovfJifvrjv VTT avrbv e«>at, Kal TOVS Kado\iKovs firurKoirovs TUKfivov 8ioiKelv tacrnep ra TOV Ka)v<rTavTivovTr6\ea>s ol VTT avTov iepdpxai. et 8' e'/ceivo fj,ev aTrtKXrjpadr) r<5 'Pea/Ays, eKelvo 8e ra> 'Ahft-avftpdas, TOVTO fie TTJS Katva-Tavrivov, ov fia\\6v ye 6 'Pmp.T)s VTT exfivovs, 17 fKtlvoi VJTO TTJS 'Pto/iTjs, o(ra ye els TOVTO TeKecrovcriv. De Primatu Papse Rom. Lib. n. p. 38, ed. Salmas. Heidelberg. 1608.]
1 [Hist. Eccl. Lib. i. c. 6. His version of the Nicene Canon is as follows: "Apud Alexandriam et in urbo Roma vetusta consuetude servetur, ut ille ^Egypti, hie suburbicariarum ccclcsiarum sollicitu- dinem gerat." That the suburbicary churches are correctly deter- mined in the text is proved by Bingham, Antiquities, Book xi. chap, i. s. 9. Cf. also Floury, Hist. Eccles. Liv. xxxv. s. 19.]
CHAP. IV.] WESTERN PATRIARCH. 39
Consequently, we say, the papal power over us was an after-encroachment and usurpation, and a plain violation of the General Council of Ephesus.
Our argument is this : The General Council of Ephesus declare, ' that no Bishop should occupy any province, which before that Council, and from the beginning had not been under the jurisdiction of him or his predecessors ; and that if any Patriarch usurped any jurisdiction over a free province, he should quit it ; for so it pleased the holy Synod, that every province should enjoy its ancient rites, pure and inviolate1'.
But it is evident, the Bishop of Rome had no power in Britain from the beginning ; nor yet before that General Council ; nor for the first six hundred years after Christ (as will appear when we speak of the next claim, viz. possession).
Now, if the Pope had no patriarchal power in pope Britain before the six hundredth year of Christ, he could not well have any since ; for Pope Boniface2, three years after Saint Gregory's death, disclaimed
1 [Concil. Ephes. Act. vn. This decree was made at the petition of Regius, bishop of Constantia, hi Cyprus, who complained of en- croachments on his own rights made by the patriarch of Antioch. Vid. Concil. ed. Labb. Tom. ra. 802.]
2 [i. e. Boniface III., who was ordained Bishop of Rome, A.D. 606. He assumed the title of ' Universal Bishop,' claiming thereby universal jurisdiction. In this sense the title had been condemned by Gregory the Great, as blasphemous and antichristian. Vid. Gregor. Magni Epist. Lib. vi. ep. xxx. Lib. rv. Indict, xiii. ep. xxxii. ; ed. Antverp. 1615. However, in the sense of a Bishop of the Uni- versal Church, the title ' (Ecumenical* was in use long before the time of John of Constantinople. For instances of its application to the Patriarch of that diocese, see Bingham, Book n. c. xvii. s. 21.]
40 WESTERN PATRIARCH. [CHAP. IV.
this power, by assuring an higher title : so that had we been willing to admit him our Patriarch, contrary to what Augustine found, time had been wanting to settle his power, as such, in England.
From the whole, we conclude, either the Pope is none of our Patriarch ; or if such, he stands guilty of contempt of a General Council, and hath done so many hundred years ; i. e. he is no Patriarch at all, or a schismatical one.
PROP. IV.
Incon- To be a Patriarch and Universal Bishop, in the sense of
sistentwith ...
Head of the the Romanist, is inconsistent.
Church.
Therefore the Pope must let fall his claim as a Patriarch, if he pretend to be Universal Bishop. Thus the great Archbishop Bramhall reasons wisely and strongly ; but S. W. gives no answer to it, only that he argues " weakly and sillily V
The Lord Primate proves the inconsistency by arguments not yet answered. The Patriarch (saith he) " professeth human ", the Universal Pastor " chal- lengeth Divine institution : the one hath a limited jurisdiction over a certain province ; the other pre- tendeth to an universal jurisdiction over the whole world : the one is subject to the canons of the Fathers, and a mere executor of them, and can do nothing either against, or besides them ; the other challengeth an absolute sovereignty above the canons, [besides the canons, against the canons] to make them, to abro-
1 [A Reply to S. W. (i. e. William Sergeant's) Refutation : Works, Vol. n. pp. 332, 333.]
CLAP. IV.] WESTERN PATRIARCH. 41
gate them, to suspend their influence by a non-ob- stante, at his own pleasure, when he will, where he will, to whom he will1."
Therefore the claim of this absolute power dis- claimeth the limited ; and the donation and accept- ance of a limited power convinceth that there was no such absolute power before : had the Pope been un- limited before, by Divine donation, who can imagine that he would ever have taken gradum Simeonis in this sense, by stooping so low to receive from the hand of man the narrower dignity of a Patriarch ?
Besides, it is fully proved by Doctor Hammond, in Patriarchs his book of Schism2, beyond all the little exceptions civil of the Romanists (as more at large hereafter), that the see of a Patriarch is disposable by the civil power : and therefore, whatever power the Pope may be thought to have had heretofore in Britain, is now lawfully otherwise disposed of by the kings of Eng- land ; as well as evidently rejected by the usurpation of an higher, and an higher kind of title, inconsistent with it ; and justly forfeited many other ways, as will appear hereafter.
But though our adversaries would seem to say something in favour of this title, they dare not stand to it ; as indeed it is not convenient they should, if they would save their head whole. Therefore, after much ado to very little purpose, S. W.3 concludes against Doctor Hammond thus. " Besides," saith he,
1 [A Reply to S. W. (i.e. William Sergeant's) Refutation: Works, Vol. n. p. 333.]
2 [Works, Vol. i. pp. 520, 521, ed. 1684.]
3 Schism Disarmed, p. 161, [ed. Paris. 1655.]
42 WESTERN PATRIARCH. [CHAT. IV.
" were all this granted, what is it to your or our pur- pose ? Since we accuse you not of Schism, for break- ing from the Pope's subjection, as a private Patri- arch, but as the chief Pastor and the Head of the Church."
So there is an end of their Second Plea.
CHAPTER V.
THE THIRD PAPAL CLAIM, viz. PRESCRIPTION,
OR LONG POSSESSION. CASE STATED—
THEIR PLEA— OUR ANSWER IN
THREE PROPOSITIONS.
FT! HE true state of the case here is this : It cannot Case
±statei be denied but the Church of England was heed- lessly and gradually drawn into communion with the Roman Church in her additions, superinduced upon the ancient faith and worship ; and likewise into some degrees of subjection to Papal jurisdiction. And in this condition we had continued for some considerable time, before king Henry the Eighth ; and that bold king (upon what motives is not here material) with the consent of his three estates in Parliament, both Houses of the Convocation, and both the Universities of the land, threw off the Roman yoke, as a manifest usurpation, and a very grievous oppression ; and re- covered the people and Church of England to their ancient liberties of being governed by their own do- mestic rulers. Afterwards, in the reigns of Edward the Sixth, and queen Elizabeth, and by their proper authority, we reformed ourselves by throwing off the Roman additions to our faith and worship.
Had we gone about a Reformation while we ac- knowledged subjection to the see of Rome, or indeed before we had renounced it, there had been more co- lour to charge us with Schism and disobedience : but now the proper question is, first whether the state of
44 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. V.
England did then justly reject the jurisdiction of the Pope in England ; and only consequently, whether we did afterwards lawfully reform without him. The cause of our Eeformation belongs to another argu- ment, which we shall meet hereafter1.
Plea. The Papal plea here is : — the Pope's authority
was established here by long possession, and therefore if nothing else could be pleaded for it, Prescription was a good title : and therefore it was injurious and schismatical, first to dispossess him, and then to go about to reform without him.
Our answer is home and plain, in these three Propositions.
Answer. (1) The Church of England was never actually un-
der the Pope's jurisdiction, so absolutely as is pretended.
(2) The possession, which it had obtained here, was not sufficient to create the Pope a good title.
(3) Or if it were, yet that title ceased when he lost his possession.
1 [See above, p. 24, note 1.]
CHAPTER VI.
PROP. I.
The Papacy had no power here, for the first six hundred years. — St Augustine — Dionoth.
THE first Proposition is this, That the Church of England was not actually under the Papal jurisdic- tion so absolutely as is pretended ; that is, neither primarily nor plenarily.
First, not primarily, in that we were free from the I- Not
primarily.
Papal power for the first six hundred years.
This is confirmed beyond all exception, by the entertainment Augustine found among the sturdy Britains, when he came to obtrude that jurisdiction upon them. Whence it is evident, that at that time, which was near six hundred years after Christ, the Pope had neither actual possession of government in Fact, or over, nor of the belief of the Britains, that he ought to have it.
The good Abbot of Bangor, when pressed to sub- mit to the Roman Bishop, answered1 in the name of the Britains : ' That he knew no obedience due to him, whom they called the Pope, but the obedience of love ; ' and adds those full peremptory exclusive words, that ' under God, they were to be governed by the Bishop of Caerleon.' Which the Lord Primate Bramhall saith 2, is 'a full demonstrative convincing
1 Vid. Spelman, Concil. A. D. 601, [Tom. i. pp. 108, 109].
2 Just Vindication, p. 84 [Vol. i. pp. 162, 163 ; new edit.]
46 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
proof,' for the whole time, viz. the first six hundred years.
But it is added, " That which follows strikes the question dead, — Augustine, St Gregory's legate, pro- posing three things to the Britains :
First, That they should submit to the Roman Bishop. Secondly, that they should conform to the customs of the Roman province. And lastly, that they should join with him in preaching to the Saxons'" —
Hereupon, the British clergy assembled themselves together, Bishops and Priests, in two several synods one after another ; and upon mature deliberation, they rejected all his propositions synodically, and re- fused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do with him on those terms : insomuch as Augustine was necessitated to return over sea to obtain his own consecration ; and after his return hither, to conse- crate the Saxon Bishops alone, without the assistance of any other Bishop. They refused indeed to their own cost : twelve hundred innocent monks of Bangor shortly after lost their lives for it. The foundation of the Papacy here was thus laid in blood*.
It is objected, that the story of the Abbot of Ban- gor is taken by Sir H. Spelman out of an old Welsh author of suspected credit ; but all objections to that
1 [Bramhall, ubi supra; cf. Bed. Hist. Eccl. Lib. n. c. 2.]
2 [Vid. Bed. Hist. Eccl. Lib. H. c. 2 ; where he relates the cir- cumstances connected with the massacre. A clause is added to the effect that Augustine was not then living : but from its omission in the Anglo-Saxon version some have supposed it an interpolation. Turner (Hist, of the Anglo-Saxons, Vol. i. p. 330) places the mas- sacre in A.D. 607 or 612, and the death of Augustine in 605. Cf. Soames's Anglo-Saxon Church, pp. 58, 59.]
QPAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 47
purpose are removed by my Lord Primate, and Dr Hammond1. Besides, we have other authority suffi- cient for it, and beyond contradiction.
The story in Bede2 himself, as vouched by H. T. himself against Dr Hammond, puts it beyond all doubt, that the Abbot and Monks opposed Austin, and would not subject themselves to the Pope of Rome, but referred themselves only to their own governors, — which is also the general result of other authors' account of this matter ; and if the matter of fact be established, it is enough to disprove the Pope's possession at that time : whether they did well or ill is not now considered.
BalaBus, speaking of that convention3, saith, ' Dio- noth disputed against the authority of Rome ; and defended stoutly (fortiter) the jurisdiction of St David's in the affairs of his own Churches.'
The same is observed by Geoffrey of Monmouth, and Sigebert and others4, for which Dr Hammond refers us to the Collection of the Anglican Councils5, and Mr Wheloc's Notes on the Saxon Bede6.
And indeed the author of the Appendix7 written on purpose to weaken this great instance, confesseth
1 [Bramhall's 'Reply to S. W.'s Refutation/ Works, Vol. n. pp. 302, et seqq. 'Schism Guarded,' Vol. n. pp. 504, et seqq. Hammond's 'Account of H. T. [i.e. Henry Turbervill] his Appendix to his Manual of Controversies, concerning the Abbot of Bangor's Answer to Augustine ;' Works, Vol. n. pp. 65 — 60.]
2 Hist. Eccl. Lib. n. c. 2.
3 In Dinoth. [Cent. i. § 70].
4 [See Hammond's 'Account of H. T.'s Appendix,' &c. : Works, Vol. n. p. 58.]
s [Cf. Spelman, Tom. i. p. 92.]
6 p. 115. 7 [In Hammond's Account, ubi supra.]
48 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
as much, when he concludes Austin in the right from the miracles and Divine vengeance upon the refusers, continuing still refractory to his proposals.
Of the right of the cause we now dispute not ; and he acknowledgeth, that Augustine had not pos- session,— the thing we contend for. However this instance being of great moment in the whole contro- versy, let us briefly examine what H. T. hath said against it.
H. T. questions the authority of the Welsh MS.1 But the account there is so perfectly agreeable to the general account given by others (most competent witnesses), and even Bede himself, that as we have no necessity to insist much upon it, so they have no reason at all to question it. Besides, if the reader would more fully satisfy himself, he may see all the exceptions against this MS. at large answered by Dr Hammond and the Archbishop Bramhall2.
Objection But Bede concludes, that the Britains ought to 2.
have yielded in the points specified, from the miracle
wrought by Augustine upon the blind man ; and from that Divine vengeance prophetically foretold by Au- gustine.
Answers. (1) We now know what tricks are used to coun-
terfeit miracles in the sight of simple people.
(2) We know not but that miracle might be said, but never done, as many in the Legends are : and Bede might report, from very slight tradition, a thing tending to the confirming his own cause.
1 [Hammond's Account, ubi supra ; where may be also seen the objections which follow.]
2 [See references, p. 47, note 1.]
£HAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 4.9
(3) By Bede's own confession, the miracle did prevail with the Britains to acknowledge, that the way of righteousness Augustine preached was the true ; yet they added, that they could not renounce their ancient customs without the consent and licence of their own superiors : i.e. they thought the miracle confirmed his doctrine, but not the Pope's authority over them : and therefore, lastly, at their second meeting, they deemed his pride a stronger argument against him than his miracle for him.
And for that latter argument from the slaughter, Answer, first threatened and then fulfilled, —
Sure it was no strange thing, that a proud man (as Augustine appeared to be) should threaten re- venge ; and a bloody minded man, to endeavour to execute it, as is evident he did.
Neither is it like a great miracle, that a vast army should first overcome unarmed monks ; and then pro- ceed victoriously against other opposers.
Yet the latter part of the story quite spoils the miracle, or the argument from it : for when Ethelfred, in the heat of his rage and victory, proceeded to destroy the remainder of those monks, the avenger of blood met him1 : the British forces routed his army, and killed ten thousand and sixty of them.
But the conclusion for my present turn stands firm however ; that, notwithstanding these preten- sions of miracles, the British rejected the papacy, and adhered to their proper governors, — i. e. the Pope then had not the possession of them.
1 [He was defeated by Redwald, king of East Anglia, A.D. 617. Turner's Hist, of the Anglo-Saxons, Vol. i. p. 349.] 4
50 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
I shall conclude here with that smart reply of Archbishop Bramhall to S. W. " To demonstrate evidently to him how vain all his trifling is against the testimony of Dionothus, why doth he not answer the corroboratory proof, which I brought out of Venerable Bede and others, of two British Synods, held at the same time, — wherein all the British clergy did renounce all obedience to the Bishop of Rome, of which all our historiographers do bear witness ? Why doth he not answer this, but pass it by in so great silence ? He might as well accuse this of forgery as the other ; since it is so well attested, that Dionothus was a great actor and disputer in that business1."
SECTION 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—
NOR ANY OTHER.
IF we consider the Pope's jurisdiction in its par- ticular acts, we find not so much as any one exer- cised or acknowledged here, during the space of the first six hundred years; but, as far as history gives us any account thereof, all acts of jurisdiction were performed by our own governors.
First, had the Pope had any jurisdiction here at all,
it would doubtless have appeared in the Ordination or
Consecration of our Bishops. ' Ordinationis Jus ccetera
Jura sequuntur' is a known rule in law : but it is
1 [Works, Vol. n. pp. 304, 305.]
. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 51
evident that our own Primates were independent Not Ordi- nation, themselves, and ordained new Bishops, and created
new Bishoprics, 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 David's'; 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 of the people1."
But were not our Primates themselves nominated Question or elected by the Pope, and consecrated by him, or had licence from him ?
The contrary is manifest enough : all our British Answer. Archbishops and Primates were nominated and elected by our Princes with Synods, and ordained by their own suffragans at home ; as Dubritius, Saint David, Sampson, &c. not only in the reigns of Aure- lius 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 Archbishop of Saint David's ; and he was likewise consecrated by other Bishops, as his suffragans, without professing any manner of subjec- tion to any other Church2."
Now is it not fair to expect from our adversaries
1 Vid. Regest. [Landav.] apud Ussher, de Britan. Eccl. Antiq. [c. xir. p. 291, ed. Lond. 1687.]
2 Itinerarium, Camb. Lib. 11. c. 1 ; [p. 856, 1. 10, etc. apud Camden. Anglica Scripta. Cf. Bramhall's Replication to the Bp of Chalcedon : Works, Vol. n. pp. 151, 152.]
4 2
52 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
one instance, either of a Bishop or Archbishop or- dained or consecrated, during the first six hundred years by papal authority in Britain, from their own or our British records ? But this challenge, made by Archbishop Bramhall', receives no answer.
Here the Bishop of Chalcedon only offers, " That few or no records of British matters for the first six hundred years do remain2.'*
" This is no answer," (saith the Primate3) "while 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 pri- mitive Bishops of Rome, and the persons ordained."
He adds, " Let them shew what British Bishops they have ordained, or what British appeals they have received for the first six hundred years: (though he please to omit it) I have shewed plainly out of the list of the Bishops ordained — three by Saint Peter, eleven by Linus, fifteen -by Clement, six by Ana- cletus, five by Evaristus, five by Alexander, and four by Sixtus, &c. — that there were few enough for the Roman province, none to spare for Britain1."
(1) It is said5 that 'Saint Peter ordained here' ; but that was before he had been at Rome : therefore not as Pope of Rome.
1 [Just Vindication : Works, Vol. i. p. 158.]
2 R. C. [i. e. Richard Chalcedon's 'Brief Survey/ p. 70, ed. Paris. 1654.]
3 [Bramhall's Replication, p. 166.]
4 Vid. Bramhall, Tom. i. Disc. in. p. 207; [Vol. n. pp. 166, 167, new edit.]
5 [This and the following objections are taken from R. C.'s 'Survey,' pp. 71, et seqq. The answers are mainly from Bramhall's 'Replication,' ubi supra. j
•CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 53
(2) ' Eleutherius sent Fugatius and Damianus' ; Eieuthe- but what to do ? To baptize King Lucius : upon
the same errand he sent Victor into Scotland1.
(3) ' Palladius and Ninian are instances of men Palladius. sent to preach to the Picts and Scotland, as Saint Patrick into Ireland' : this was kindly done, but we
have not one syllable of any jurisdiction all this while : besides, it is remarkable, though there be a dispute about Palladius his being sent, yet it is certain he was rejected, and after died ; in whose place Saint Patrick succeeded, without any mandate from Rome, that we read of2.
(4) ' Geoffrey of Monmouth saith, that Dubritius, Objection. Primate of Britain, was Legate of the see Apostolic.' Legates. And we say that Geoffrey tells many fables : and that
it is gross credulity to believe him contrary to the authentic history, and more undoubted practices of those times. ' We read,' (saith the Primate) ' of many Legates ; but certainly either they were no papal Legates, or papal Legates in those days were but ordinary messengers, and pretended not to any lega-
1 [The argument is, that baptizing was no act of jurisdiction. In the latter clause, however, there is some mistake; for Victor, Bishop of Rome, is not said to have come in person to Ireland (the ancient Scotland), but only to have sent missionaries to King Donald, as Eleutherius had sent to Lucius. The whole story is considered fabulous by Bp Stillingfleet, Origines Britan. chap. ii. p. 53; ed. Lond. 1840.]
2 Bed. in vit. S. Pat. Lib. i. [This life of St Patrick is among the works of Bede, but was composed by Probus, according to Cave, Hist. Liter, in Bed — It contains no mention of Ccelestinus, although Patrick's mission is ascribed to that Pope by Sigebert of Gemblours and Matthew of Westminster. Vid. Spelman. Concil. Tom. i. pp. 49, 50. A fuller account may be seen in Ussher, de Britan. Eccl. Antiq. c. xvii. pp. 425, et seqq.]
54 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
tine power, as it is now understood : for we read [not] so much as any one act of jurisdiction done by them, and firmly conclude thence that there was none1.'
Objection. But R. C. saith, ' St Sampson had a Pall from Rome.'
Solution. He had a Pall, but it is not proved that he had it
from Rome ; it is certain, Archbishops and Patriarchs in the primitive times had Palls, which they received not from Rome2.
Besides, if he did receive that Pall from Rome, in all probability it was after the first six hundred years : — if either, according to Cambrensis3, he was the five and twentieth Archbishop after St David, or, according to Hoveden4, the four and twentieth ; and then it is nothing to our present question.
Objection. ' St Gregory granted to Austin the use of the
Pali. Pall,' saith R. C. ' the proper badge and sign of Archiepiscopal dignity, and gave him liberty to or- dain twelve Bishops under his jurisdiction, as Arch- bishop of Canterbury.'
Solution. This was done at the end of the first six hundred
years, and therefore not to our present question : however, if the Pagan Saxons had destroyed Chris- tianity among the Britains (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
1 [Replication, p. 173.]
2 [On the history and use of the 'Pall/ see TVysden's Hist, Vindication, pp. 58, et seqq.]
3 Itiner. Camb. Lib. u. c. 1.
4 R. de Hoveden, Annal. A. D. 1199, [p. 798, 1. 9, etc. inter ' Rerum Anglic. Scriptores' : Francofurt. 1601.]
. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 55
and his Bishops, they intended to submit themselves and posterity to the see of Rome ; which when pressed before, the Britains so unanimously rejected.
Neither indeed could they do it to the prejudice of the ancient primacy of the Britains, existing long before, and confirmed in its independency upon any foreign power. For Bede himself1, as well as all our own historians, makes it most evident, that the Bri- tains had Bishops long before : we find the subscrip- tions of three of them to the first Council of Aries2 — Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and
Adelfius de Civitate Colonia Lond and from the
presence of some of them at the Sardican Synod3, and the Council of Ariminum4, as appears by Atha- nasius and others5 ; and that they had also an Arch- bishop6 or Primate, whose ancient seat had been at Caerleon, who rejected the papacy, then possessing and defending the privilege of their freedom from any foreign jurisdiction7.
This their privilege was secured to them, both by the Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Ephesian Councils8.
1 [Bede (Hist. Eccl. Lib. n. c. 2) informs us that seven Bishops met Augustine to confer on the question of communion and co- operation.]
2 [A. D. 314. Concil. ed. Labb. Tom. i. 1430. Cf. Bingham, Antiq. Book ix. chap. vi. s. 20.]
3 [A. D. 347.] 4 [A. D. 359.]
6 £Apol. ad Constant. Opp. Tom. n. p. 720, ed. Colon. 1686; Sulpic. Sever. Hist. Sacr. Lib. n. ad fin.]
6 [viz. Menevensis Archiepiscopus (Archb. of St David's). The archiepiscopal see had been translated first to Llandaff (A. D. 612), and soon after to St David's. Cf. Spelman, Concil. Tom. i. pp. 106, 107, and Bingham, ubi supra.]
7 [See above, p. 32.]
8 [For the decisions of the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, sec
56 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
Contrary to these Councils, if the Pope did intend to give Augustine the primacy over the Britains, it was a plain usurpation. Certainly the privileges of the Britannic Church returned with its Christianity ; neither could Gregory dispose of them to Austin, or he to Gregory.
Besides, lastly, it is not possible any sober man can imagine, that that humble and holy Pope, St Gregory, who so much detested (if in earnest) the
If in earn- very title1 of Universal Bishop, should actually in- vade the privilege of the Britains, and hazard his own salvation in his own judgment, when he so charitably designed the conversion of England by sending Austin hither.
Objection. R. C. saitli. ' It appears that Britain was anciently
Wilfrid, subject to the see of Rome : for Wilfrid, Archbishop of York, appealed to Rome twice, and was twice restored to his Bishopric.'
Solution. We see when this was done ; seventy and three
years after the first six hundred.
He appealed indeed2, but was still rejected ; not- withstanding the sentence of Rome in his favour, for six years together, during the reigns of King Egbert and Alfred his son ; — so far is this instance from being a proof of the Pope's possession here at that time. Yet this is " the most famous," saith my Lord Bramhall "(I had almost said, the only) appellant
above, pp. 36, 39 ; and that usurped jurisdiction was not sanctioned by the Council of Chalcedon is proved in Mr Palmer's 'Jurisdiction of British Churches,' sect, v.]
1 [See above, p. 39, note 2.]
2 [For a history of his appeals, see Twysden's Hist. Vindication, pp. 36—40.]
(*~AP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 57
from England to Rome, that we read of before the Conquest1."
Moreover, the answer of King Alfred to the Alfred. Pope's 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 honour- able 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 Pope's letter2."
At this time it is apparent, neither the Kings of England, nor the Councils of English Churchmen — as my Lord Bramhall expresseth3 it, "two Kings successively, and the great Councils of the kingdom, and the other Archbishop, Theodore, with all the prime Ecclesiastics, 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's After A i.
fred.
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 Pope's bull4.'
Malmesbury would suggest, that the King and the Archbishop Theodore were smitten with remorse
1 [Just Vindication; Works, Vol. i. p. 133.]
2 Spelman, Concil. A. D. 705, [Tom. i. p. 203.]
3 [Ubi supra, p. 134.]
4 [The result was that an English Synod promoted John of Beverley from Hexham to Ydrk, and placed Wilfrid in Hexham and Ripon. See Twysden, p. 39.]
58 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
before their deaths, for the injury done to Wilfrid1, &c. But not the King only, but the whole Council, not Theodore alone, but the whole Clergy, opposed the Pope's letter ; which is enough both to render the dream of Malmesbury a ridiculous fable, and for ever to confirm this truth, that England was not then, viz. in the six hundred seventy and third year of Christ, under the jurisdiction of the Pope, either actually, or in the belief of the Church or kingdom of England.
The latter, viz. the non-possession of our belief of the Pope's universal jurisdiction — which is so much insisted upon by the Romanists — will yet more evidently appear by that which followeth.
SECTION II.
NO POSSESSION OF OUR BELIEF ANCIENT. Not in TT7E have found the Britains, by the good Abbot,
England.
and two several Synods, — we have found the State of England in three successive Kings, their great Councils and body of the Clergy, refused to yield obedience both to the Pope's persuasions, in- junctions, sentences, and Legates : therefore it seems
1 [Cf. Bramhall's ' Just Vindication,' p. 134; where the Oxford editor remarks that Malmesburr's account agrees with the Life of Wilfrid, capp. 42, 68, in Gale's ' Scriptores xv.' It is certain, how- ever, that the warmest opponents of Wilfrid were at the time regarded as the greatest ornaments of the English Church. Cf. Twysden, pp. 39, 40; Turner's Hist, of the Anglo-Saxons, Vol. i. pp. 385, et seqq.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 59
impossible that Britain or England should then be- lieve either the Pope's Infallibility, or their obligation to his jurisdiction ; or that there was any such thing as the tradition of either, delivered to them by their ancestors, or believed among them.
Indeed, by this one argument, those four great characters of the papacy are deleted and blotted out for ever, viz. Possession, Tradition, Infallibility, and Antiquity.
I shall add the practice and belief of Scotland Nor in
Scotland.
too, that other great part of our King's dominions. When the Pope's Legate, more than twice six hun- dred years after Christ, viz. about 1238, entered Scotland, to visit the churches there, Alexander the Second, then King of the Scots, forbad him so to do, alleging, ' That none of his predecessors had ever admitted any such, neither would he suffer it ; ' and therefore willed him at his own peril to forbear1. Hence it is evident, there was neither tradition nor belief either of the Pope's 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 King's word for it, ' None of his predecessors had ever admitted any such.'
1 Mat. Paris. [Hist. Major.] A.D. 1239, [p. 498, 1. 25; ed. Lond.
1639.]
60 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
SECTION III.
IN THE CANONS, APOSTOLICAL, NICENE, MILEVITAN, &c., THIS BELIEF COULD HAVE NO GROUND.
WHAT could possibly sway the first ages to such a belief of the Pope's universal jurisdiction1? Certainly nothing from the Councils, nor the practice of the Church in other places, nor indeed the de- clared judgment of the Pope himself, nor the words of the Laws.
Not Coun- I. Nothing to be found in the Canons of the An- cient Councils could invite to such belief. Apostles' In the Apostles' Canons2 we find the quite con-
Canons.
trary ; TT/OWTOS-, the first or Primate among the Bishops of every nation, shall be accounted w Ke<pa\ri, 'as their Head' ; and that every one of those Primates shall cKeiva /uoi/ct TrpaTreiv, 'do those things only which belong to his province and the regions under it.'
Nice. And in pursuance of those Canons, the first Nicene Council decreed TOVS v<p' erepwv cnroftXr^Qevra^^ v<p' erepwv fjitj irpoo-iecrOai ', ' 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
Milevi. every province3 ;' and in further harmony the Milevi- tan Council prohibits ' all appeal from their own Bishops, but to the African Councils and Primates of their own provinces ; and that they which shall ap- peal to any foreign, whether Bishop or Council, shall
1 Vid. cap. xx.
2 [Apost. Canon, xxxiv; quoted above, p. 34, note 1.]
3 [Nicsen. Concil. Can. v; apud Labb. Concil. Tom. 11. 32; A.]
Of\i: VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 6J
not be received into Communion by any in Africk1.' And, lastly, the practice of all this is visible in the very Synodical Epistle of the African Council to Pope Coelestine, where they beseech him for the future, ' that he will receive none such, because he may easily find it defined in the Council of Nice2.' 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 Hammond3 notes, to some of these Canons the Pope himself makes oath, that he Pope
swears to
will inviolably observe them ; and from that oath of theCanons. 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, transgressed their own profession made in their creation4 : as further appears5 by the ' Institution of a Christian Man' in the year 1538.
(But more largely of this in the last chapters.) Therefore the Britains could not believe that they
1 [Concil. Milevit. A. D. 416, Can. xxii; apud Labb. Tom. n. 1542, 1543: " Quod si et ab eis provocandum putaverint, non pro- vocent, nisi ad Africana Concilia, vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum. Ad transmarina autem qui putaverit appellandum, a nullo intra Africam in communionem suscipiatur."]
2 Vid. Dr Hammond, at large, ' Dispatcher Dispatcht,' pp. 397, etc. [Works, Vol. n. p. 221.]
3 [Ibid. : the reference being to the ' Corpus Juris Canonici,' Decret. Part I. Distinct, xvi. c. 8. For at least eight centuries, every Bishop of Rome took an oath on the day of his consecration, to ' keep the sacred Canons, and the Constitutions of the holy Bishops.' Mr Palmer's Jurisdiction of British Bishops, p. 81.]
4 [Hammond, Treatise of Schism ; Works, Vol. i. p. 105.]
5 [See ' Formularies of Faith/ p. 55; ed. Oxf. 1825.]
62 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
then owed subjection to the papacy, but they must charge the writers of the Apostolic Canons (whether by Apostles or apostolical men) and the Councils, for enacting sacrilegious 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 interpreta- tions, without applying his rule to the case, gives but too just occasion to Dr Hammond to expose him as he doth1.
Eadmer2 speaks plain and home too ; it was inau- ditum in Britannia, quemlibet hominum super se vices apostolicas gerere, nisi solum Archiepiscopum Cantuarice, — ' it was a thing unheard of ; ' no practice of it, no tradition for it: — therefore no such thing could be believed, that any other (not the Pope himself) did apostolically govern the affairs of Britain, but only the Archbishop of Canterbury.
SECTION IV.
COUNCILS OF SARDICA, CHALCEDON, CONSTANTI- NOPLE.
Sardica. TT may be3 said, the Britains might hear of the -L Canon of the Council of Sardica, where it was decreed, that Bishops grieved might appeal to the Bishop of Rome.
1 See 'Dispatcher Dispatcht,' pp. 181, etc. [Works, Vol. ir. pp. 224, et seqq.]
2 [Hist. Novorum], p. 58, 1. 43; [ed. Selden ]
3 Vid. cap. xx. sect. ix.
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 63
The words of the Council are these ' : "In case solution, any Bishop, for any cause condemned, maintain his innocence, 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 renewed, and let them appoint such as may take cog- nizance of it." Hereupon it is plain
(1) These Fathers did not acknowledge the Pope's 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 appeal, and that nothing but power to review is here given to the Bishop of Rome, are both fully manifested by the Archbishop of Paris2.
(4) The Decree (such as it is) is not grounded upon any prior right, from Scripture, tradition, or
1 [Concil. Sardic. A.D. 347, Can. iii; apud Labb. Tom. n. 629, A.: El 8( dpd ns firiaKOTrav ev rivi irpdyftaTi 86£r) KoraKpivfcrBai, KOI vnoXcifjifiavei favrov pij <radpbv dXAa Kti\6v fxeiv TO irpayna, tva KOI avdis i) Kplcris dvaixcadfj' tl Sojcel vpatv Trj dydirrj, Tltrpov TOV anxxrroAov TTJV \j.VT]p.i)v TtpTJa-afjifv, KOI ypcuprjitcu irapa TOVTWV ra>v Kptvavrw 'lovXi'w r<5 eVuTKOTra) 'P<afj.r)s, wore 8ia TWV yfiTvu*i>Ta>v rfj errap\ia (irurKorrav, ft Sect, dvaveodfjvm TO Sucaonyptov, xal firiyvtafjMvas avrbs irapcur\oi, K. T. X.]
2 Petr. de Marca, de Concordia, Lib. vn. c. 3, s. 6, 7, &c. [Cf. ibid. Lib. v. s. 47 ; Lib. vi. c. 30, s. 9 ; Bramhall, ' Schism Guarded,' Vol. n. pp. 531, et seqq. Numerous authorities supporting the same view, may be seen in Dr Wordsworth's ' Theophilus Anglicanus,' pp. 138, 139.]
64 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
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 Britains dream of it before? or why did not these Canons take notice of the undoubted Canon of Nice to the contrary, made two and twenty 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 weak- ness and falseness has been practised upon this argu- ment— is so largely, ingenuously and satisfactorily manifested by Doctor Stillingfleet, that I shall for his fuller satisfaction refer the reader to him1.
It is strongly argued, in the last reasonings of my Lord Bramhall2, that ' after the Eastern Bishops were departed, this Council of Sardica was no General Council ; because the presence of five great Patri- archs were ever held necessary to the being of a General Council ; as Bellarmine himself confesseth, de Concil. Lib. i. c. 17.
' If this Council had been general, why do Saint Gregory, Isidore, and Bede, leave it out of the number of General Councils? Why did Saint Aus- tin, Alypius and the African Fathers, slight it ? And
1 Rational Account, pp. 419, etc. [Vol. 11. pp. 206, et seqq. ed. 1844. Cf. also Bp Stillingfleet's Origines Britan. pp. 145, 146.]
2 [Schism Guarded; Works, Vol. n. pp. 532, 533.]
-. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 65
(which is more) why do 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 Hedtfeld1 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 Chalcedon2?'
The first five General Councils were therefore in- corporated into our English Laws ; but this Council of Sardica never was. Therefore, contrary to this Canon of Appeal, it is the fundamental Law of England, in that famous memorial of Clarendon, ' All Appeals in England must proceed regularly ifrom the Archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and if the Archbishop failed to do justice, the last complaint must be to the King to give order for redress3.'
It is evident, the great Council of Chalcedon4 Chalcedon. contradicted this Canon for Appeals to Rome — where Appeals from the Archbishop are directed to be made ' to every Primate, or the holy see of Constantinople,' as well as Rome. From which evi- dence, we have nothing but silly evasions, as that Primate5 truly observes.
Besides, if our forefathers had heard of the Ca-
1 Apud Spelman, Concil. [Tom. i.] p. 169.
2 [See authorities in the new edition of Bramhall, Vol. u. p. 533.]
3 [Mat. Paris, Hist. Major. A.n. 1245, pp. 100,101. Cf. Bram- hall. ubi supra ]
4 Act. xv. Can. ix. [apud Labb. Concil. Tom. iv. 759, n.]
3 [Bramhall,] Schism Guarded, p. 374; [Works, Vol. n. p. 534.]
5
66 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
nons of the Councils truly general — as no doubt
they had — how could they possibly believe the un-
Constanti- limited jurisdiction of Rome ? The Council of Con-
nople.
stantinople is not denied to give equal privileges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Patriarch Chaicedon. of Rome '. And the Council of Chalcedon conclude thus2: "For the" (Nicene) "Fathers did justly give privileges to the see of old Rome, because it was the imperial city ; and the hundred and fifty godly Bishops, moved with the same consideration, did give equal privileges to the see of new Rome ; rightly judging, that that city, which was the seat of the empire and senate, should enjoy equal privileges with the ancient imperial city of Rome, and be ex- tolled and magnified in ecclesiastical affairs as well as it, being the second in order from it." And in the last sentence of the Judges, upon review of the cause — " The Archbishop of the imperial city of Constantinople, or new Rome, must enjoy the same privileges of honour, and have the same power, out of his own authority to ordain Metropolitans in the Asiatic, Pontic, and Thracian Dioceses."
1 [Concil. Constant. I. A.D. 381, Can. Hi: Toi> (itv roi Kavo-rav- TivovrroXews €7ri<rKO7rov tx.eiv TO. Trpecr/Sela rfjs TtfjLfjs p.fra TOV TTJS 'PapTjs fTTia-Konov, 8ia TO flvai avTT)v vtav 'Pufjujv. Labb. Concil. Tom. II. 947, C.]
2 [Concil. Chalcedon. Act. xv. Can. xxviii: Km yap ro> 6p6v<p TTJS TrpfcrftvTepas 'Piaprjs, 8ia TO (3a(ri\fV(iv TTJV TTO\IV fKfivrjv, ol TraTtpes flKOTcos aTToScScoKatri TO irpfirftfla. KOI TW avr<5 cr/coTro) Kivovpfvot ol pv . 0fo(pi\e<rraToi ejria-Koiroi TO icra irp«Tf3(la airevti^iav T<» TTJS vtas 'Pca- fj.r)s aytajTarw 6pov<a, (v\6ya>s Kpivavres, T^V /SacrtXeia Kai (rvyK\iJT(a TifiT}6fi(rav 7TO\iv, KOI TO>V urcov diroXavovo'av Trpfcrfttlwv TTJ 7rp(o~f$vTepq /3aeriAi'8i 'Pmfjtjj, KOL tv TOIS fKKX^o-taaTHtoif, cor fKfivr/v, fifydXvvecrdai irpayfiatri, StvTtpav /JL(T' (Kfivrfv vT
. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 67
Are these the words of a General Council ? Could these Fathers imagine the Pope at that time Monarch of the whole Church ? Or could this be acknow- ledged by England at first, and they yet give up their Faith to the Pope's universal power? Can these things consist? Yea, is there not something in all the Councils allowed by the ancient Britains, and the ancient English Church, sufficient to induce a Faith quite contrary to the Koman pretensions ?
But as to this Canon of Constantinople, S. W. Objection, 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 : for Solution, that which he saith is altogether false, and besides such a cluster of forgeries, as deserves the whet- stone to purpose ; — as my Lord Bramhall manifests against him1.
(1) False : the act was made before the Bishops had license to depart ; it had a second hearing ; and was debated by the Pope's own Legates on his be- half, before ' the most glorious Judges' ; and maturely sentenced by them in the name of the Council2. This was one of those four Councils, which Saint Gregory honoured next to the four Gospels3. • This is one of those very Councils, which every succeed- ing Pope doth swear to observe to the least tittle4.
1 Schism Guarded, p. 354. [Works, Vol. II. p. 489.]
2 [Vid. Act. xvi. apud Labb. Concil. Tom. iv. 795.]
3 [" Sicut Sancti Evangelii quatuor libros." Greg. Epist. Lib. i. c. 24 ; Indict, ix.]
4 [See above, p. 61.]
5—2
68 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
(2) For his forgeries about it, he is sufficiently shamed by the Primate in the place cited1 : it is pity such shifts should be used, and it is folly to use them ; when the truth appears, what remains but both the person and the cause reproached2?
SECTION V.
ARABIC CANONS FORGED,— NO CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF NICE.
objection. T7"ET it is a marvellous thing, that the Romanist J- should dare to impose upon so great and learned a Primate as the late Archbishop Laud, that by ' the third Canon of the Council of Nice, the Patriarch is in the same manner over all those that are under his authority, as he who holds the see of Rome is head, and prince of the Patriarchs ' — ' re- sembling Saint Peter, and his equal in authority3.'
Answer. When it is most evident to the meanest capacity,
that will search into it, that that is no Canon of the true Council of Nice ; and that instead of the third, it is the thirty-ninth of the supposititious and forged Canons, — as they are set forth in the Arabic editions, both by Pisanus and Turrianus4.
In these editions there are no less than eighty Canons pretended to be Nicene, whereas the Nicene Council never passed above twenty ; as is evident
1 [Bramhall, Vol. 11. pp. 489, 490.]
2 See more of the Councils at the latter end. [' Postscript.']
3 [Labbe, Concil. Tom. n. 303, c; but see Stillingfleet's Vindi- cation of Archbp. Laud, Vol. ir. p. 158 ; ed. 1844.]
4 [In Labbe, ubi supra.]
. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 69
from such as should know best — the Greek authors, who all reckon but twenty Canons of that Council : such as Theodoret1, Nicephorus Callistus2, Gelasius Cyzicenus3, Alphonsus Pisanus ; and Binius4 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 Ruffinus5 make twenty-two, it is by splitting of two into four.
And in that Epitome6 of the Canons, which Pope Hadrian sent to Charles the Great, for the govern- ment of the Western Churches, A. D. 773, the same number appears. And in Hincmarus's7 MS. the same is proved, from the testimonies of the Tripartite His- tory, Rumnus, the Carthaginian Council, the epistles of Cyril of Alexandria, Atticus of Constantinople, and the twelfth action of the Council of Chalcedon. And if we may believe a Pope, Stephen in ' Gratian8 '
1 Theodoret. Eccl. Hist. Lib. i. c. viii; [p. 29. c ; ed. Vales.]
2 Niceph. Callist. Eccl. Hist. Lib. vm. c. 19 ; [Tom. i. p. 571, c ; ed. Paris. 1630.]
3 [According to Care (Hist. Liter.) this writer flourished about A. D. 476. He composed a history of the Council of Nice, the second book of which was transferred by Alphonsus Pisauus into his own Latin history of that Council. The words of Gelasius are as follows : (i-fBfvro be na\ fKK\T/(Ti.aa~riKovs Kavovas ("UUMTIV tv avrfi TJI (v NiKm'a (rtWSo), K. r. \. Lib. ii. c. xxx. The whole history is printed in Labbe, Concil. Tom. n.]
4 [Not. in Concil. Nicaen. Tom. i. p. 366, col. i. A; ed. 1636.] « [Hist. Eccl. Lib. x. c. 6.]
6 [Apud Justell. Not. in Cod. Eccl. African, p. 13.]
7 [Apud Justell. ibid.]
8 [Corpus Juris Canon.] Distinct, xvi. c. xiii. [The reference, however, does not quite bear out the text ; for, after stating that there were extant in the Roman Church only twenty canons, Gra- tian makes this Pope to have a«ldrd. " sed quo neglcctu alia defece- rint ambijruum est."]
70 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAT. VI.
saith, the Koman Church did allow of no more than twenty.
The truth is put beyond all question, lastly, both by the proceedings of the African Fathers in the case of Zosimus about the Nicene Canons, when an early and diligent search made it evident ; and also by the ' Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Africanse,' where it is ex- pressly said, there was but twenty Canons1.
But this matter is more than clear, by the elabo- rate pains of Dr Stillingfleet [in his] defence of the late Archbishop Laud ; to whom I must refer my reader2.
Yet Bellarmine and Binius would prove there were more than twenty3.
But their proofs depend either upon things, as supposititious as the Arabic 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 re-bapti-
zation, and the keeping of Easter, &c which indeed
might be acts of the Council, without putting them into the Canons, as Baronius4 himself confesseth, and leaves the patronage of them. And Spondanus5, in his contraction of Baronius, relates it as his positive opinion, that he rejected all but twenty, whether Arabic or other, as spurious.
So that it will bear no further contest, but we
1 [p. 58 ; Cf. p. 363.]
2 pp. 391, 392; [Vol. II. pp. 158, et seqq. ed. 1844.]
3 [Ibid. Vol. ii. p. 162; from whence the following solution is epitomized.]
4 Annal. ad an. 325, CLXXX.
5 Epitom. Baron, ad an. 325, xm.
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 71
may safely conclude, the Arabic Canons, and conse- quently this of the Pope's 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.
SECTION VI.
PRACTICE INTERPRETED THE CANONS TO THE SAME
SENSE AGAINST THE POPE— DISPOSING OF
PATRIARCHS— CYPRIAN— AUGUSTINE.
WE have found nothing in the Canons of the ancient Councils that might give occasion to the belief of the Pope's jurisdiction in England, in the primitive ages of the Church ; but indeed very much to the contrary.
But the Romanist 1 affirms against my lord of Can- terbury, 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 Pope's 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 Catholic practice is found on record, that can be supposed a sufficient ground of this Faith,
1 [viz. T. C., or Thomas Carwell, in the 'Labyrinthus Can- tuariensis,' p. 184 ; Cf. Bp Stillingfleet's Reply (' Vindication of Archbp Laud'), Vol. 11. p. 163.]
72 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
either in England or any part of Christendom? Cer- tainly not of Ordinations, or Appeals, or Visitations. Yea, can it be imagined, that our English ancestors had not heard of the practice of the Britains in maintaining their liberty when it was assaulted by Austin, and rejecting his demands of subjection to the see of Rome l ? No doubt they had heard of the Cyprian privilege2, and how it was insisted on in bar of the universal pastorship, by their friends the Eastern Church; — from whom3 they in likelihood re- ceived the Faith, and with whom they were found at first in Communion, about the observation of Easter and Baptism ; and in practice, diverse from the Church of Rome.
Objection. But one great point of practice is here pitched upon by Baronius, and after him by T. C.4 It is the Pope's confirmation of the election, deposing and re- storing, of Patriarchs ; which they say he did ' as head and prince of all the Patriarchs,' and consequently of the whole Church.
Solution. But where hath he done these strange feats?
Certainly not in England. And we shall find the instances not many nor very early any where else. But to each branch.
Confirma- (1) It is urged, that the Pope's confirmation is
tion of
Patriarchs, required to all new elected Patriarchs.
Admit it, but the Archbishop of Paris, Petrus dc Marca5, fully answers Baronius (and indeed every
1 [See above, pp. 45, 46.] 2 [gee above, p. SO.]
3 [Cf. Twysden's Vindication, pp. 9, 13.]
4 [Cf. Stillingfleet, ubi supra.]
5 De Concordia Sacerdotii et Itnperii, Lib. vi. c. v. s. 2.
tf.Ar. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 73
body else), that ' this was no token of jurisdiction, but only of receiving into Communion ; and as a tes- timony of consent to the Consecration.' If any force be in this argument, then the Bishop of Carthage had power over the Bishop of Rome ; because he and other African Bishops confirmed the Bishop of Rome's ordination l.
Baronius insists much upon ' the Confirmation of Anatolius by Leo I.' which very instance answers it- self. Leo himself tells us, that it was to manifest, ' that there was but one entire Communion among them throughout the world2.'
Yet it is not to be omitted, that the practice of Consecra- tion de- the Church supposeth that the validity of the Patri- pends not
on confir-
arch's Consecration depended not upon the Con- mation. firmation, or indeed, consent of the Pope of Rome. Yea, though he did deny his communicatory let- ters, that did not hinder them from the execution of their office. Therefore Flavianus3, the Patriarch of Antioch, though opposed by three Roman Bishops successively, who used all importunity with the Emperor, that he might be displaced ; yet because the Churches of the Orient did approve of him and communicate with him, he was allowed, and their consent stood against the Bishop's of Rome. At last, the Bishop of Rome, severely rebuked for his pride by the Emperor, yielded ; and his consent was given
1 S. Cyprian. Epist. LII. ed. Rigalt. ["quo (i.e. loco Fabiani) occupato de Dei voluntate atque omnium nostrum consensione fir- mato," etc.]
2 [Ep. xxxviii : " Ut per totum mundum una nobis sit unius communionis integritas," etc.]
3 [Theodoret. Eccl. Hist. Lib. v. c. 23 ; Cf. Stillingfleet's Vindi- artion. Vol. n. pp. 174, 175.]
74 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAI-. VI.
only by renewing communion with him. But where was the Pope's power, either to make, or make void a Patriarch, while this was in practice ?
(2) Doth practice better prove the Pope's power to depose unworthy Patriarchs ? The contrary is evi- dent ; for both before and after the Council of Nice, according to that Council, the practice of the Church placed the power of deposing Patriarchs in provincial Councils ; and the Pope had it not, till the Coun- cil of Sardica decreed in the case of Athanasius, as P. de Marca l abundantly proves. Also, that the Coun- cil of Sardica itself, did not (as is commonly said) de- cree appeals to Rome ; but only gave the Bishop of Rome power to review their actions, but still reserv- ing to provincial Councils that authority which the Nicene Council had established them in2.
But T. C. urgeth, that ' we read of no less than eight several Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome.'
Where doth he read it? In an epistle of Pope Nicolaus to the Emperor Michael. ' Well chosen,' saith Doctor Stillingfleet — ' a Pope's testimony in his own cause ; and such a one as was then in contro- versy with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and so late, too, as the ninth century is3': — 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 mentioned by him were deposed by the Pope's sole
1 Vid. dc Concordia, Lib. vn. c. i. s. 6.
2 [Ooncil. Nicsen. Can. v; and for the Council of Sardica, see above, p. 63.]
3 [Stillingfleet's Vindication, Vol. n. pp. 175, 176.]
. VL] PRESCRIPTION. 75
authority, but not ejected sine consensu Homani Pontificis, -without his consent'; and his design was only to shew, that Ignatius the Patriarch ought not to have been deposed without his consent1.
' Did not Sixtus the third depose Polychronius Objection. Bishop of Jerusalem ' ?
No. He only sent eight persons from a Synod Solution. at Rome to Jerusalem ; who offered not, by the Pope's authority to depose him, as should have been proved, but by their means seventy neighbour-Bishops were called, by whom he was deposed. Besides, Binius himself condemns those very acts, that report this story, for spurious2.
(3) But have we any better proof of the Pope's Restoring
Patriarchs.
power to restore, such as were deposed ?
The only instance in this case brought by T. C. is of Athanasius and Paulus restored by Julius : and indeed to little purpose3.
It is true, Athanasius, condemned by two Synods, goes to Rome, where he and Paulus are received into communion by Julius, not liking the decree of the Eastern bishops. Julius never pleads his power to depose Patriarchs, but that his consent for the sake of unity should also have been first desired ; and that so great a matter in the Church required a Council both of the Eastern and Western Bishops4.
" But," saith Dr Stillingfleet, " when we consider
1 Vid. Nicol. I. Epist. viii. Michael. Iinper. ; apud Concil. cd. Bin. Tom. vi. p. 506.
2 Concil. Tom. n. p. 685.
3 [Cf. Stillingfleet, ubi supra, p. 176.]
4 Vid. P. de Marca, do Concordia, Lib. vu. c. 4, s. 6.
76 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
with what heat and stomach this was received by the Eastern Bishops ; how they absolutely deny that the Western Bishops had any more to do with their pro- ceedings, than they had with theirs ; when they say, that the Pope by this usurpation was the cause of all the mischief that followed ; we see what an excellent instance you have made choice of to prove the Pope's power of restoring Bishops, by Divine right, and that this was acknowledged by the whole Church1."
Sure, so far the Church's practice abroad could not prevail to settle his right of jurisdiction in the English faith ; especially considering the practice of our own Church, in opposing the letters and Legates of Popes for six years together, for the restoring of Archbishop Wilfrid, by two of our own successive Kings, and the whole State of England ecclesiastical and civil, as appeared above2.
Moreover, St Cyprian3 professeth in the Council of Carthage, " 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 Bishop of Rome, as Baronius himself resolves4.
But upon a matter of fact, St Augustine gave his own judgment, both of the Pope's power and action,
1 [Stillingfleet's Vindication, Vol. n. p. 177.]
2 [pp. 56, 57.]
3 [A. D. 255; apud Labb. Concil. Tom. i. 786: "Neque cnim quisquam nostrum cpiscopuin se esse episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terroro ad observandi necessitatem collcgas suos adigit." The Council was attended by eighty-seven bishops, besides priests and deacons.]
4 Annal. Eccl. ad an. 258, xxiv.
O*-Ar. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 77
in that known case of the Donatists1. (1) They had leave to be heard by foreign Bishops. (2) Forte non debuit, ' yet perhaps Melchiades, the Bishop of the Roman Church, ought not to usurp 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 de- sired, sent Bishops judges, which should sit with him, and determine what was just upon the whole cause.' So that upon the whole, it is easily observed, that in St Augustine's 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 Pope's universal pastorship by Divine right ? If there can possibly, after so clear evidence, need more to be said of St Augustine's judgment in this, it is only to refer you to the controversies be- tween the African Bishops and the Bishop of Rome, in case of appeals2.
1 [S. Augustin. Epist. CLXH. The question is very fully stated in Stillingfleet's Vindication, Vol. n. pp. 178, et seqq.]
2 Vid. Dr Hammond, ' Dispatcher Dispatcht', pp. 398, etc. [Works, Vol. n. pp. 290, 291] ; Bp Stillingfleet's Vindication, [Vol. n. pp. 186 — 194. See below, sect, viii.]
78 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
SECTION VII.
NOT THE SAYINGS OF ANCIENT POPES, OR PRACTICE — AGATHO— PELAGIUS— GREGORY— VICTOR.
WE can find nothing in the ancient Canons, or ancient practice, to ground a belief of the Pope's 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 judg- ment of the Fathers.
But some of the ancient Popes have been found so honest, as to confess against themselves ; and ac- knowledge plain truth against their own greatness.
The Pope's universal headship is not to be be- lieved from the words of Pope Agatho *, in his letter to the Emperor ; where St Paul stands as high as St Peter — oi TWV ATTOGTOXWV Kopv(j)cuoi — both are said by him to be heads or chief of the Apostles. Besides, he expressly claimed only the Western Patri- archate.
But Pope Pelagius II. is more plain and home to Rome itself. Nee etiam Romanus Pontifex univer- salis est appellandus — 'the Pope of Rome is not to be called universal Bishop2.' This was the opinion of
1 Concil. Tom. v. p. 61, B. [ed. Bin. Numerous other testi- monies to the equality of the Apostles, both in honour and juris- diction, may be seen in Barrow, on the Pope's Supremacy, Suppos. i. Works, Vol. I. pp. 587—593 ; ed. 1716.]
2 [Corpus Juris Canon.] Decret. Part I. Distinct, xcix. [cap. v.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 79
that Pope of Rome himself, as it is cited out of his Epistle, and put into the 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 l 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.
It is weaker to say2, they are Gratian's own addi- tion, 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 Universal3', — 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 Patriarch might be called Universalis, then sure nothing was added by him, that said in his Title to the fourth chapter as Gratian did, Nee etiam Romanus Pontifex, ' not even the Bishop of Rome must be called Universal Bishop'.
But what shall be said to St Gregory, who in his Gregory. Epistle to Eulogius4, Bishop of Alexandria, tells him,
1 [Cf. Hammond's ' Dispatcher Dispatcht', chap. v. sect, ix : Works, Vol. u. p. 297.] 2 [Ibid.]
3 [" Nullus Patriarcharum universalitatis vocabulo unquam uta- tur." Corpus Juris Canon, ubi supra.]
4 Gregor. Epist. Lib. vn. Indict, i. ep. xxx ; [ed. Antverp. 1615 : " Non tamen invenio vestram beatitudinem, hoc ipsum quod memorise vestrse intuli, perfecte retinere voluisse. Nam dixi, nee mihi vos, nee cuiquam alteri tale aliquid scribere debere ; et ecce in prsefatione epistolse, quam sd me ipsum qui prohibui direxistis, superbse appellationis verbum universalem me papam dicentes, im- primere curastis," etc. etc. Opp. Tom. iv. col. 240, F.]
80 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
'that he had prohibited him to call him Universal Father ; that he was not to do it ; that reason re- quired the contrary ; that it is derogatory to his bre- thren; that this honour had, by a Council, that of Chalcedon, been offered to his predecessors, but re- fused and never used by any'.
Again higher he tells Mauritius1, 'fidenter dico, whoever calls himself Universal Priest, or desires to be so called, is by his pride a forerunner of Anti- christ7 ; ' his pride is an indication of Antichrist approaching', as he saith to the Empress. Yea, 'an imitation of none but the Devil, endeavouring to break out to the top of singularity', (as he saith3 to John himself) : yea elsewhere he calls this title, ' the name of blasphemy4', and saith, that those that con- sent to it do fidem perdere, 'destroy the Faith5'.
A strong title, — that neither Saint Gregory, nor, as he saith, any one of his predecessors, no Pope that
1 Lib. vi. ep. xxx : [" Ego autem fidenter dico, quia quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in clatione sua antichristum prsecurrit, quia superbiendo se cseteris prseponit." Opp. Tom. iv. col. 215, E.]
2 Lib. iv. [Indict, xm.] ep. xxxiv : [" Sed in hac ejus superbia quid aliud nisi propinqua jam antichristi esse tempora designatur ?" Opp. Tom. iv. col. 140, A.]
3 Lib. iv. [Indict, xm.] ep. xxxviii; [" Quis rogo in hoc tarn perverso vocabulo, nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur, qui, despectis angelorum legionibus secum socialiter constitutis, ad culmen cona- tus est singularitatis erumpere, ut et nulli subesse, et solus omnibus prseesse videretur." Opp. Tom. iv. col. 145, D.]
4 Lib. iv. [Indict, xm.] ep. xxxii : [" Sed absit a cordibus Christianorum nomen istud blasphemise, in quo omnium sacer- dotum honor adimitur, dum ab uno sibi dementer arrogatur." Opp. Tom. iv. col. 137, E.]
5 Ibid. ep. xxxix; ["In isto enim scelesto vocabulo consentire, nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere." Opp. Tom. iv. col. 148, r.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 81
went before him, would ever accept of: and herein, saith he1, "I plead not my own cause, but the cause of God, of the whole Church, of the Laws, the vene- rable Councils, the commands of Christ ; which are all disturbed with the invention of this proud pom- patic style of Universal Bishop."
Now can any one imagine, except one prejudiced as S. "VV., that the power is harmless, when the title, that doth barely express it, is so devilish a thing? Can any one imagine, that Saint Gregory knew him- self to be that indeed, which in word he so much abominates? Or that he really exercised that Uni- versal authority and Universal Bishopric, though he so prodigiously lets fly against the style of 'Universal Bishop' ? Yet all this is said, and must be main- tained, lest we should exclude the Universal Pastor- ship 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
1 Ibid. ep. xxii ; [" Quia vero non causa mea, sed Dei est ; et quia non solus ego, sed tota turbatur ecclesia, quia pise leges, quia venerandse synodi, quia ipsa Domini nostri Jesu Christi mandata superbi atque pompatici cujusdam sermonis inventione turbantur," etc. Opp. Tom. iv. col. 137, A.]
2 [See S. W.'s objections and the reply to them in Dr Ham- mond, Works, Vol. n. pp. 294, etc. Bp Stillingfleet, in onsidering similar objections, gives a clear account of the various meanings attached to the title 'Universal Bishop.' The modern Church of Rome in claiming prerogatives for the Pope makes all lawful juris- diction derivable from him. 'Vindication of Archbp Laud,' Vol. n. pp. 214, etc.]
6
82 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
which, the words of Saint Gregory following in his argument are most material.
Objection. Saint Gregory saith, ' The care of the whole Church was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles, Saint Peter ; and yet he is not called the Universal Bishop1.'
Solution. it is confessed that Saint Gregory doth say that
the care of the whole is committed to Saint Peter ; again, that he was the prince of the Apostles 2, and yet he was not called Universal Apostle. It is hence plain, that his being Prince of the Apostles did not carry in it so much as Universal Bishop; otherwise Saint Gre- gory would not have given the one, and denied him the other ; and it is as plain that he had the care of all Churches, and so had Saint Paul3 ; but it is not plain that he had power over all Churches.
Doctor Hammond4 proceeds irresistibly to prove the contrary from Saint Gregory himself, according to the words of the Novel : ' If any complaint be made,' saith he, ' against a Bishop, the cause shall be judged before the Metropolitan, " secundum sanctas Regulas et nostras5 Leges" ; 'if the party stand not to
1 [" Cura ei totius ecclesiae, et principatus committitur, et tamen universalis apostolus non vocatur." Lib. iv. Indict, xi. ep. xxxii ; Tom. iv. col. 137, B.]
2 [" Omnium apostolorum Petro principi apostolo totius ecclesise cura commissa est." Ibid.]
3 [2 Cor. xi. 28.]
4 [Dispatcher Dispatcht, chap. n. s. iv ; Works, Vol. n. p. 208. The capitular in question may be seen in Gregory's Epistles, Lib. xi. Indict, vi. ep. Ivij Tom. iv. col. 442, A.]
6 [i. e. 'the imperial laws ;' the words being extracted from the Emperor's Constitutions.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 83
his judgment, the cause is to be brought to the Archbishop or Patriarch of that diocese, and he shall give it a conclusion, according to the Canons and Laws aforesaid' ; — no place left for appeal to Rome.
Yet it must be acknowledged, Saint Gregory Objection. adds1, " Si dictum fuerit, etc., where there is no Metropolitan nor Patriarch, the cause may be heard by the Apostolic see." — which Gregory calls " the Head of all Churches."
Now if this be allowed, what hath the Pope gained, Solution. if perhaps such a Church should be found as hath neither Primate nor Patriarch ? How is he the nearer to the Universal 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 Metropo- litan ? — The Archbishop of Canterbury was once ac- knowledged by a Pope to be " quasi altering orbis Papa*".
But admitting this extraordinary case, that where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch there, they are to have recourse to the see Apostolic ; it is a greater wonder that the Romanist should insist upon it, than that his late Grace should mention it.
1 [" Contra hsec si dictum fuerit, quia nee Metropolitan! habuit nee Patriarcham, dicendum est quia a sede Apostolica, quse omnium ecclesiarum caput est, causa hsec audienda ac dirimenda fuerat," etc. Ibid. col. 442, B.]
2 [This was the language qf Urban II. to Anselm. Cf. W. Malmesbur. de Gestis Pontif. Lib. i. p. 223, 1. 33; apud Rerum Anglic. Scriptores ; ed. Francofurt. 1601. Numerous other titles, equally exalted, maybe seen in Twysden's Vindication, p. 22.]
6—2
84 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
— at which T. C. so much admires1: for this one ob- servation, with the assistance of that known rule in Law, ' exceptio firmat regulam in non exceptis,' puts a plain and speedy end to the whole controversy. For if recourse may be had to Eome from no other place, but where there is neither Primate nor Patriarch, then not from England2, either when Saint Gregory laid down the rule, or ever since, and perhaps then from no other place in the world. And indeed pro- vision was thus made against any such extraordinary case that might possibly happen ; for it is but reason, that where there is no Primate to appeal to, appeal should be received somewhere else ; and where better than at Eome, which St 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 of all Churches3'.
It is true whether he intends a primacy of fame or visible splendour and dignity, being the seat of the Emperor, or order and unity, is not certain : but it is certain, he intends nothing less by it than that which just now he denied, — a supremacy of power and universal ordinary jurisdiction ; he having, in the words immediately foregoing, concluded all ordinary juris- diction within every proper primacy or patriarchate4.
1 [Of. Stillingfleet's Vindication of Archbp Laud, Vol. u. p. 194, where Carwell's wonder is fully explained.]
2 [See above, pp. 31, 32.]
3 [See above, p. 83, note 1.]
4 [Mr Palmer (Treatise on the Church, Part vn. chap, iii.) enumerates the circumstances, which in the first ages of the Gospel gave an accidental pre-eminence to the Roman Church.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 85
But, saith S. W., ' Saint Gregory practised the Objection, thing, though he denied the word of Universal1'.
What hypocrisy ! damn the Title as he doth, Solution, and yet practise the thing ! — you must have good proof.
His first instance is of the Primate of Byzacium, wherein the Emperor first put forth his authority, and would have him judged by Gregory : " Piissimus Im- perator eum \jujcta statuta canonica] per nos voluit judicari", saith Gregory2. Hence Doctor Hammond smartly and soundly observes, ' that appeals from a Primate lie to none but the supreme magistrate3'.
To which purpose, in the cause of Maximus Bishop of Salona, decreed excommunicate by Gregory, his sentence was still with this reserve and submission, nisi prius, etc. "unless I should first understand by my most serene Lords (the Emperors) that they com- manded it to be done4".
Thus, if this ' perfect' instance (as S. W. calls it) have any force in it, his cause is gone, whatever advantage he pretends to gain by it.
Besides, the Emperor's command was, that Gre-
1 [Cf. Dr Hammond, Dispatcher Dispatcht, chap. v. sect. ix. § 31 ; Works, Vol. n. p. 294.]
2 [Epist. Lib. vii. Indict, n. ep. Ixv; Opp. Tom. iv. col. 276, D.]
3 [ubi supra, $ 33.]
4 [The whole sentence is as follows : " Quod ego audiens, ad eundem prfevaricatorem, qui inordinate ordinatus est protinus misi ut omnino missarum solemnia celebrare nullo modo prsesumeret, nisi prius a serenissimis dominis cognoscerem, si hoc fieri ipsi jussissent, quod ei sub excommunicationis interpositione mandavi." Gregor. Epist. Lib. iv. Indict, xm. ep. xxxiv; Opp. Tom. iv. col. 140, c.]
86 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
gory should judge him1, juxta statuta canonica2 ; and Gregory himself pleads, " quicquid esset canonicum faceremus3 ".
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 ac- cording to the Canons, where was then the universal 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 Bishop of Rome, as being the most eminent person in the Church ; and in such case he questionless might, and ought in all fraternal charity, to admonish the Primate or Patriarch what his duty was, and disclaim communion with him, un- less he reform4".
But it ought to be shewn that Gregory did form- ally 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,
1 [i. e. the Primate of Byzacium, and not the Bishop of Salona, last mentioned.]
2 [Above, p. 85.]
3 [" Tamen piissimus imperator admonuit, ut transmitteremus, et quicquid esset canonicum faceremus." Greg. Epist. Lib. vn. ep. Ixv. col. 276, D.]
4 [Dispatcher Dispatcht, chap. v. sect. ix. § 50 ; Works, Vol. n. p. 296.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 87
Saint Gregory always pleads the ancient Canons, which is far from any claim of Universal Pastorship by Divine right, or donation of Christ to Saint Peter. " I appeal," saith Doctor Hammond, " to S. W. whe- ther that were the interpretation of'secundum Canones', and yet he knows, that no other tenure but that will stand him in stead1".
Indeed, "the unhappiness is," as the Doctor ob- serves 2, " that such acts, at first but necessary fraternal charity, were by ambitious men drawn into example, and means of assuming power ; which yet as they pretend from Christ to St Peter, on the score of Universal Pastorship, cannot be more vehemently prejudiced by any thing, than by these examples, which being rightly considered, pretend no higher than ecclesiastical Canons, and the universal Laws of charity ; . . . but never made claim to any 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 Universal Bishop.
T. C. against my Lord of Canterbury3 goes ano- fObjec- ther 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 ' Universal Bishop' into grammatical, to the exclusion of all others from being properly Bishops, and metaphorical,
i [Ibid. § 51.] 2 [ibid.]
3 [Labyrinthus Cantuariensis, p. 197. § 3. In this instance, as in a few others, the text of Fuljwood reads A. C., which was the assumed title of Fisher ; whereas the author of the Labyrinthus (to which Stillingfleet replied) was T. C. Thomas Carwell, alias Thorold.]
88 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
whereby the Bishops are secured, as such, in their respective dioceses, yet all of them under the juris- diction of the Universal Bishop, viz. of Rome.
This distinction Doctor Stillingfleet1 destroys, not more elaborately than fully and perfectly : shewing, that it is impossible Saint Gregory should under- stand the term 'Universal Bishop' in that strict grammatical sense; for the reason2 why this title was refused, was because it seemed to diminish the honour of other Bishops, when it was oifered 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 we think the Council, that gave the same title to John, intended thus to depose themselves ? How comes it to pass, that none of John's or Cyriacus's successors did ever challenge this title, in that literal sense, if so it was understood ?
But to waive many things impertinent, it is evi- dent Saint Gregory understood the title metaphori- cally, from the reasons he gives against it ; which also equally serve to prove against S. W.3 that it was not so much the title as the authority of an Universal Bishop, which he so much opposed.
He argueth thus to John the Patriarch : " What wilt thou answer to Christ the Head of the Universal Church in the day of judgment, who dost endeavour
1 [Vindication of Archbp Laud, Vol. n. pp. 226, et seqq.J
2 [. . . " omnium sacerdotum honor adimitur, dum ab uno sibi dcmenter arrogatur," etc. Greg. Epist. Lib. iv. Indict, xm. cp. xxxii. col. 137, E.]
3 [Above, p. 85.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 89
to subject all his members to thee, under the name of Universal Bishop1?"
Again, doth he not " arise to the height of singu- larity, that he is subject to none, but rules over all2?" 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 the3 pride of Lucifer, endea- vouring to be Head (not sure in title, but power) of the Church triumphant, as the Pope of the Church militant : exalting his throne (not his name), as Gre- gory adds, above the stars of God, viz, the Bishops, and the height of the clouds4.
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 one Head5", (i. e. Christ, as before6 he had said) : — we see he allows not Peter himself to be Head of the Church. " None that was truly holy, was ever called by that name of
1 [" Tu quid Christo, universalis sanctse ecclesise capiti in cxtremi judicii es dicturus examine, qui cuncta ejus membra ti- bimet conaris universalis appellatione supponere ?" Lib. iv. Indict, xin. ep. xxxviii; Opp. Tom. iv. col. 145, D.]
2 [. . . "ad culmen conatus est singularitatis erumpere ut et nulli subesse, et solus omnibus prseesse videretur?" Ibid.J
3 [Ibid.]
4 [Ibid. Gregory here quotes Isaiah xiv. 12 — 15.]
5 [" Certe Petrus apostolus primum membrum sanctse et univer- salis ecclesise est. Paulus, Ai\dreas, Johannes, quid aliud quam singularium sunt plebium capita? Et tamen sub uno capite omnes membra sunt ecclesia;." Ibid. col. 146, A.]
6 [Above, note 1.]
90 PRESCRIPTION. [CiiAi>. VI.
Universal Bishop1 :" — 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 sense 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 sense imaginable ? as the Doctor2 proves ; and indeed [it] needs no proof, being evident of itself, and to the observation of the whole world. Thus all the hard words of St Gregory ut- tered so long agon, against such as admitted or desired that title, unavoidably fall upon the modern Roman Bishops, that take upon them to be the sole Pastors of the Church ; and say that they are (Ecu- menical Bishops, and that all jurisdiction is derived from them. They are ' Lucifers ' and ' Princes of Pride'; using a ' vain, new, rash, foolish, proud, pro- fane, erroneous, wicked, hypocritical, singular, pre- sumptuous, blasphemous, name;' as that holy Pope inveighed against it. Moreover, as he also adds, 'they transgress God's laws, violate the Canons, dishonour the Church, despise their brethren, and cause Schism13.
But it is said4, that 'Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches all at once. Therefore (saith A. C.) the Pope had of right some authority over the
1 [. . . " quo (nomine) vocari nullus prsesumpsit, qui vcraciter sanctus fuit." Ibid.]
2 [Stillingfleet's Vindication, Vol. n. pp. 232, et seqq.]
3 [Cf. Lib. iv. epp. 32, 34, 36, 38, 39 ; Lib. vi. epp. 24, 28, 30, 31 ; Lib. vn. ep. 70 ; passim.]
4 [See Archbp Laud's Conference with Fisher, sect. xxv. §13, p. 150. ed. Oxf. 1839 ; and Bp Stillingfleet's Vindication, Vol. n. pp. 238, 239.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 91
Asian Bishops, and by consequence over the whole Church ; and this appears in that Irenaeus, in the name of the Gallican Bishops, writes to Victor not to proceed so rashly in this action ; as appears in Euse- bius'.
(1) We answer, that those Bishops among whom Solution. Irengeus was one, did severely rebuke that Pope for offering to excommunicate those Asian Churches l : — therefore they did not believe him to be the supreme, infallible Pastor of the whole Church.
(2) His letters declaring that excommunication, not pleasing all his own Bishops, they countermanded2 him : — surely not thinking him to be what Popes would now be esteemed.
(3) Hence Cardinal Perron is angry with Euse- bius, and calls him an Arian, 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 them3.
(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, espe- Mistake of cially when practised by one Church against another, and Root
1- -i ' i ' • n °^ Disci-
did not imply a positive act of authority, but a nega- pline. tive act of charity ; or a declaring against the com- munion of such with themselves ; and therefore was
1 [•Sepoirai 8e KOI at rovrutv (fxavai, ir\r)KTiK(t>Tfpov KadairTop.fva>v rov BiKTopos. 'Ei> ols KOI 6 Elprjvalos, K. T. X. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. Lib. v. c. 24. Tom. i. p. 369 ; ed. Oxon. 1838.]
2 [' AvTnrapa.Kf\fvovTat 8f)ra avrco, K. T. X. Ibid.]
3 [Cardinal du Perron's Reply to the King of Great Britain, Book ii. chap. vi. p. 163, Engl. Transl. Douay, 1630.]
92 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP VI.
done by equals to equals, and sometimes by inferiors to superiors. In equals, — thus, Johannes Antiochenus l, in the Ephesine Council, excommunicated Cyril, Pa- triarch of Alexandria ; and in inferiors (in the sense of our Roman adversaries) — for the African Bishops excommunicated Pope Vigilius2. Hence also, Acacius3, the Patriarch of Constantinople, expunged the name of Felix, Bishop of Rome, out of the diptychs of the Church ; and Hilary anathematized Pope Liberius4. Therefore Victor's declaring the Asian Churches to be excommunicate, is no argument of his power over them.
Secondly, the root or ground of the ancient dis- cipline is also as plainly mistaken, — which was not authority always, but care and charity. Care, I say, not only of themselves who used it, but also of the Church that was censured, and indeed of the whole Church.
It is here proper to consider, that though Bishops had their peculiar seats, and limits for their jurisdic-
1 [The circumstances are fully related by Fleury, Histoire Eccles. Liv. xxv. s. 45.]
2 Victor Tununensis, Chronicon, p. 10, [col. 1 ; apud Thesaur. Temporum, opera J. Scaliger. Amstelod. 1658 : " Post consulatum Basilii, v. c. anno x. Africani antistites Vigilium Romanum epi- scopum damnatorem HI. Capitulorum synodaliter a Catholica communione, reservato ei poenitentiae loco, recludunt," etc. Cf. Fleury, Liv. xxxm. s. 26, 32. In the sixth General Council, Hono- rius, Bishop of Rome, was anathematized as a Monothelite. See Bingham, Antiquities, Book xvi. chap. iii. s. 12, and Dr Routh's Opuscula, Vol. n. p. 153, and notes.]
3 [Fleury, Hist. Eccl. Liv. xxx. s. 17.]
4 ["Iterum tibi anathema et tertio, prsevaricator Liberi!" Fragment. S. Hilar. ; Opp. coll. 426, 427; ed. Paris. 1631. See Bower's ' Lives of the Popes,' Vol. i. pp. 136, 137. Lond. 1748. The Abbe Fleury makes no attempt to deny the apostasy of Liberius. " II renoi^a a la communion de saint Athanaso, et embrassa celle des Orientaux, c'est-a-dire, des Aricns." Hist. Eccl. Liv. xm. s. 46.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 93
tions, yet they had all a charitive inspection and care of that Universal Church, and sometimes denomina- tions accordingly.
Hence we deny not that the ancient Bishops of Rome deservedly gained the title of (Ecumenical Bishops, — a thing of so great moment in the contro- versy, 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 universal care of the Church (the occasion of the title) hath been acknowledged in others as well as in him ; and indeed the power, which is the root of that care, as the occasion of that title, is founded in all Bishops.
Here are three things noted, which may be dis- Three tinctly considered.
(1) Power is given to all Bishops with an imme- diate respect to the good of the whole Church ; so that if it were possible, that every particular Bishop could take care of the whole Church, they have authority enough in their function to do it, — though it be impossible, and indeed inconsistent with peace and order, that all should undertake it. And there- fore they have their bounds and limits set them ; hence their particular dioceses : therefore, as St Cyprian, ' there is but one Bishopric in the whole world, a part of which is held by every Bishop1'.
1 [" Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur." De Unitate Ecclesise, cap. v. ' In solidum' is a law-phrase, and signifies that part of this one episcopacy is so committed to every single bishop, that he is nevertheless charged with taking care of the whole. Leslie's Answer to the Bp of Meaux: Works, Vol. m. p. 231; Oxf. 1832.]
94 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
(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 counsel and direction, — yea, and exercised their functions sometimes in other places. Of which Dr Stillingfleet1 gives many in- stances in Poly carp, Ignatius, Irenseus, St Cyprian, Faustus.
Yea, upon this very ground, Nazianzen2 saith of St Cyprian, that ' he not only governed the Churches of Carthage, but all the western parts, and even almost all the eastern, southern, and northern too, as far as he went'.
Arsenius speaks more home to Athanasius3 : " We embrace (saith he) peace and unity with the Catholic Church, over which, thou, through the grace of God, dost preside". Whence Gregory Nazianzen4 saith of Athanasius, that 'he made laws for the whole earth'. And St Basil5 writes to him, 'that he had care of all the Churches as of his own'; and calls him ' the Head and Chief of all'.
And St Chrysostom6 in the praise of Eustathius,
1 Rational Account, pp. 424, 425 ; [Vol. n. p. 216, new edit.]
2 Orat. xvin. p. 281, [A. Opp. Paris. 1619 ; Ov yap rfjs Kapx^j- &ovia>v 7rpoKa6(£fTai p.6vov (KK\T)<rlas, . . . aXXa KOI Tracnjs rrjs (cnrfpiov, K. r. X.]
3 Athanas. ad Imperator. Constant. Apol. [Opp. Tom. i. p. 786, D. Kai fiiJLfis d<nra£6p.fvot TTJV flprjvrjv Kal fvaxriv Trpos rrjv KadoXiK^v fKK\ij<riav, r)s <n> Kara \apw Qfov Trpotoraerat, K. r. X.]
4 Orat. XXI. p. 392, [c : vopodfrel Se rij olKovp.firrj TraXii/.]
5 Ep. LH. [Opp- Tom. m. p. 79 ; ed. Paris. 1638.]
6 Opp. Tom. v. p. 631. ed. Savil. [Tom. n. 607, B. ed. Paris. 1718 ; Km yap r/v TreTraiSeu/neVos KaXeoy Trapa rrjs TOV HvevfiaTos
s, on rijs fKKXr/crlus Trpoeo-Twra OVK tKthnfS p-ovrjs Kr/^fa-dai 8tl . . .
CHAT. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 95
the Patriarch of Antioch, saith, that ; he was in- structed 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 Home, 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 (Ecumenical 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 itself accounted ' Uni- versal'; 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, appears by a multitude of testimonies, making orbis Romanus and orbis humanus synonymous, collected by Dr Stilling- fleet1. Hence Ammianus Marcellinus calls Rome caput mundi, 'the head of the World'; and the Roman Senate Asylum mundi totius. And it was usual then to call whatever was out of the Roman empire bar-
dXXo /cai Tfa(Tf]s rfjs Kara rr/v olKovpfvijv KeijueVijy. Other proofs of this position may be seen in Bingham, Book n. chap, v.]
1 Rational Account, pp. 425, 426 ; [Vol. n. pp. 218, 219. new ed.]
96 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
baria, as the same Doctor ' proves at large. Therefore that empire was called in Greek y o'lKov^ev^.
2. Some Bishops in the great Churches in the Roman empire were called CEcumenical, as that re- lates to the v\ oiKovnevrj, 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 andChalcedon3 about it; and the privileges of old Rome gave the measure of the privileges of new Rome.
And in probability, the ground of that Patriarch's usurping the title of CEcumenical Patriarch was but to correspond with the greatness of his city, which was then the seat of the empire ; as Dr Stillingfleet very reasonably conjectures4.
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 the Churches', 'the government as it were of the whole body of the Church', as Dr Stillingfleet5 particularly shews. But most clear and full to that purpose, as he observes, is the testimony of Theodoret concerning Nestorius being made Patriarch of Constantinople : " He was intrusted with the government of the Catholic Church of the orthodox at Constantinople, and thereby of the whole world6".
i Ibid. 2 Acts xi. 28. [Luke ii. 1]
3 [See above, p. 35, note 1.]
4 [Vol. n. p. 219. Cf. Bingham, Book n. chap. xvii. s. 21.] * [Ibid.]
« Theodor. Haeret. Fabul. Lib. iv. c. 12 ; Opp. Tom. iv. p. 245.
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 97
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 Chalcedon1 did offer the title of Universal Patriarch, or if they did not, — but as the truth rather is, some papers, re- ceived in that Council, did give him that title, — it signifieth nothing to prove the Pope's universal authority.
Therefore Simon Vigorius2 ingenuously confesseth, 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 sense, that the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, are called so ; or as they are universal over the Churches under their own patriarchate ; or that in (Ecumenical Councils, they preside over the whole Church : ' and after acknowledgeth, that the title of Universal or (Ecumenical Bishop makes nothing for the Pope's Monarchy.
It is too evident, that the humble Pope Gregory seems to glorify himself, while he so often mentions
[A. ed. 1642 :.. .rJjs Kara KcwovavTivoinroXiv ra>v opdodof-uv Ka8o\tKfjs tKitXijcrias TTJV irpoeftpiav Trtoreuerat, ovSec Se TJTTOV KOI rijs oiKOu/ior;? aTracn;?.]
1 [Gregory (Epist. Lib. iv. Indict, xin. ep. xxxii.) speaks as if this title was formally offered and declined. The true state of the case is somewhat different, as Bishop Stillingfleet shews from the Acts of the Council. 'Vindication;' Vol. n. pp. 220, 221.]
2 Comment, ad Resp. Synodal. Concil. Basil, p. 37 ; [quoted by Stillingfleet, Vol. n. p. 221.]
7
98 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
that offer of the title of Universal, and his refusing of it, and inveighing against it ; and that these were engines used by 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 itself) as such an abominable thing.
However, if the Council of Chalcedon did indeed offer (or only record) that title to Gregory, it is more than manifest, it could not possibly be intended to carry in it the authority of the whole Church, or any more than that qualified sense of Vigorius before mentioned ; because other Patriarchs had the same title, — and we see no reason to believe, that that Council intended to subject themselves and all Patri- archs to the authority of the Western Pope, contrary to their great design of advancing the see of Con- stantinople to equal privileges with that of Rome ; as appears by their fifteenth Session, Canon xxvm, and their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo1.
Thus the bare title is no argument, — and by what hath been said touching the grandeur 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
1 [See this letter in Labbe, Concil. Tom iv. 834, et seqq. Leo opposed the twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon, on the plea that it violated the sixth Nicene Canon, which gave the second rank to Alexandria. Notwithstanding his opposition, the Canon stood its ground.]
CHAP. VI.J PRESCRIPTION. .99
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 uni- versal addresses. An honest and prudent countryman shall be upon all commissions ; the Church of Home was then famous both for learning, wisdom, truth, piety, and I may add tradition itself, as well as great- ness, both in the eye of the world and all other Churches ; and her zeal and care for general good, keeping peace, and spreading the grace of the Gospel, was sometimes admirable. And now no wonder that applications in difficult cases were frequently and generally made hither, which at first were received and answered with love and charity, though soon after the ambition of Popes knew how to advance, and hence to assume authority.
From this, we see, it was no great venture (how- ever T. C. term it), for Archbishop Laud to grapple with the authority of Irenaeus, who saith l, ' To this Church (meaning Rome) propter potentiorem principa- litatem, for the more powerful principality of it, it is necessary that every Church, that is the faithful undique, should have recourse ; in qua semper ab his qni sunt undique conservata est ea quce est ab Apostolis traditio.'
1 [Adv. Hseres.] Lib. m. c. 3. [Tertullian has a similar passage (De Prsescriptione, cap. xxxvi.) where he refers the disputant, if in Achaia, to Corinth ; if in proconsular Asia, to Ephesus ; if in Italy or Africa, to Rome ; all these being apostolical Churches, and therefore likely to have retained the true doctrine. See Dr Routh's Opuscula, Vol. i. p. 151, and note, p. 206.]
7—2
100 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
His lordship seems to grant the whole, — Home being then the imperial city, and so a Church of more powerful authority than any other, yet not the head of the Church Universal. This may suffice without the pleasant criticizing about undique, with which, if you have a mind to be merry, you may entertain yourself in Dr Stillingfleet1.
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 true2.
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 neces- sity 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 controversy : one kind of authority it doth imply, but not such as T. C. inquired 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 governor, that might command the Faith, or the agreement of the dis- senters. This is evident, (1) Because the dispute was about a matter of fact, whether there was any
1 p. 441, etc. [Vol. n. pp. 243, et seqq. new edit.]
2 p. 444, [Vol. II. p. 247.J
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 101
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 Gregory1 objection. 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 Solution, 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 confession2.
However what he seems here to assume to his own see, he blows away with the same breath, deny- ing 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 equal : — which is not true, where by
1 [Gregor. Epist. Lib. vn. Indict, n. ep. Ixv. col. 276, E : "Nam quod se dicit sedi Apostolicse subjici, si qua culpa in Episcopis invcnitur, nescio quis ci Episcopus subjcctus non sit. Cum vero culpa non cxigit, omncs sccundum rationcm humilitatis rcquales sunt."]
2 [Sec above, p. 85.]
102 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
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 con- sequence in the words.
Further evidence, that the ancient Popes them- selves, though they might thirst after it, did not believe that they were Universal Bishops and Mo- narchs 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 Leo1 beggeth the Emperor Theodosius with tears, 'that he would command' (not permit) 'a Council to be held in Italy :' — that sure was not to signify his authoritative desires.
That instance of Pope Agatho2, in his Epistle to the Emperor, is as pertinent as the former ; " with praise we admire your purpose well pleasing to God" (not to the Pope), and " for these commands of yours we are rejoiced, and with groans out of the depth of our heart give thanks to God." And many such, Doctor Hammond3 saith, might be afforded.
1 [Epist. Decretal, xxiv; Opp. p. 114. col. 2, D; ed. Paris. 1637: " Omnes partium nostrarum Ecclesise, omnes mansuetudinis vestrse cum gemitibus et lachrymis supplicant sacerdotes, ut...generalem synodum jubeatis intra Italiam celebrari," etc.]
2 Concil. Tom. v. pp. 60, 61. [ed. Bin. Paris. 1636 : 'En-el 8e ciicrf/SeoraTot KOI avdpftoraroi /3a<riA«oi> TTJS <rf/3acr/itas v/xcov evtrtftfias (Tvv eVatVa) 6avfjui£ofjLev TTJV Btapecrrov Trpodetriv . . . tXapevopfvoi Trepi rfjs roiavTTjs evcreftovs irpodeo'eas, fjifra r<av (K (SaBovs Tfjs Kap8las 68vpfj.a>v
3 [Works, Vol. ii. p. 290, $ 5.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 103
Pope Gregory received the power of hearing and determining causes several times (as he himself con- fesseth) from the Emperor ; as we shewed before l.
Hence Pope Eleutherius2 to King Lucius, " You are the Vicar of Christ :" — the same in effect which is contained in the laws of Edward the Confessor3.
And Pope Urban4 the Second entertained our Archbishop Anselm, in the Council of Bari, with the title of the Pope of another world, or (as some relate it) the ' Apostle of another world, and a Patriarch Avorthy to be reverenced.'
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 ecclesi- astical 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 Eng- land, much less of the whole world.
Indeed, the power of Emperors over Popes was exercised severely, and continued long in practice5.
1 [See above, p. 85.]
2 [For the reply attributed to Eleutherius, see Collier, Eccles. Hist. Book i. cent, i: Vol. I. p. 14; ed. Lond. 1708.]
3 [Leges Edw. Confess. § xvn ; in ' Ancient Laws and Insti- tutes,' ed. Thorpe, Vol. i. p. 449.]
4 [Vid. W. Malmesbur. in Anselm. p. 223, 1. 33 ; ed. Francof. 1601 ; Archbp Laud's Conference with Fisher, sect. xxv. § x. p. 141, ed. Oxf. 1839.]
5 Vid. King James's Defence [of the right of Kings ; Works,
104 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
A. D. 654, Constantius bound and banished Pope Martin — A. D. 963, Otho rejected Pope John XIII. and made Leo VIII. Pope : and John XIV., Gregory V. and Sylvester II. were made Popes by the Otho's. — A.D. 1007, Henry II. deposed three Popes. This practice is confessed till Gregory VII. ; and before A.D. 679, Popes submitted to Emperors by purchasing their investitures of them, by submissive terms, and bow- ing the knee before them.
SECTION VIII. NOR THE WORDS OF THE IMPERIAL LAW.
IF the ancient Councils, or practice, or Popes themselves, offered nothing to persuade our an- cestors to a belief of the Pope's universal power or possession of England, certainly we 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 Primate1, "the Civil Law is proof enough :" for that is 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.
pp. 408, 409. od. Lond. 1616. These and other similar instances are there related on the authority of Platina, Baronius, and Sigebert of Gcmblours.]
1 [Archbp Laud, Conference with Fisher, sect. xxv. $ x. p. 141. ed. 1839.]
CHAP. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 105
Primes sedis Apostolus, ' the Patriarch or Bishop of the first see,' is not to be called Prince of the Priests or Supreme Priest1, nor, as the African Canon adds, aliquid htijusmodi, ' any other thing of that kind2.'
The practice of any such power was expressly forbidden, and not the proud title only : the very text of the Law saith, a Patriarcha non datur Ap- pellatio, ' from a Patriarch there lies no appeal3.'
And this we have found agreeable to the Milevi- tan Council4 (where Saint Augustine was present), forbidding under pain of excommunication any ap- peal to any foreign Councils or Judicatures : and this is again consonant to the fifth Canon of Nice5, as that was to the thirty-fourth Apostolic6, — 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 join in one poor slight evasion here ; namely, that ' the Laws concerning appeals did only concern inferior Clergymen, but Bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome, even by the
1 Corpus Juris Canon. Dccret. Part i. Distinct, xcix. c. m. [" Primse sedis Episcopus non appclletur princeps saccrdotum, vcl summus sacerdos."]
2 [Ibid.]
3 Cod. Theodos. Lib. i. Tit. iv. § 29 ; Authent. Collat, ix. Tit. xv. c. 22. %•
4 Can. xxu ; [Labbc, Concil. Tom. n. 1542.] 6 [Labbe, Concil. Tom. n. 32, A.]
6 [Patrcs Apostol. ed. Cotclcr. Tom. i. p. 442.]
106 PRESCRIPTION. [CHAP. VI.
African Canon, and acknowledged in that Council's Epistle to Pope Boniface.'
Three bold sayings : (1) that the Law concerned not the appeals of Bishops. (2) The Council of Africa decreed Bishops' appeals to Rome. (3) And acknowledged it in their Letter to Pope Boniface. But are these things as truly as boldly said? For the first which is their 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 expressly against it ; and then their reasons will need little answer.
They say the Law reacheth not the difference between Patriarchs themselves.
But if there should happen a difference betwixt a Patriarch and the Pope, who shall decide that ? Both these inconveniences are plainly solved by re- ferring all such extraordinary difficulties to a General Council.
But why should the Law allow foreign appeals to Bishops and not to Priests ? Are all Bishops Pa- triarchs ? Is not a Patriarch over his Bishops, as well as a Bishop over his Priests ? May not the gravamen of a Priest be given by his Bishop, or the difference among Priests be as considerable1 to the Church sometimes as among Bishops ? Or hath not the Uni- versal Pastor, if the Pope be so, power over and care
1 Cselestius [who went to Rome] denied the necessity of grace, [and for his Pelagianism had been previously condemned by two Synods held at Carthage in A. D. 412, and 416. Labbe, Concil. Tom. II. 1510, 1533.]
CHAI>. VI.] PRESCRIPTION. 107
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 <