OF SCHISM.  
A DEFENCE OF THE Church of England, Against the EXCEPTIONS OF the Romanists.  
By H. HAMMOND, D. D.  
LONDON, Printed by J. Flesher for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane. M. DC.LIII·   

Of SCHISM. A Defence of the Church of England, against the Objections of the Romanist.  

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

What is to be done toward the latter.  §. 2. That the later of these may in God's good time be effectually attempted by all Christian Kings, and Bishops, and advance more successfully, then of late it hath done, aught to be the endeavour of all those, whose eminency in the world hath given them capacities, or qualifications to contribute some considerable degree of assistance to so glorious a work. And for others, whose inferiority of condition or sphere of motion, and the improbability, consequent to that, of advancing so magnificent a design is their just excuse for not entertaining any such hopeless thoughts, it is yet their certain duty by constant, fervent prayers to solicit the good hand of God, who alone can accomplish so divine a work, and by the diligent strict observance of all Christ's precepts to exemplify to all others the power, and real energy of the faith of Christ, where it is admitted into the heart, thereby to attract all others to the embracing of that, which hath such admirable virtues in it.  
§. 3. 
The chief branches of the former, considered in society.  As for the former, That is (in proportion to his condition) the known duty of every single Christian, much more of every congregation, and community of such; who are therefore associated into one body, that each supplying the defects, and infirmities of others, they may by so advantageous an instrument, as union of forces is, be enabled to do what without it they are justly supposeable to want means, or strength to do, and so are deprived of all excuse, if they be found culpable.  
§. 4. In this kind 1. 
Charity.  The duty of Charity, and peace to all: 2. 
Obedience.  of ready, and filial obedience of those under authority to their lawful authorized superiors: and 3. 
Paternal exercise of Ecclesiastical power.  of charitative paternal exercise of their power, in all those that are invested with it by Christ, may be justly looked on as virtues of the first magnitude, which have the most lively characters, and impresses of the Lawgiver, Christ's image, and superscription upon them, & accordingly deserve the first fruits of our care and diligence that they be most diligently conserved, where they are, and industriously reduced, where by the malignity, or infelicity of the times, they are torn, or escaped from us.  

The contrariety of Schism to the Doctrine of Christ.  §. 5. For that malices, and rancours, and animosities among single Christians, but especially seditious, mutinous spirits, that divisions, and schisms, and ruptures, and preparative thereto, causeless anathematising, and tyrannising over the Faith of Christ's flock, are most scandalously contrary to Christ's platform, to the prophecy of the ploughshares, and the pruning-hooks, the happy exchange for the sanguinary, hostile instruments, is a truth so eminently, and signally visible in the practice, and doctrine of Christ, and his Apostles, that it cannot be doubted, or questioned on either side. And agreeably, there is no one vice, which hath fallen under so much of the displeasure, and correption, and severest discipline of the holy Fathers of the Ancient Church, as this of Schism, and the ingredients, and preparatives to it have done.  
§. 6. 
The Father's Censures of it.  It is but a small part of the character thereof, that from S. Paul, and S. Judas they tell us, that it is a special piece of 
(a) 1 Cor. 3.4. Judas 19 See Fulgentius ad Mon: l 2.  carnality; an 
(b) Quisquis in Ecclesiâ gratiam consecutus, ab Ecclesiâ exierit, reus sibi futurus est, i. e. ipse sibi quod pereat imputaturus; Quod Apostolus explanat, docens haereticum vitandum esse, ut à semetipso damnatum Cypr: Ep: 76. Poenas quas meruerant pependerunt, ut à nobis non ejecti ultro se ejecerent, de ecclesiâ sponte se pellerent, Ep: 40. Quomodo te à tot gregibus scidisti? Exscidisti enim teipsum. Firmilian: ad Cypr: Ep: 75.  excommunicating and condemning, i. e. voluntary inflicting of that punishment on ones self, which the Governors of the Church use to inflict on the most scandalous sinners; that 
(a) Sciat se postea ad Ecclesiam redire, & cum Episcopis & plebe Christi communicare non posse. Ep: 40. Aversandus est talis atque fugiendus quisquis fuerit ab Ecclesiâ separatus. Ibid. De Unit: Eccles:  they that so divide on their own presumption, may not at their own will return to the Church, and communicate again with the Bishop, and his Christian people; that 
(b) Hanc Ecclesiae unitatem qui non tenet, tenere se fidem credit? Cypr: de Unit: Eccles: Dum conventicula sibi diversa constituunt, veritatis caput atque originem reliquerunt. Ibid. Fidem destruit, pro Fide perfidus. Ibid.  it is contrary to the Faith, 
(c) Schisma non faciendum, etiamsi in unâ fide & eâdem traditione permaneat qui recedit. Cypr: Testim: l. 3. c. 86.  even when it hath not, in respect of doctrinal points, any heresy joined with it; 
(d) Quam ver● dilectionem custodit & cogitat, qui discordiae furore vesanus Ecclesiam scindit, pacem turbat, charitatem dissipat. Cypr: de Unit: Eccles: Arma ille contra Ecclesiam portat. Ibid.  Contrary to charity, yea to all the 
(e) Quisquis ab Ecclesia segregatus adulterae jungitur, à promissis Ecclesiae separatur. Cypr: de Unit: Eccl: Habere jam non potest Deum patrem, qui Ecclesiam non habet matrem. Ibid. Quomodo potest ei cum aliquo convenire, cui cum corpore ipsius Ecclesiae, & cum vestra Fraternitate non convenit? Quomodo possunt duo aut tres in nomine Christi colligi, quos constat à Christo & ab ejus Evangelio separari? Ibid: Extra Ecclesiam consistens, & contra pacem & dilectionem Christi faciens, inter adversarios— computetur. Ep: 76.  advantages that belong to a member of the Church, the 
(f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ignat: Ep: ad Eph: Audet precem alteram illicitis vocibus facere, Dominicae hostiae veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare? Cypr: de Unit: Eccl: Vnum manifestum est apud omnes Spiritus Sancti gratiam non esse, nec corum sacrificiis posse Deo placere, neque spiritualis gratiae sanctificationem sacrificiis corum tribui, qui offerunt ab Ecclesiastici corporis unitate disjuncti, solius enim Ecclesia Deus delectatur sacrificiis, quòd sacrificium Deo facit unit as spiritualis, ubi pacis tenacitas fraternam servat in charitate concordiam. Fulgent: ad Monim: l. 2.  benefits of prayers and sacraments; that it is 
(g) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Chrys: in Ep: ad Eph: Edit: Savil: p. 823.  as bad as heresy; that 
(h) Quis unquam haereses instituit, nisi qui se priùs ab Ecclesiae Catholicae universitate, & antiquitatis consensione discreverit? Vincent: c. 34.  there was never any heresy in the Church, which was not founded in it; and 
(i) Nullum schisma non sibi aliquam fingit haeresim, ut rectè ab Ecclesiâ recessisse videatur. Hieron: ad Tit: c. 3.  that it is constantly forced, in its own defence, to conclude in some heresy or other (all of which being put together will be sufficient to keep men from being in love with the guilt, or company of schismatics) but it is farther branded with these superadditions of terror, that 
(k) Non esse quicquam gravius sacrilegio schismatis. Aug: contra Parmen: l. 2.2. Ingens flagitium schismatis Tradition▪ junxerunt. Optat: p. 23. Edit: Casaub:  there is scarce any crime so great as schism, not 
(l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Dionys: ap: Euseb: l. 6. c. 36. Pejus hec crimen est quàm quod admisisse lapsi videntur. Cypr: de Unit: Eccl:  idolatry, 
(m) Vide Optatum l. 8. c. 25.  sacrilege, parricide; that it hath been under peculiar marks of God's indignation, in the story of the Jewish Church, as in the 
(n) Quàm sine spe sint, & perditionem sibi maximam de indignatione Dei acquirant, qui schisma feciunt, declarat in libro R●g: scriptura, ubi à tribu Juda & Benjamin decem tribus scissae sunt, & indignatus est, inquit, Dominus in omne semen Israel. Cypr: Ep: 76.  case of the ten Tribes, and of the 
(o) Addendo autem civitatem Samaritanorum debere omitti, ubi erant schismatici, ostendit schismaticos Gentilibus adaequari. Ibid.  Samaritans, who are ranked with the Gentiles, Mat. 10.5. 
(p) Exemplo Core, Dathan, etc. ostenditur & probatur obnoxios omnes & culpae & poenae futuros, qui se schismaticis irreligiosâ temeritate miscuerunt, Ibid. Deus quod in sacrilegos & parricidam non secerat, [Cain & Ninive] in schismaticos fecit, Core, etc. Optat: l. 1. p. 25.  and so in the story of Core, etc. that it is the 
(q) Novatianus nec debet nec potest excipi, quo minus ipse extra Ecclesiam consistens, inter Antichristos computetur, Ibid. Apparet Antichristos omnes esse quos constet à charitate atque ab unitate Ecclesiae recessisse, Ibid. Videndum quis foras exicrit, quis altare contra altare erexerit, quis jaceat sub sententiâ Johannis Apostoli, qui dixit multos Antichristos feras exituros, Optat: p. 1. l. 18. Ab Ecclesiâ separatus haereticus est, & Antichristus, Prosper de Prom: & Praedict: implend: c. 5.  Antichristianisme mentioned by Saint John, the 
(r) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ignat: Ep: ad Smyrnens:  worshipping or serving the Devil, and, in a word, so great a crime, that it is not 
(s) Tales e●si occisi in confession nominis fuerint, macula ista nec sanguine abluitur, inexpiabilis & gravis culpa discordiae nec passione purgatur, Cyprian: de Unit: Eccl:  expiable by Martyrdom to him that continues in, and hath not repent, and returned from it.  
§. 7. 
No excuse for it.  Much more of this subject is every where to be met with in the Ancient monuments, and nothing of alleviation to be had for any, who have not the 
(t) Caeteri tantùm vel simplicitate capti, ve● errore inducti, vel aliqua sallentis astutiae calliditate decepti, à fallaciae laqueis vos solvite, Cypr: de Unit: Eccl:  excuse of involuntary seduction, of error, or simplicity to plead for them, and the surest way to do that effectually, to qualify them for that plea, is to forsake their course, to get out of so dangerous a snare.  
§. 8. Nay 'tis farther observable, how unsafe it hath been deemed by these, for 
(u) Judicabit spiritalis & eo●s qui schisma operantur, qui propter modicas & quaslibet causas, magnum & gloriosum corpus Christi conscindunt, & dividunt, verè liquantes culicem, & camelum diglutientes, Irenae: l. 4. c. 62.  light, and inconsiderable causes to break this unity, it being in their opinion very 
(x) Nulla ab eis tanta potest fieri correptio, quanta est schismatis pernicies▪ Irenaeus l. 4. c. 62.  hard, if not impossible to receive such an injury, or provocation from the Governors of the Church, as may make a rapture, or separation excusable. And for the Universal, or truly Catholic Church of Christ, it is not, in 
(y) Si possunt aliqui (quod fieri non potest) habere causam justam quo communionem separent à communione Orbis terrarum. Aug: Ep: 48.  S. Augustine's opinion, possible that there should be any just cause for any to separate from it, nor consequently Apology to be made for those, that on any, whether true, or pretended cause whatsoever, have really incurred this guilt.  
§. 9 From these premises thus acknowledged and undeniable, the conclusion follows irrefragably, that it is not the examination of the occasion, or cause, or motive of any man's schism, that is worth the producing or heeding in this matter; The one thing that is of force, and moment, and, by consequence, pertinent to be inquired into, is the truth of the matter of fact, whether this charge be sufficiently proved or confessed, i. e. whether he that is thus accused, stands really guilty of separation from the Church of Christ; And this will be a means of shortening our method, and giving very moderate bounds to our ensuing discourse, which will now be regularly finished by making these two inquiries.  
§. 10. 
The Parts of the ensuing Tract.  1. What Schism is, and how it may be most fitly branched.  
§. 11. 2. What Evidences are producible against the Church of England, whereby it may be thought liable to this guilt, and withal how it may be cleared from all force of those evidences.  
§. 11. Which when we have done, we shall not from the office of Advocates proceed to that of the Accuser, or Judge, but leave all others, that are under the same charge, to their proper tribunal, to stand or fall, as they shall appear able, or not able, upon firm grounds, to maintain, and vindicate their innocence.   

CHAP. II. What Schism is, together with some general considerations thereon.  
§. 1. OUR first enquiry must be what Schism is, in the strict & proper notion (as 
(a) Non attendisti inter schismaticos & haereticos quàm sit magna distantia. Optat: l. 1. p. 13.  distinguished from Heresy, the 
(b) Inter haeresim & schisma hoc interesse arbitramur, quòd haeresis perversum dogma habeat, schisma propter Episcopalem dissensionem ab Ecclesiâ pariter separet. Hieron: ad Tit: c. 3.  introducing of some false doctrine into the Church.) And herein there will be no difficulty the Origination, and universal use of the word, according and consenting exactly, to give us the importance of it.  

The Original of the word Schism.  §. 2. In the origination of it from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, scindi, it signifies literally scissure, or division, which being a figurative, and withal a relative word, referring to some body, which is thus cut or divided, but that no natural, but political body, the Church, or Congregation of Christians, the literal notation of the word in the Ecclesiastical use, will be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a division in or from the Unity of the Church of Christ. Only the form & termination of the word must be farther noted, which being not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the active 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Reciprocal passion noted by the word.  but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from the passive 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the use of such passives is observable, being of the nature (and for want of conjugations, designed to supply the place) of the Hebrew Hithpa●l, and so noting reciprocal action or passion, where the passion is from, and on himself, and is most fully expressed by the Latin Neutrals, which partake both of active and passive, but are strictly neither of them. This might be largely exemplified in the use of other words, but the advantage of the observation will not be proportionable to the length of such a diversion, being no more than this, that the distinct notion of the word [Schism] is a voluntary dividing, 
Schism a voluntary recession.  or, in the neutral expression, which the Fathers familiarly use, a separating, or receding of any member from the unity of the body, i. e. the Church of Christ, and so that the schismatic is he that 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Judas 19  divides himself from the Church of God, not that is cut off, or separated, he that 
(a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 1 Joh. 2.19.  goes out, or 
(b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Heb. 10.38.  withdraws, or recedes of his own accord, not he that is cast out by the Governors of the Church. 
Excommunication no Schism.  For whatever blame, and vengeance may justly light on such, who are by the righteous, and charitative Censures of the Church, cut off from communion, in case they do not by humiliation, confession, and reformation, and meet fruits of repentance, prepare and qualify themselves for readmission to that Communion, yet certainly this punishment of Excommunication is very disparate and distant from the crime of schism, the Judge, i. e. Bishop or Governor of the Church, being the only actor in the one, (and that ex officio, an act of duty in him, when duly executed) but in the other, the offender, or guilty person, who is therefore said to 
(c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil: Laod: Can: 40.  accuse, to cast, to 
(d) Propriae conscientiae videtur esse damnatio, cùm quispiam suo arbitrio ab Ecclesiâ recesserit. Hieron: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cod: Can: Afric: Can: 22.  condemn himself, throwing himself, by his voluntary recession from the Church, into that very condition, into which the adulterer, and obstinate offender is cast by the Censures of it.  
§. 3. This is so evident a truth, that this punishment, and so judicial act, of the Governor, cannot be the guilt of him that is punished, and though it be supposed to be founded in some offence, is not yet in any propriety of speech the offence itself, much less the sin of schism, especially when he is punished for heresy, or some other crime, and not for schism, that I need not farther insist on it. 
Interpretative Excommunication.  Only, as beside the formal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there is also an interpretative excommunication, when he that is not under the Censures of the Church, is yet refused admission, or reception unto it, unless he will submit to such & such conditions, indispensably proposed to him, and because both in the one, and the other, in the formal, and in the interpretative excommunication, the Governors, being men, may possibly err, and consequently censure, and excommunicate the innocent, and in like manner propose those conditions of communion which are not lawful for that man to submit unto, 
Continuance out of actual Communion, without Schism.  so it is possible in both cases, that the person excluded may be absolutely innocent, free not only from that of schism, but from all other guilt, so that he which is excommunicated may not be obliged to regain the peace, nor he that is barred out, to force his passage into the communion of the Church, and so both sorts of these, continuing out of the actual communion, neither the one nor the other be guilty of schism in the least degree by so continuing.  

Unjust excommunication hurts no man.  §. 4. He that is excommunicated unjustly, cannot be rendered criminous by that misfortune, nor concluded culpable by that argument, upon which he is supposed innocent. Our Saviour hath pronounced of the anathemas of the Jews, of their bitterest execrations, their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their sharpest censures, nay the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, casting men out of the Synagogue, falsely or unjustly, that it is to be looked on as a most auspicious token, a matter of the greatest rejoicing to them which fell under it, one of the principal ingredients in, and forerunners of their bliss (and accordingly the Apostles when they were thus cast out, and contumeliously used, went out of the Temple rejoicing that they were thought worthy to suffer shame for Christ's name) To which purpose is that of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople to Michael Metropolitan of Mitylene, Ep: 116. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. The excommunication of the Jewish Sanhedrim sent out against Christ's disciples brought them so much nearer to their Lord and Master, and aliened the Jews themselves, removed them so much farther from the kingdom of heaven, and so doth all unjust excommunication now unite us to the Apostles by this conformity with and participation of their sufferings. And I suppose the arguments, and testimonies produced by the Chancellor of Paris are (and, when they were first published, were so deemed by those of the Romish communion) unanswerable to this matter; And accordingly that of Thomas de Curselis in the Council of Basil, that it was 
* Papae à Christo dictum, Quicquid ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum, non quicquid dixeris esse ligatum. Jacob: Angularis in Ep: ad Wesselum ap: Goldast: l. 1. p. 575. Which holds in the Interpretative Excommunication.  said by Christ to the Pope, Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound, not whatsoever thou shalt affirm to be bound,] hath with it the evidence of undeniable truth, equally applicable to him and all Bishops in that and in all future ages.  
§. 5. And then certainly what hath thus been said of the Formal, will with the same evidence be extended also to the Interpretative excommunication, whensoever the conditions of the communion contain in them any sin, and so become as the former censures were supposed to be; For in that case certainly it is no act of Schism from any Church, for any member to be, or to continue thus excluded from it. For how desirable, and valuable soever an entire, inviolate peace with all Christians, with all men, (together with the approbation of our willing, cheerful obedience, and submission of our judgements and practices, to our superiors) must forever be deemed by all true disciples of Christ, Yet must not the purchase of this treasure be attempted by the admission of any sin, any more than the glory of God might be projected by the Apostle's lie. The least transgression of God's Law must not be adventured on upon any the most Christian design, or consideration; The peaceable living with all men, which is so often exhorted to▪ and inculcated, is yet no farther recommended, than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if it be possible, and as much as in us lies, and that, we know, must be interpreted of a moral and leg●● possibility, by which we are pronounced able to do that (and no more) which we can do lawfully, and so when the Apostle 1 Thess 4.11. exhorts to the most earnest pursuit of this blissful state (this ease, and rest, and quiet from the labours, and toils and hell of the factious, turbulent spirit) it is in a style, which supposes this reserve, we must, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, have an ambition, and emulation, and contention to live peaceably, and quietly, obliging us to use all means that would be allowed to the ambitious person in his warmest pursuit, i. e. the utmost lawful, but not the lowest unlawful means.  

Mr Knots Concession in this matter. c. 7. p. 471, 472.  §. 6. In which matter it is remarkable what course hath been taken by the late author of Infidelity unmasked, in his discourse of the Schism of Protestants, where having acknowledged how perfectly unlawful it is to dissemble, equivocate, or lie in the matters of faith— and withal urgeing from all antiquity, that to forsake the external communion of God's visible Church is the sin of schism, he makes a shift to conclude (as a natural consequence) from hence, that therefore the Church (I suppose he means, of Rome) is infallible, and not subject to error, because otherwise men might forsake her communion— Where though the consequence be very strange, that we may forsake the Church's communion, in case she be fallible or subject to error (for this supposes it lawful 1. to forsake the communion of any erroneous Church, which is much more than we would desire to be granted us, and 2. to forsake all that are fallible, though they be not actually in error, which is in effect to forsake the communion of all but Saints, and Angels, and God in heaven, for they only have the privilege of impeccable and infallible) yet it absolutely acknowledges that it would be lawful to separate from, and forsake the (even Universal) Church of Christ, in case, or on supposition that we could not be permitted to communicate with it, without lying, and dissembling, and equivocating in matters of faith, which he there acknowledgeth to be the denying God on earth.  
§. 7. Now (to return to our present consideration) 
Severe conditions of some Church's Communion.  Of this there is no question, but that, as it is said to be customary among the Kings of the Huns (as soon as they have any children, and so no need of their brethren's assistance) to banish all their brethren out of their dominions, and not to admit them again without putting out their eyes, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith Cinnamus, Hist: l. 1.) so it is possible (I wish it were not justly supposable) for a particular Church so to fence, and limit, to guard, and restrain their communion, to require such severe conditions of all whom they will admit, or tolerate within their Church, that some men cannot without putting out their eyes, or wilful acknowledgement of untruths, others without committing sin against conscience, undergo the conditions thus required, nor consequently be admitted to communion with it. 
Make Communion with them impossible.  As in case any unsound or untrue position be entered into the Confession, or Catechism of any Church, and all the members of that Communion be explicitly required to believe, 
Such are prescribing subscription of errors.  and acknowledge the truth of every branch of that Confession, and so that confession be really the condition, and accordingly in the reputation of men esteemed the tessera, or symbol of that communion, than he that shall enter this communion thus conditionated, must certainly either actually subscribe, or (which, as to the scandal of the action, is equivalent) be reasonably supposed to acknowledge that untruth; and if in some persons blameless ignorance may be supposed sufficient for the excusing, or alleviating that fault, yet 1. he that hath means of discovering that untruth, and criminously neglects to make use of those means, and 2. he that hath discovered the truth, and yet thus professeth himself to believe the contrary, will not be thus excusable; And it is not here sufficient to object the supposable levity of the error, or intellectual falsity, For how light, and inconsiderable (and extrinsical to the foundation) soever the error be supposed to be, yet if there be obstinacy in continuing in it against light and conviction, or if there be falseness in professing, or subscribing, contrary to present persuasions, or scandal and ill example, temptation and snare to others, in seeming to do so; these certainly are sins, and neither light nor inconsiderable, nor reconcileable with that fabric of Christian practice, which ought to be superstructed on that foundation.  
§. 8. 
or Profession against Conscience.  Nay if the errors be really on the other side, if the doctrines so proposed, as the condition of the communion of any Church, be indeed agreeable to truth, but yet be really apprehended by him, to whom they are thus proposed, to be false, and disagreeable, it will even in that case be hard to affirm that that man may lawfully thus subscribe, contrary to his present persuasions; For though it be certain, that he that thus errs, be obliged to use all probable means to reform, and deposit his error, and, as long as he remains in it, is so fare guilty of sin, as he wants the excuse of invincible ignorance, and being obliged to charity and peace, as fare as it is possible, and in him lies, he cannot be freed from offending against that obligation, if he do not communicate with those, the condition of whose communion contains nothing really erroneous, or sinful; and so though such a man, on that side, be, or may be in several respects criminous, yet it is as evident on the other side, that he that professes to believe, what he really doth not believe, that subscribes with his hand, what he rejects in his heart, or that doth that which is under the scandal of doing so, is fare from being guiltless, he certainly offends against the precept of sincerity and veracity (yea and of charity to his brethren, in respect of the scandal) hath added hypocrisy to his error, and so which way soever he turns, he is sure to sin (the worst and most unhappy kind of strait) he remains in error, and schism on the one side, and by flying from that, he advances to lying and hypocrisy on the other, and the desire of avoiding one of these, cannot justify the other.  
§. 9 This I say, in case the error be really on the man's, not on the Church's side; But if (as in the case proposed) the errors be supposed to be wholly on the Church's side, and withal indispensably required to be subscribed by all, and so the conditions of that communion being exacted of him, who cannot without sin undertake them, be to him really, and unexcusably unlawful, then certainly to that man in that case it is no crime not to communicate (when he is thus excluded from communicating) with that Church, but a crime, and a great one, thus (by testifying against the truth and his own conscience) to qualify himself for that communion. The admission of such guilts as these, hypocrisy, and lying against conscience, and due grounds of conviction, is too high a price to be paid even for peace, or communion itself.  
§. 10. A meek son of the Church of Christ will certainly be content to sacrifice a great deal for the making of this purchase, and when the fundamentals of the Faith, and superstructures of Christian practice are not concerned in the concessions, he will cheerfully express his readiness to submit, or deposit his own judgement in reverence and deference to his superiors in the Church where his lot is fallen. But when this proves unsufficient, when peace with the brethren on earth will not be had at a cheaper rate than this of a voluntary offending against our father which is in heaven; in this case, the Christian must be content to live without it, and though he would rejoice to sell all that he hath to purchase that jewel, yet his conscience, the health and peace of that (which is interrupted by every wilful sin) is a commodity, that must not be parted with, whatsoever the acquisition be, which is in his view and thus offers itself in exchange for it.  
§. 11. 
Application to the Church of Rome; in relation to the present Church of England.  The evidence of which is, I conceive, so demonstrative and irresistible, that it will be justly extended much farther than the present case of the Church of England gives me any temptation to extend it; For in case our Ancestors had unjustly and criminously made a separation from the Church of Rome (which it shall anon appear that they have not) and we their successors in that schism should unfeignedly confess, and repent, and desire to reform that sin, and uprightly discharge our conscience in neglecting no means, that patience, humility, charity could suggest to us, in order to obtaining our reconciliation, yet if that cannot be obtained by all these submissions, without that harder condition of renouncing, or professing, or seeming (in common reputation of men) to renounce any part of Divine truth, or Christian practice, which we verily believe to be the truth, and our duty, it would not be our guilt, but only our unhappiness, that we were thus forced to continue in that separation. The reason is evident from the former grounds, we must not sin, that we may give glory to God (such is confession, & fruits of repentance, Jos. 7.19.) a penitent thief must not lie, to enable himself to make restitution, nor the contrite schismatic commit any new sin (such certainly is hypocrisy, lying, professing contrary to present persuasion) to complete his repentance for the old.  
§. 12. If this last be conceived (as it is not the present case of the Church of England, so) to be an impossible, unsupposeable case, not only upon the Romanists grounds, who I presume will not acknowledge any such hard condition (as is the profession of an untruth) to be required to any man's reconciliation, and readmission to their communion, but upon this other score, because if any false profession be now required to our readmission, the same was formerly required to our continuance in their communion, and consequently our Ancestors departure than could not be supposed (as in this last fiction of case it is) a schismatical departure. I shall not need to give any more distinct answer to this, than 1. That we that acknowledge not the Church of Rome to be infallible, may be allowed to make a supposition, which is founded in the possibility of her inserting some error in her Confessions, and making the explicit acknowledgement of that the peremptory indispensable condition of her communion; 2. That it is possible also (though not by us pretended) that she should since that supposed departure of our Ancestors, introduce some new doctrines, and consequently some new errors, and those now be supposeable to lie in the way to our return, though they had no part (before their birth) in driving us from them; 3. That that may be by the Church of Rome permitted, and allowed to those that have always remained in their communion, which to them that have departed, and either in their persons, or posterity, desire to return to it, will not be permitted by them; It being more ordinary to indulge liberties to sons, that have always continued in the family, then to grant them to offenders, and suppliants, that expect favours, and graces, and restauration to privileges; 4. That those which have had their education out of the Communion of the Church of Rome, may very possibly & probably come to discern that, which in that communion would never have been (for want of representation) discerned by them, and consequently may observe some errors in her doctrine or practice, which their Ancestors at their very departure from them had not discerned, and then though those errors subscribed to by them, had the Lenitive, or Antidote of blameless ignorance, yet because those that now really discern that truth, which the Ancestors discerned not, cannot lawfully profess not to discern it, or profess against conscience to believe what they do not believe, it is therefore necessarily consequent, that the return of such to the peace of the Roman Church may by this means be rendered impossible though their Ancestors continuance there, lying under no such prejudice, their separation were acknowledged unlawful.   

CHAP. III. The several sorts of Schism.  
§. 1. THus much hath been necessarily premised for the true notion of Schism, taken from the origination of the word, as that includes, in the neuter sense, a recession, or departure, in the reciprocal, a separating, or dividing himself.  
§. 2. It is now time to proceed and inquire how many sorts there are of this schism in the Ecclesiastical sense, or by how many ways the guilt of this sin of the flesh may be contracted.  
§. 3. In which inquiry it will be first necessary to consider, wherein Ecclesiastical unity consists, viz: 
Unity Ecclesiastical wherein it consists.  in the preserving all those relations, wherein each member of the whole Church of Christ is concerned one towards another: These relations are either of subordination (paternal on one side, and filial on the other,) or of equality (fraternal. 
Unity of Members subordinate. ) The unity of those members that are subordinate one to the other, consists in the constant due subjection, and obedience of all inferiors to all their lawful superiors, and in due exercise of authority in the superiors toward all committed to their charge: 
Of fellow brethren.  And the unity of the fellow brethren in the performance of all mutual duties of justice and charity toward one another.  
§. 4. 
The former.  Of the former sort is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, obedience to the Rulers of the Church, Heb. 13.17. and back again the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, due feeding, i. e. governing the flock of God among them, 1 Pet. 5.2. And because there be (under the King or Emperor, or supreme power, to whom all are subject in any his dominions) many possible links in that subordination, Patriarches, Metropolitans, Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons, and the brethren, or congregation, the unity must be made up of the due subordination, and Christian i. e. charitative exercise of power in all these.  
§. 5. 
The later.  Of the later sort there are as many branches, as there are varieties of equalities. The brethren or believers in every congregation, i. e. all beside the Governors of the Church (however unequal in other respects) are in this respect equalised, and comprehended all under the one title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the younger, 1 Pet. 5.5. And this whether we respect all other fellow-members of the same, or whether of any other congregation, whether Parish, or City, or Diocese, or Province, or Nation, of the West, of the East, of the whole Christian world, as fare as each member is qualified to exercise any fraternal duty toward them. So again the several Deacons, or Presbyters of any Diocese, the several Bishops of any Province, the several Metropolitans of any Nation, the several Primates or Patriarches one with another (as the several Apostles) over the whole world, are each of them to be looked on as equals to all others of the same sort; And proportionably (and together with the Pastors) the flocks, the several communities, or congregations of Christian men considered in complexo, the Parishes, Dioceses, Provinces, Nations, Climes of the whole Christian world. And according to these so many equalities, there are, or aught to be so many sorts of unities, so many Relations of that mutual fraternal charity, which Christ came to plant in his Church.  
§. 6. 
Communion.  Having seen what the unity is (to which Communion superadds no more but the relation of external association, whether by assembling for the worship of God in the same place, where the matter is capable of it, or whether by letters communicatory, by which we may maintain external Communion with those which are most distant from us) It will be easy to discern what Schism is, viz: the breach of that Unity (and Communion) and what be the sorts or species of it▪ either those that offend against the subordination which Christ hath by himself, and his Apostles settled in his Church, or those that offend against the mutual charity, which he left among his disciples.  
§. 7. 
The branches of Schism as it is an offence against Subordination.  For the first of these, those that offend against the due subordination, they are possibly of as many sorts as there be distinct links in the subordination. As first those brethren or people, which reject the ministry of the Deacons, or Presbyters in any thing wherein they are ordained, and appointed by the Bishop, (and as long as they continue in obedience to him) and of their own accord break off, and separate from them, 
Schism against the Deacons or Presbyters.  refuse to live regularly under them, they are by the Ancient Church of Christ adjudged and looked on as Schismatics; So Ignatius the holy Bishop, (and Apostolical person) and Martyr of Antioch, in Ep: ad Trall: admonishing them to beware of the poison of seducers, i. e. the Schismatics of those times, he directs them this one way to do it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, This ye shall do, saith he, if ye be not puffed up, and if ye be not separated from God, from Christ, from the Bishop— He that continues within the sept is pure, He that doth aught without the Bishop and Presbytery and Deacon, is not of a pure conscience, accounting all that live out of this obedience to be so far infected and defiled with schism. So again in the former part of the same Epistle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let all revere the Deacons as the ministers of Jesus Christ, and in like manner the Bishop as Jesus Christ the son of the Father, the Presbyters as the Senate of God and College of Apostles, without these it is not called a Church. Where every particular Church being administered by these, no man is farther deemed a member of the Church, than he lives regularly within this obedience: And the same is the importance of his exhortation to the Philippians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Observe the Bishop, and the Presbyters, and the Deacons, intimating this to be the only way of preserving unity against schism, as appears by that which had gone before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, There is one altar (or sept) as there is one Bishop together with his Presbyters and Deacons, and the living in union with, obedience to these, is the only way to do, whatsoever ye do, according to the will of God. Where this subordination being looked on, as that which is placed in the Church by God, it is both schism and impiety not to continue regularly under it; And so in the inscription of that Epistle, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He salutes them in the blood of Christ, especially if they be at one with their Bishop, and the Presbyters with him, as also the Deacons designed by the appointment of Jesus Christ, looking upon all as Schismatics, that were not so. Thus again in his Epistle to the Ephesians, he admonisheth them to obey the Bishop, and Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with an undivided mind, making the disobedience an act of schism or division in any; And so generally throughout all those Epistles.  
§. 8. 
Against the Bishop.  In like manner; if we ascend to the next higher link, that of the Bishop, to whom both Presbyters and Deacons, as well as the brethren, or people, are obliged to live in obedience, the withdrawing or denying this obedience in any of these will certainly fall under this guilt. So the same holy Ignatius in Ep: ad Smyr: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Let no man without the Bishop do any of those things which belong to the Church. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he that doth any thing without the privity of the Bishop, serves the Devil; the title by which those foul Gnostick heretics and schismatics (the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the troublers and dividers of the Church) were signified. So in the process of that Epistle, having mentioned obedience to their Bishop, as a necessary requisite to their sanctification, supposing the contrary to be an act of pollution, i. e. of the poison of the schismatics, and again admonishing them as of their duty (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to concur with the sentence of their Bishop, he adds, that he that doth not so (expressed by not being within the altar or sept) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, falls short of the bread of God, is an excommunicate person, being rendered such by this act of division from the Bishop. So in the Epistle to the Magnesians, speaking of those that act without the Bishop (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these seem not to him to be men of a good conscience (the phrase by which he oft expresses Schismatics, whose mind and conscience was defiled by the poison of the Gnostics at that time) because they assembled not according to that order and establishment which was settled in the Church. And again, as Christ did nothing without his Father (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) being united to him, or all one with his Father, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— so neither must ye do any thing without the Bishop, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but assemble together and have but one prayer common to you all, where the living out of this regular obedience to the Bishop, is the contrary to union and communion, and so is formally schism. And to the Philadelphians, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as many as are God's and Christ's, are with the Bishop, excluding them from the unity of Christ's body who are thus separated from the Bishop; And in the same Epistle speaking of the repentance of schismatics, and heretics, and God's pardon offered to such, the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  condition of that pardon, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the sincerity of that repentance, is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if they return to the unity of God and senate of the Bishop. So frequently in S. Cyprian, the schism especially of the five Presbyters of Faelicissimus his faction, Ep: 40. appears to consist in their disobedience to, and breaking off from their 
† Contra Episcopatum meum etc. Ep. 40. Hi tribuebant, ne concordarent cum Episcopo suo- Ibid. contra sacerdotium Dei partionem ruptae fraternitatis armare voluisse.  proper Bishop, and causing others to do so; and De Vnit: Eccl: the Schismatic is described to be filius impius qui contemptis Episcopis & Dei sacerdotibus derelictis constituere audet aliud altar, an impious son, which having contemned the Bishops, and (which is all one) forsaken the Priests of God, dares constitute another altar; and Ep: 76. qui schisma faciunt & relicto Episcopo alium sibi foris Pseudo-episcopum constituunt, the schismatics are they that having left their Bishop set up for themselves abroad another false Bishop, and all their adherents are involved in the same guilt, qui se schismaticis contra Praepositos & sacerdotes irreligiosâ temeritate miscuerunt, who join with the schismatics against their Bishops, and Ep: 65. Hi sunt conatus schismaticorum— ut sibi placeant, ut Praepositum superbo tumore contemnant, These are the endeavours of schismatics, that they may please themselves, and proudly contemn their Bishop, and Ep: 69. Vnum scire debes— si quis cum Episcopo non sit, in Ecclesiâ non esse, One thing you are to know that he that is not with the Bishop, is not in the Church, the Church being there by him defined plebs sacerdoti adunata & Pastori suo grex adhaerens, the people united to the Bishop, and the flock to their Pastor.  
§. 9 
This of a lighter & a grosser sort.  And as this disobedience may be of two sorts, either of a lower, or of a higher kind, the denying obedience in any particular lawful command of the superior, or the casting off all obedience together, dethroning them, or setting up ourselves either in their steads, or in opposition to them (the first parallel to the contumacy of the Levites, the sons of Eliab, Num. 16.12, 14. which said, We will not come up, the second to their rebellion, levelling and equalling themselves to Moses and Aaron v. 3. ● and both together subjecting them first to that curse, of Gods, not accepting their sacrifice, v. 15. and then to that sudden exemplary destruction, v. 31.) so will the Schism be also a lighter, and a grosser separation, a defection from the Bishop, and a rebellion against him, the former ordinarily called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Schism, the latter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sedition, the latter adding very much to the guilt of the former, and uncapable of the alleviating excuses of ignorance or mistake (in thinking the commands unlawful, and consequently the obedience) which may be pretended in the former.  
§. 10. 
Against the Metropolitan.  From this of Bishops we may further ascend to the higher dignity, and authority of metropolitans, over Bishops themselves, which what it is, will be fit to be examined a while.  
§. 11. 

The original of Metropolitans.  
In Titus.   And the first rise may be taken from Scripture itself, where the Commission which is given to Titus by S. Paul, to ordain Elders, Tit. 1.5. (that is Bishops v. 7.) in every city of Crete, demonstrates him to have had Metropolitical authority bestowed on him; so saith S. chrysostom (on Tit. 1. Hom. 1.) of Titus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. If he had not been an approved person, in whom the Apostle had perfect confidence, he would never have committed a whole Island to him, never have appointed him to perfect what he had left imperfect, never have entrusted to him the jurisdiction over so many Bishops: And Theodoret in Arg. Ep. ad Tit. That Titus was ordained by S. Paul, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to ordain Bishops under him for the governing of that whole Province, being a very great one; and 
Eccl. Hist. l. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That Titus had the inspection of all the Churches in Crete, of which that there was an hundred in number, and Gortyna the Metropolis of them all, appears by Dionysius bishop of Corinth about the year of Christ 175. who inscribes an Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Church about Gortyna, together with the rest of the Dioceses in Crete, of all which he mentions and commends Philip their Bishop, i. e. the Metropolitan, under whom they all were, as appears by Eusebius l. 4. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
§. 12. 
In Timothy.  What hath been thus said of Titus, is with the same evidence of the Text affirmable of Timothy, when being placed by S. Paul at Ephesus the chief Metropolis of Asia; he had by that means the inspection of all the Bishops there, and consequently is directed both for the ordaining (1 Tim. 3.2.) and exercising jurisdiction over them c. 5.1.19. and so saith S. chrysostom, 
Hom. 15. in 1. Tim. 5.15.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 'tis manifest that Timothy was entrusted with more Churches than one, even with a whole nation, that of Asia, and therefore S. Paul discourses to him of Elders or Bishops, 
Photii lib. num. 254.  So the Anonymus writer of the Martyrdom of Timothy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Apostle Timothy is ordained by S. Paul, and enthroned Bishop of the Metropolis of Ephesus, and accordingly is by Theodoret styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Apostle, i. e. chief ruler or Bishop of the asiatics; 
Eccl. hist. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  and by Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishop of the Province about Ephesus.  
§. 13. 
In James, etc.  The same might be showed of James Bishop of Jerusalem, who by that means was evidently Metropolitan of all the cities of all Judea, And even of Syria and Cilicia also, if we may argue concludently from the sending of that Canon to those regions, Act. 15.23. It is likewise the affirmation of Agrippa (in Philo) of Jerusalem, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it was the Metropolis, not only of one region Judea, but of many more, because of the Colonies it had sent out, naming 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Syria and Cilicia among others. And thereto agrees again (as far as Syria) what we find in the letters of Commission, which Saul had received from the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem▪ to the Synagogues of Damascus, a city of Syria, as being supposed under that Metropolis of Judea, Act. 9.1, 2. And accordingly after the destruction of Jerusalem, Tiberias had this privilege, as appears both by the Imperial Code, tit. de Jud. & Caelic. and by Epiphanius, in the heresy of the Ebionites, who refers all Syria and Cilicia to that Metropolis, in the same manner as the Synagogues in Assyria and Media to the Sanhedrim in Bagdat, and in all Egypt to that in Alexandria; But all this doth rather belong to the Jewish Form among themselves and the Jurisdiction of that Great Sanhedrim over their colonies thus far diffused, and is not so appliable to the Christian Church at Jerusalem, it being affirmed by Joseph. de bell. Jud. l. 3. c. ●. that Antioch was Metropolis of all Syria, but this by the way.  
§. 14. Thus Philippi appears to have been the Metropolis of one part of Macedonia (as Thessalonica another) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the prime city of a portion, or division, or province of Macedonia, 
Epist. 247.  Act. 16.12. and is accordingly so styled by Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the city of Philippi being a Metropolis of a Province of the Macedonians, and so Epaphroditus their Bishop in S. Paul's time (as 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Theod. in 1. Tim. 3.1.  Theodoret and others resolve from his being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, their Apostle, Phil. 2.25.) had under him many Bishops, who are accordingly named in the plural Phil. 1.1. and all these subordinate to him as their Metropolitan.  
§. 15. So of the seven churches of Asia, Rev. 2. and 3. it appears (what hath been elsewhere proved) that they were all Metropoles; Of Ephesus it hath been already clear, and S. chrysostom is express, 
In Arg. Ep. ad Eph.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ephesus is a Metropolis of Asia, and Theod. in Ep. ad Dioscor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in Photius, the Ancient writer of the Martyrdom of Timothy (bib. num. 254.) saith of S. John▪ that being returned from his banishment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he resided at the Metropolis of the Ephesians. And in Ulpian, 
L. Obser. D. de Offic. procons.  the Proconsul under Antoninus being to go to Asia, was to touch upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ephesus one and the chief of the Metropoles of Asia: and accordingly Act. 19.38. it is said of that city, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Proconsul's were there, and the Assizes, as in the chief city of that Province, 
Eccl. hist.. l. 4. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and in Eusebius, Antoninus Pius his Epistle concerning the Christians is said to have been read and proclaimed at Ephesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the common council or consessus of Asia, 
Or. ad Afiat.  and in Aristides it is styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the common Magazine of Asia, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whither they applied themselves for all their wants. All which are evidences that it was a Metropolis (and the chief) of Asia.  
§. 16. 
Geogr. l. 5. c. 2. Act. 5.  So of Thyatira, saith Ptolomee, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that it was a Metropolis. Of Philadelphia the Council of Constantinople Sub Menâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop of the Metropolis of the Philadelphians of the Province of the Lydians, i e. in this Lydian or Proconsular Asia. So Laodicea, Sardis, and Smyrna (together with Ephesus) are set down by Pliny as cities in which the Roman Proconsul's kept their Assizes, 
Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 29.  and dispensed justice to all the neighbouring cities, which is the character of a Metropolis in the civil notion, 
Ibid. c. 30.  and the same he also affirms elsewhere of Pergamus: And thus the whole number of the seven Churches appear each of them, to have been Metropoles, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steph. Byzant. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  and accordingly by Ignatius his Epistles to the Trallians and Magnesians, (the Christians of two neighbour cities of Lydia on the Banks of Meander, and so of this Asia) and by the mention of their Bishops Damas' and Polybius, it is evident that there were other Episcopal Sees in that Asia, beside those seven named in the Revelation, and those afterward appear to have been subject to the Metropolis of Ephesus, which alone of all the seven continued till Constantin's time, the rest being destroyed.  
§. 17. From these manifest footsteps of Metropolitical power in Scripture, it is easy to descend through the first times, and find the like; 
In Ignatius.  As when Ignatius the Archbishop of Antioch (the Primitive Martyr) in his Epistle to the Romans styleth himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Pastor of the Church which was in Syria, that whole region belonging then to that Metropolis of Antioch: Agreeable to which is that of the author of the Epistle to the Antiocheni (whosoever it was) inscribing it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the Church of God in Syria, that belongs as a Province to that of Antioch: 
In the Bishop of Rome. (what his Province.)  So the Epistle to the Romans is inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church which hath the presidency in the place of the Region or Province of the Romans, which gives the Bishop of Rome a Metropolitical power over all other the Bishops of that Province, the Vrbicarian region, as it was styled, and 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Syn. Sardic. Epist. ad Alex. ap. Athan. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Athan. Epist. ad solit. vit. agent. Ex Provinciâ Italiae, civ. Med ex Prov. Romanâ, Civitate Portuensi. Syn. Arelat. 1. in nominibus Synodo praefixis.  distinguished from the Province of Italy properly so called, confined to the seven Provinces of the civil jurisdiction of the Vicarius Italiae, and the Ecclesiastical of the Archbishop of Milan the chief Metropolis thereof. Of the circuit or compass of this Province of the Bishop of Rome, many learned men have discoursed excellently out of the Ancient Surveys of the Provinces, particularly that very learned Frenchman so rarely skilled, and judicious in Antiquity, Jacobus Leschaserius, in his little tract de Region. Suburbic▪ but none with more evidence of conviction, than our Modest countryman Mr Brerewood, who thus describes the ancient jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, that it contained all those Provinces of the Diocese of Italy, which the old Lawyer's term Suburbicarias, of which there were ten, three Islands, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, and the other seven in the firm land of Italy, taking up in a manner all the narrow part of it, viz. all Italy Eastward, but on the West no farther extended then to the River Magra (the limit of Tuscanie) toward the Tyrrhene sea, and to the River Esino (anciently Asius) toward the Adriatic Sea. For at that River Esino met both the Picenum, Suburbicarium, and Annonarium, the former of which belonged to the Prefecture of Rome, of which that city was the Metropolis, And the later, with all the other Provinces in the broader part of Italy (seven of them in all) to the Diocese of Italy, of which Milan was the Metropolis. 
Hist. Eccl. l. 1· c. 6.  Thus Ruffinus in his Paraphrase rather than translation of the Nicene Canon saith, that the Bishop of Rome was thereby authorized Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum Sollicitudinem gerere, to take and manage the care of the suburbicarian Churches; and there is no reason to doubt but that he that lived so near after that Council, and was of Italy, knew competently what he affirmed of that matter. And it being evident that in all other places the Ecclesiastical jurisdictions were proportioned to the temporal of the Lieutenants, and that the Suburbicarian region, and the so many and no more provinces in them, pertained to the Praefecture of the city of Rome, It must follow that these were the limits of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of that Bishop also. But this by the way, in passing.  
§. 18. 
In Alexandria. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  So when of S. Mark it is affirmed out of the ancient records by Eusebius, that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, first constituted Churches (in the plural) in Alexandria, and under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Province of Alexandria, put them all into the hands of Anianus in the 8th of Nero, 
Ibid. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  it is evident that Alexandria was a Metropolitical, or Patriarchal See to which all Egypt did belong.  
§. 19 
In S. Cyprian.  So S. Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage, to which the whole Province of afric pertained, is by the Council of Constantinople in Trullo, Can. 2. called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Archbishop of the Region of afric, And accordingly he often mentions the many Bishops in his Province, Vniversis vel in nostrâ Provinciâ— to all the Bishops in our Province— Ep. 40. And Latiùs fusa est nostra Provincia, habet etiam Numidiam & Mauritanias duas sibi cohaerentes. Our Province is extended farther, hath Numidia and the two Mauritania's annexed to it, Ep. 45. in each of which there being a Church and consequently a Bishop in every city (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 14.23. is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every city Act. 16.4.) they were all subject to this Metropolitan.  
§. 20. 
The subjection of Bishops to Archbishops.  By all this, and much more which might be added, it is manifest, that as the several Bishops had Praefecture over their several Churches, and the Presbyters▪ Deacons, and people under them, such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schism, So the Bishops themselves of the ordinary, inferior cities (for the preserving of unity, and many other good uses) were subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or metropolitans.  
§. 21. 
Of Archbishops to Primates, etc.  Nay we must yet ascend one degree higher from this of Arch-Bishops or metropolitans, to that supreme of Primates or Patriarches, the division of which is thus cleared in the division and Notitia of the Roman Empire. 
(Original of Primates.)  Constantine the Great instituted four Praefecti Praetorio, two in the East, as many in the West; Of the Western, one at Rome, another at Triers, this last then called Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum. These Praefects had their several Vicarii, who in their power, and name judged the Provinces, As for example, The Praefectus Praetorio placed at Triers had three Vicarii, or Lieutenants, one placed at Triers, a second at Lions, a third at Vienna, from the greatness of whose authority, and the resort of all other cities and Provinces to them for justice sprang the splendour, and dignity of those cities where they resided, and the dependence of large Provinces and many other cities on each of them. This whole circuit which was thus subject to, or dependent on any such Lieutenant, was by the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the style devolving from the civil to the Ecclesiastical divisions, as the former both of cities, and of Territories, and of Metropoles or Mother cities (the chief in every Province) had done the Bishop being answerable to the Defensor civitatis, and the Archbishop to the President in every Province, from thence it came that every such Metropolis which was the seat of any Vicarius or Lieutenant General, was (over and above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the Bishop thereof Primas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Patriarcha, a Primate, Exarch, or Patriarch, and all that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which is larger than a Province, the joint administration of many Provinces, with the several Metropoles, and Metroplitanes contained in it) was subjected to him. 
Eccl. Hist. l. 5. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Thus S. Irenaeus being Bishop of Lions, is by Eusebius affirmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to have the over sight or Government of the Provinces of France, either those only that were under that Primate, or perhaps of all France, 
Ibid. c. d.  of which Lions was then in the Ecclesiastical account the first Exarchate; for so saith the same Eusebius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lions, and Vienna (but first Lions) were famously known to be beyond all others in those parts, the principal Metropoles of France. And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, these were the most splendid illustrious Churches there. To which first times I conceive belongs that verse of Guilielmus Brito in Philippeide. Et Lugdunensis, quo Gallia tota solebat, Vt fama est, Primate regi— placing all France under the Primate of Lions, or affirming it from tradition (ut fama est) that it was wont anciently to be so placed, which was not well understood or taken notice of by the learned Jos. Scaliger, 
In Notit. Galliae p. 8●2.  when he affirms it nuperum & novitium, & ex beneficio Romani Pontificis indultum, a privilege lately granted to the Bishop of Lions by the Pope, quod Primatem sese vocari gaudeat, that he calls himself Primate, which privilege, if not title, did so long since belong to Irenaeus the Bishop of that Diocese.  
§. 22. I shall not need enlarge on this subject, or set down the several Primates and Dioceses belonging to them. It is known in the ancient notitiae of the Church, that beside the three Patriarches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (to which title afterward Constantinople, and Jerusalem were advanced) there were eleven Primates more, there being fourteen Dioceses, or joint administrations of many Provinces (for so the word anciently signified, not in the modern sense of it, one city and the territory, 
The Primates power equal to that of the Patriarch.  the jurisdiction of an ordinary Bishop, for which they then used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) seven in the East, and the Praefecture of the city of Rome, and six more in the West, into which the whole Empire was divided. And though the Patriarches had in Counsels the praecedence, or deference in respect of place, either because these three cities had the honour to disperse Christianity in a most eminent manner to other cities, and nations, or from the great dignity of the cities themselves, (
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Concil. Chalced. Can penult.  Rome being the seat and first city of the Empire, and thereupon thus dignified saith the Council of Chalcedon: and Alexandria by 
† Or. 32. ad Alexandrin. see Aristid. Or. de Rom. Laud.  Dio chrysostom, and others affirmed to be the second, and Antioch the third, saith Josephus) yet it is certain that the power and jurisdiction of Primates, was as great as of Patriarches, and the Office the same (see Anacle●us Epist. ad Episc. Ital. and Gratian Dist. 99) and many times in Authors the very titles confounded, as appears by Justinian, who commonly gives Primates the names of Patriarches of the Dioceses. And if it be now demanded whether there were not anciently some Summum Genus, some one Supreme either of, or over these Patriarches, I answer, that if we respect order, or priority of place again, than the Bishop of Rome had it among the Patriarches, as the Patriarches among the Primates, that city of Rome being Lady of the World, and the seat of the Empire; But if we respect power, 
And no power but of the Prince above them.  or authority, there was none anciently in the Church over that of Primates, and Patriarches, but only that of the Emperor in the whole Christian World (as of every Sovereign Prince in his Dominions) as may appear by the ancient power, and practice of congregating, or convoking of Counsels, Provincial by the Metropolitan, Patriarchal by the Patriarch, or Primate, National by the Prince, for the first 1000 years, through the whole West, and General by the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Socrat. l. 5. Prooem. Ex Superioribus habetur Imperatores Sanctos congregationes Synodales Universalium Conciliorum totius Ecclesiae semper ●●cisse. Ita ego perlustrans gesta omnium Universalium usque ad octavum inclusiuè Basiliitempore celebratum verum esse r●peri. Cusan. de concord. Cathol l. 3. c. 16. and c. 13. See S. Hierom in Apol. ad Ruffin. l. 2. where speaking of a pretended Synod, he adds, Quis Imperator hanc Synodum jusserit congregari?  Emperor, when for the conserving the unity, or taking care for the necessities of the Church, those last remedies appeared seasonable. But this of General Counsels being extraordinary, and such as the Church was without them for the first three hundred years, and are now morally impossible to be had, we need not farther to ascend to these, but content ourselves with those standing powers in the Church, the uppermost of which are Archbishops, Primates, and Patriarches, to whom the Bishops themselves are in many things appointed to be subject, and this power, and subjection, defined, and asserted, by the Ancient Canons, 
The Primitive Power of Primates etc.  and the most ancient, even immemorial Apostolical tradition, and Custom, avouched for it, as may appear Concil. Nicen. 1. Can. 4.6. Concil. Antioch. c. 9.20. Concil. Chalced. C. 19 In the sixth Nicene Canon, where the jurisdiction of all Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis is affirmed to belong to the Patriarch of Alexandria, and order is taken that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or privileges of eminency which belong to the Bishop of Rome, of Antioch, and metropolitans of all other Provinces, shall be conserved entire to them, the Introduction is made in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Ancient customs be in force, The very form which S. Ignatius useth concerning Apostolical customs which were to be solicitously retained in the Church, and seems there particularly to refer to those orders, which S. Mark had left in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, subjecting all the Bishops there to the Patriarch by him constituted in Alexandria.  
§. 23. So in the 9th Canon of the Council of Antioch, where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Bishop presiding in the Metropolis, is appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to undertake the care of the whole Province▪ (and all the inferior cities, and Bishops in them) and the Bishops commanded 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is strait added 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the ancient Canon of the Fathers, which hath continued in force (from the first times also unto that Council) Where if it be demanded what is the importance of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I conceive the word to be best explained by Hesychius, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (it should doubtless be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and so the meaning of the Canon to be, agreeably to the express words of other Canons, that as any ordinary Bishop hath full power in his own Church, which he may in all things, wherein that alone is concerned, exercise independently from the commands or directions of any, So in any thing of a more foreign nature, wherein any other Church is concerned equally with that, and so falls not under the sole cognizance or judgement of either, there the Bishop of that Church is to do nothing without directions from the Metropolitan, and that is the meaning of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as that is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— that not Bishop must do any thing but what belongs particularly to him ratione officii (any thing that another is concerned in, as well as he) without the Metropolitan.  
§. 24. 
Act. 15 Can. 9  So in the Council of Chalcedon the direction is given for appeals in this order, from the Bishop to the Metropolitan, from the Metropolitan to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Primate of the Diocese or Province, as where there are more metropolitans then one (as was showed of Ephesus in Asia, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ulp. Obser. D. de Offic. Procons.  and elsewhere frequently) there some one is Primate or Patriarch among them, and to him lies the appeal in the last resort, and from him to no other, see Justinian Novel. 123. c. 22. and Cod. l. 1. tit. 4. leg. 29. who speaking of this calls it an ancient decree.  
§. 25. That which we find in the eighth Canon of the Great Council of Ephesus, shall conclude this matter, when upon some claim of the Patriarch of Antioch for an interest in the ordaining of the Patriarch of Cyprus, the Bishops of Cyprus deny his claim, and deduce their privilege of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or independence from any foreign Bishop, from the very Apostles times, A sanctis Apostolis, say they, nunquam possunt ostendere, quòd adfuerit Antiochenus & ordinaverit, vel communicaverit unquam insulae ordinationis gratiam, neque alius quisquam, From the very Apostles times they can never show that the Patriarch of Antioch or any other was present and ordained, or (being absent) sent the grace of ordination to this Island, but that the Bishops of Constantia, the Metropolis of that Island, by name Troilus, Sabinus, and Epiphanius, and all the orthodox Bishops from the Apostles times, ab his qui in Cypro constituti sunt, have been constituted and ordained by their own Bishops of the Island, and accordingly they required that they might continue in the same manner, Sicut initio à temporibus Apostolorum— permansit Cypriorum Synodus, as they had done from the times of the very Apostles, still appealing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the ancient manner, the ancient custom, the privileges, which from their first plantation they had enjoyed, and that from the Apostles themselves: And accordingly that Council condemned the pretention of the Patriarch of Antioch, as that which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, an innovation against the Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons of the holy Fathers, and orders not only in behalf of the Cypriots that the Bishops of their Church's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— shall continue to enjoy their right inviolate according to the ancient custom, but extended their sentence to all other Dioceses in these words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The same shall be observed in all other Dioceses and Provinces wheresoever, that no Bishop shall lay hold of another Province, which hath not been formerly and from the beginning under their or their Ancestors power. And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This holy and Ecumenical Synod hath decreed, that the privileges and rights of every Province shall be conserved pure and inviolate, as they have enjoyed them from the beginning, according to the custom that hath anciently been in force. All deducing this power of Primates over their own Bishops (and together excluding all foreign pretenders) from the Apostles and first planters of the Churches, and requiring all to remain, as they were first thus constituted. Wherein as there be many things of useful observation, which will be more fitly appliable in the progress of this discourse, so that which is alone pertinent to this place is only this, that there may be a disobedience, and irregularity, and so a Schism, even in the Bishops in respect of their metropolitans, and of the authority which they have by Canon and Primitive custom over them, which was therefore to be added to the several Species of Schism set down in the former chapters.   

CHAP. IU. The pretended evidences of the Romanist against the Church of England examined, and first that from the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy by Christ's donation to S. Peter.  
§. 1. THE Scene being thus prepared, and the nature and sorts of Schism defined and summarily enumerated, our method now leads us to inquire impartially, what evidences are producible against the Church of England, whereby it may be thought liable to this guilt of Schism, And these pretended evidences may be of several sorts, according to the several Species of this sort of Schism described, and acknowledged by us.  
§. 2. 
The first charge against us, Our casting out the Pope's Supremacy.  The first evidence that is offered against us is taken from a presumed Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, as Successor to S. Peter, over all Churches in the world, which being in the days of Henry VIII. renounced, and disclaimed, first by both Universities, and most of the greatest and famous Monasteries of this kingdom (in their negative answer and determination of this question, An aliquid Authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuiquam Episcopo extero? Whether the Pope of Rome have of right any authority in the Realm of England, more than any other foreign Bishop hath) and that determination of theirs testified under their hands and scales, and after by Act of Convocation subscribed by the Bishops and Clergy, and confirmed by their corporal oaths, and at last the like imposed by Act of Parliament, 35 Hen. VIII. c. 1. all this is looked on, and condemned, as an Act of Schism in this Church and Nation, in renouncing that power of S. Peter's Successors placed over all Christians by Christ.  
§. 3. This objection against us consisting of many branches, every of which must be manifested or granted to have truth in it, or else the objection will be of no force, 1. the matter of fact, that thus it was in England; 2. the consequence of that fact, that it were Schism, supposing these Successors of S. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ. 3. the matter of fact again, that S. Peter's Successors were thus constituted Universal Pastors by Christ; This again of two branches, 1. that S. Peter was so constituted, 2. that the power instated on S. Peter devolved on the Bishops of Rome; I shall endeavour to expedite this matter by granting, and not requiring the pretenders farther to prove the two first branches, and leave the issue of the debate to their manifesting the truth, or our manifesting the falsehood of (the last mentioned, but indeed) the principal fundamental part of the contention, as it consists of two branches, one as it respects S. Peter, the other as it respects his Successor in the See of Rome; wherein if the Romanists pretensions shall appear to have truth in them, we must be acknowledged by breaking off from our submission to that See, to be formally Schismatics according to the grounds already laid, and acknowledged by us; But on the other side, if their pretensions herein shall appear to be false▪ or unsufficiently proved and manifested, there is no other branch of the argument, be it never so true, which can give the conclusion any authority with any pondering rational man, it being in the power of any weak link to destroy the usefulness of the whole chain, and consequent to the falseness, or inevidence of any one proposition, that the conclusion shall not be inferred by that arguing.  
§. 4. 
The Supremacy of S. Peter examined.  And first for the pretention as far as it respects S. Peter, and must be managed by evidences, and so concluded either on one side or the other, I shall begin with offering my evidences for the Negative.  
§. 5 
Evidences against it. First from his being Apostle of the Circumcision peculiarly.  And first it is evident by Scripture, that this Apostle was the Apostle of the circumcision, or Jews exclusively to the uncircumcision, or Gentiles, which were generally another's Province; By Apostle here I understand a Commissioner of Christ's, endued with authority by him, and this Commission given to him, as to all the other Apostles, indefinitely, and unlimitedly, not restrained by Christ's words to any particular Province, but extending equally to the whole world; what therefore is done in this kind is by Subsequent act of the Apostles themselves, who are testified to have done that, which it had been very unskilful, and improvident, and consequently unreasonable not to have done, viz. distributed their Universal great Province inro several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1.25. distributions, or Lots, or lesser Provinces, one or more to go one way, the other another, which is there called by S. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to go to his own, or proper place, or assignation, for the witnessing the Resurrection, and proclaiming the faith or Doctrine of Christ to the world.  
§. 6. Now if the circumcision, or Jewish Christians were peculiarly S. Peter's Province, the lot, or division assigned unto him, (agreeable unto which it is, that both his preaching in the Acts is to the Jews in Judaea and Samaria, and his Epistles are both of them addressed to the Jews of the dispersion, and none else) than it is not imaginable, how he should be the Universal, or Supreme Pastor, or Bishop of the whole world: For the Christians of that age of the world being either Jews or Gentiles, the Jews again either those that remained in their country, or those that were dispersed in other regions, there was but one portion of one of these, which can reasonably be placed under S. Peter's Jurisdiction. The Jews that were in Judaea were all immediately subject to the several Bishops in each city, and all they to their Metropolitan, James the Bishop of Jerusalem; Of this James the brother (or near kinsman) of Christ, many 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theoph. in 1 Cor 15.7. ex Sentententiâ Chrysostomi. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Photius Epist. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So Nicephorus l. 2 c. 38.  of the Ancients affirm, that he was by Christ after his resurrection constituted Bishop there; 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  others that it was done by Christ and his Apostles; 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. ex Clement: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 5▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hegesippus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ap. Euseb. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. vide Athan. in Synops. Epiph. Haer. 78. Nyssen. de Resur. Or. 2. Hieron. in Gal. 1. & in Catal. Euseb. in Chron. p. 43.  others the more ancient, that the Apostles constituted him in that See, Peter, James, and John, the three most honoured by Christ, conferring this honour upon him, whereupon in this his See he is named before Peter and John, Gal. 2.9. and hath the Principal place in the Council at Jerusalem, where S. Peter is present, and accordingly gives the Sentence, Act. 15.19. upon which the Rescript is grounded, v. 22. From all which as it appeareth, that the Jurisdiction in that Metropolis (which had extended very far among the Jews, not only to all Judaea, but even to Syria and Cilicia and other regions, saith Agrippa in 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—.  Philo, as hath formerly been mentioned) belonged to James the Just, and not to S. Peter, So it is as evident, that it was not by S. Peter alone entrusted to him (which might conclude some peculiar transcendent power of S. Peter there) but by S. James and S. John together with S. Peter, which quite takes off all pretention of his to the singular Supremacy there.  
§. 7. 
The Gentiles were not S. Peter's Province.  So again for the uncircumcision or Gentile Christians, they were not S. Peter's Province but peculiarly S. Pawles (by S. Peter's own confession and acknowledgement Gal. 2.7.) who is therefore styled the Apostle of the Gentiles, Rom. 11.13. and that without any commission received, or consequently dependence from S. Peter, as he declares and contests it, Gal. 1.12.17. having his assignation immediately from Christ, v. 16. Accordingly whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same city, the one constantly applied himself to the Jews, received disciples of such, form them into a Church, left them, when he departed that region, to be governed by some Bishop of his assignation: and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles.  
§. 8. Thus we know it was at Antioch, where S. Peter converted the Jews, and S. Paul the Gentiles (and certainly S. Paul no way Subordinate, or dependent on him, as appears by his behaviour toward him avowed, Gal. 2.11.) and accordingly in Ignatius his Epistle to the Magnesians we read of the Church of Antioch, that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 founded by S. Peter and S. Paul, not by one, or other, but by both, and in the ancient, if not Ignatian Epistle to the Antiochians, You, saith he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, have been the disciples of Peter and Paul, i. e. converted and ruled by them, the Jewish part by one, and the Gentile by the other, and the Church of the Gentiles at Antioch, and Syria (of which Antioch was the chief city) and Cilicia, is it, to which peculiarly the decrees of the Council at Jerusalem are sent, Act. 15.23. and inscribed [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, To the brethren at Antioch— those of the Gentiles] and that separately from the Jewish Church in that city or region, as is evident both by the contents of that Rescript, or Decretal Epistle, in which only the Gentiles were concerned, v. 28, 29. and also by that which we read of S. Peter, and the Jewish proselytes, Gal. 2.11. that they withdrew from all communion and Society with the Gentile Christians, upon which S. Paul reproved him publicly v. 12. According to this condition of disparate, not subordinate Churches at Antioch, it is, that the writer of the Apostolical constitutions tells us, that Euodius and Ignatius at the same time sat Bishops of Antioch, one succeeding S. Peter, the other S. Paul, one in the Jewish, the other in the Gentile congregation, and so continued a while, till both the Churches (the wall of Separation being by compliance and Christian Charity removed) joined, and united together under Ignatius, who therefore as by 
a Hom. 4. in Luc.  Origen and 
b l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Eusebius he is called the Second, so by S. Hierome is called the third Bishop of Antioch, and yet as truly by 
c de Syn. Arim. & Seleuc.  Athanasius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 said to be constituted Bishop after the Apostles, and by 
d Ex come. Ignat.  S. chrysostom to the same purpose (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉—) that the blessed Apostles hands were laid upon him, whilst yet Theodoret (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) affirms him to have received the Archisacerdotal honour from the hands of S. Peter.  
§. 9 The same is as evident at Rome where these two great Apostles met again, and each of them erected and managed a Church, S. Peter of Jews, S. Paul of Gentiles. So saith 
e l. 3. c. 3. Euseb. l. 4. c. 6.  S. Irenaeus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— the blessed Apostles founded and built the Church there; and 
f l. 1. adv. Carpocrat.  Epiphanius more expressly, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Peter and Paul were Apostles and Bishops in Rome: So the Inscription on their Tombs, which, saith 
a l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Eusebius, continued to his time, mentions them both as founders of that Church. So Gaius an Ecclesiastic writer of great antiquity, coaetaneous to Pope Zephyrynus, speaking of the monuments of S. Peter and S. Paul, calls them 
b Euseb. Ibid.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the monuments of them that founded that Church.  
§. 10. So Dionysius the Bishop of Corinth, who lived about 20 years after their death, affirms both of the Church of Rome and of Corinth, 
c Euseb. Ibid.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it was (each of them) the plantation of Peter and Paul; And 
d De Prom. & Praedict: implend: c. 5.  Prosper, Petrus & Paulus Apostoli in urbe Româ— Peter and Paul the Apostles consecrated or constituted a Church in the city of Rome. And the very Seals of Popes are an irrefragable evidence of the same, as they are set down by Matthew Paris in the year of our Lord 1237. In bullâ Domini Papae, saith he, stat imago Pauli à dextris crucis in medio bullae figuratae, & Petri à sinistris; In the Bull of the Pope stands the image of S. Paul on the right hand of the Cross, which is graven in the midst of the Seal, and the image of S. Peter on the left hand; and this only account given for S. Paul's having the nobler place (Quia Paulus credidit in Christum quem non vidit, à dextris figuratur) because he believed on Christ without seeing him (here on earth) And all this very agreeable to the story of Scripture, which as (according to the brevity of the relations there made) it only sets down S. Peter to be the Apostle of the circumcision (and of his being so at Rome we make no question) So it affirms of S. Paul, that he preached at Rome in his own hired house, receiving them which came unto him, Act. 28.30. which will most fitly be applied to the Gentiles of that city, the Jews having solemnly departed from him v. 29.  
§. 11. Accordingly in Ignatius, Ep. ad Trall. we read of Linus and Clemens, that one was S. Paul's, the other S. Peter's Deacon, both which afterward succeeded them in the Episcopal chair, Linus being constituted Bishop of the Gentile, Clemens of the Jewish Christians there; And hence grows (unquestionably) that variety, or difference observed among writers, some making S. Peter, others S. Paul the founder of that Church, but others (as hath been showed) both of them; some making Clemens, others Linus the first Bishop after the Apostles, both affirmers speaking the truth, with this Scholion to interpret them: Linus was the first Bishop of the Gentile Christians, after S. Paul; Clemens the first of the Jewish after S. Peter; and after Linus his death, Cletus (or Anacletus) succeeding him, and dying also, both congregations were at length joined in one, under Clemens; by which one clew I suppose it easy to extricate the Reader out of the mazes, into which the ancient writers may lead him, in rehearsing the first Bishops of Rome so very diversely, but this is not a place to insist on it.  
§. 12. By all which it appears that even in those Churches, whereof S. Peter is acknowledged the founder, as that of Rome, and the like, yet he cannot be deemed the sole founder, but coequal to him S. Paul of the Gentile, as he of the Jewish Proselytes: and if the sole government of that Church be devolved to the original, it will be found to have begun in Clemens, in whom the union of the Jewish and Gentile congregations there was first made, and not in S. Peter.  
§. 13. But then for another great part of the Christian world, it is manifest that S. Peter had never to do either mediately, or immediately in the planting, or governing of it, and consequently that from him that power can never descend to any other. Not to mention the travails and labours, and plantations of the other Apostles; which certainly had each their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and consequently their Provinces by Apostolical joint consent assigned them Act. 1. (though that short History written by S. Luke, S. Paul's attendant, mention them not) I shall only insist on the beloved Disciple his fellow-Apostle of the Circumcision, and that abundant Labourer S. Paul.  
§. 14. 
Nor all the Circumcision.  For S. John, who had the favour of Christ, and the dignity of place before all others in Christ's life time, even before S. Peter himself (which is the plain meaning of his style of the beloved Disciple, and of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaning on his breast at supper Joh. 21.20. his having the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first place next to Christ, as being in Abraham's bosom plainly signifies being in dignity of place next to the father of the faithful) 'tis evident that he is one of those that by agreement went to the Circumcision, was assigned the Jews 
Not the Jews of Asia,  for his Province, as well as S. Peter, and consequently he had the converting, and then governing of all the converted Jews of that Lydian Asia, and placing Bishops over them, as 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ap. Euseb. l. 3. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  Clemens Alexandrinus, and 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid.  Eusebius, and 
c Joannes apud Ephesum Ecclesiam sacravit. De Prom. & Praed. impl. c. 5.  Prosper, and others tell us; and the 
d Phot. Bib. num. 254.  Author of the Martyrdom of Timothy saith of him, that being returned from his banishment by Nerva's decree, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— he placed his seat of residence in Ephesus, and having seven Bishops with him he undertook the care of that Metropolis, that is in effect, or by interpretation, of all Asia, which was under that prime Metropolis, as far as extended to the Jewish Christians there.  

As neither the Gentiles there.  §. 15. But then as before was said of the several Churches and Bishops in the same place, one of the dispersed Jews, the other of Gentiles; so it is evident that through all this Asia (the Lydian or Proconsular) the faith was by S. Paul planted among the Gentile part, and by him S. Timothy constituted Bishop there: and so saith S. chrysostom, 
Hom. 5. in 1 Tim. 5.19.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a whole entire nation, that of Asia was entrusted to him.  
§. 16. Where I shall demand of any man of the Romish pretensions, or persuasion, what can be said, in any degree probably, for S. Peter's Universal Pastorship, whilst he lived, over this Asia, whose seven Metropoles (and sure there were inferior Churches, or Episcopal Sees under them) are so early famous, being honoured with Christs-Epistle to them in the Revelation; was S. Peter the supreme Pastor of these Churches? had he any, or did he ever exercise, or pretend any Jurisdiction over them? was not all the Jewish part of that Province ultimately under S. John? and the Gentile part under S. Paul, and S. Timothy constituted, and commissionated by him? Doth not S. Paul give him full instructions (and such as no other Apostle could countermand, or interpose in them) leaving no other appeal or place of application for farther directions, save only to himself, when he shall come to him, 1 Tim. 3.14, 15. Did not S. Paul by his own single power delegate that Province to him, and seat him there? (as appears by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I exhorted or appointed thee, when I went to Macedonia, 1 Tim. 1.3.) and may it not as reasonably be said that S. Peter was with him in his journey to Macedonia, as that he joined with him in giving that Commission to Timothy?  
§. 17. 
Nor in Crete,  And so likewise of Titus in Crete, was he not by S. Paul peculiarly left in Crete, and constituted Primate there? Is it imaginable that under Christ there could be any head of that Church of that whole Island, save only S. Paul?  
§. 18. 
Nor in Britanny.  The same may certainly be said of all the Gentile Churches in all other Islands, and parts of the world, and consequently in this of Britanny, wherein our present debate is terminated: And therefore if that of 
* de Petr: & Paul: ad diem 29. Junii. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Simeon Metaphrastes should be thought to have truth in it, that S. Peter was in Britanny some time and baptised many into the faith of Christ, and constituted Churches, ordaining Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons in the 12. of Nero, in all reason it must be extended no farther than S. Peter's line, as he was the Apostle of the Circumcision, i. e. to the Jews that might at that time be dispersed here, and so not prejudge the other more authentic relations, of Joseph of Arimathea or Simon Zelotes having planted the faith in this Island.  
§. 19 This I suppose is one competent proof of the Negative, as it respects the person of S. Peter, that he was not (could not be, as things stood with him) Universal Pastor of the whole Church, constituted by Christ. And accordingly we see in Prosper disputing against heretics: which divide from the Church, he expresses it by relictâ pace communionis, 
Prospers testimony to this matter.  & panis unius Dei & Apostolorum, that they leave the Communion of Christ and his Apostles in the plural, and adds cum in ipsâ Jerusalem Jacobus— Joannes apud Ephesum, Andreas & caeteri per totam Asiam, Petrus & Paulus Apostoli in urbe Româ, Gentium Ecclesiam pacatam unámque posteris tradentes, ex Dominicâ pactione sacrarunt, that James in Jerusalem, John at Ephesus, Andrew and the rest through all Asia, Peter and Paul at Rome consecrated the Church of the nations. Whereas the Church had the several Apostles for the founders (and those independent one from the other) So the unity from which heretics, and schismatics depart, is said to have been founded equally in each of them, in John and James and Andrew and others, as well as in S. Peter, nay at Rome, not in S. Peter alone, but in him and S. Paul, together.  
§. 20. 
A second evidence against S. Peter's supremacy from the donation of the keys.  In the next place another evidence we may have of this (in reference again to S. Peter's person) from that which is visible in the donation of the power of the Keys set down in Scripture. This power Mat. 16.19. is promised to S. Peter, [I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven—] But to him that from hence pretends this Donative and consequent power, as a peculiarity and enclosure of S. Peter's, these considerations will be of force to supersede his conclusion, 1. That these words here set down by S. Matthew, c. 16. are not the Instrument of Christ's conveyance, the words of his commission, but those other Joh. 20.21. As my Father hath sent me, 
Power of the keys given to all and each.  so send I you, upon which words it is added, he breathed on them, and said, Receive the holy Ghost, Whose sins you remit, they are remitted— And these (as also those Mat. 28.19. which are a repetition much to the same purpose) are delivered in common, and equally to all, and every of the eleven Apostles, as is evident by the plural style throughout that Commission.  
§. 21. Secondly, The words Mat. 16. are only a promise in the future, what Christ will afterward do, and so the donation there set down only by way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or anticipation, and if the making this promise to him peculiarly, seem to make any thing for him, than the repetition of that promise, Mat. 18.18. which is made to all the Apostles indefinitely will take off that appearance, where it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I say unto you (to all of them equally and without any peculiarity of restriction) whatsoever ye shall bind etc. The applying the words particularly to S. Peter hath one special energy in it, and concludes that the Ecclesiastical power of oeconomy or stewardship in Christ's house (of which the keys are the token Isa. 22.21.) belongs to single persons, such as S. Peter was, and not only to Consistories, or assemblies, that whatsoever S. Peter acted by virtue of Christ's power thus promised, he should be fully able to act himself, without the conjunction of any other, and that what he thus did (clavae non errante) no one (or more men) on earth could rescind without him, which is a just ground of placing the power Ecclesiastical in Single persons, and not in Communities, in the Prelate of each Church, and not in the Presbytery. But still this is no confining of this power to S. Peter, any more than to any other single Apostle, who had this power as distinctly promised to each of them, as here S. Peter is pretended, and acknowledged to have; To which purpose, as the words of Scripture are most clear Mat. 18.18. (and accordingly Mat. 19 the promise is again made of twelve thrones for each Apostle to sit on one, to judge, i. e. to rule, or preside in the Church, and when that promise was finally performed in the descent of the Spirit, Act. 2. the fire that represented that Spirit was divided, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sat upon every one of them, without any peculiar mark allowed S. Peter, and they were all filled with the holy Ghost, and so this promise equally performed, as it was made, to all) so is this exactly the notion, which the ancient Fathers of the Church appear to have had of them; 
in Mat. 18.  Thus Theophylact according to S. Chrysostom's sense, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Though the words [I will give thee] were delivered to S. Peter alone, yet the power hath been conferred on all the Apostles. 
Epist. 27.  S. Cyprian hath an eminent place to this purpose, Dominus noster— Episcopi honorem & Ecclesiae suae rationem disponens in Evangelio loquitur, & dicit Petro, Ego tibi dice, Quia tu es Petrus, & tibi dabo claves— Ind per temporum & successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio & Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem gubernetur, Christ meaning to set down the way of ordering his Church, saith unto Peter, I will give thee the keys— From this promise of his, the ordination of Bishops and course of the Church hath continued by all successions and vicissitudes, So that the Church is built upon Bishops (in the plural) and every Ecclesiastic act is governed by them. So S. Ambrose, 
De Dign. Sacerd. c. 5. & 6.  Claves illas regni Coelorum in beato Petro cuncti suscepimus Sacerdotes, All we Bishops have in S. Peter received those keys of the kingdom of heavens. 
Ep. ad Dracont.  And accordingly S. Athanasius mentions the office of Bishop as one of those things 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which Christ effigiated or form in or by the Apostles; And S. Basil the great calls Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Presidency of the Apostles, the very same, that Christ bestowed upon all, and not only on one of them.  
§. 23. By all which it is evident again, that the power which Christ's commission instated on S. Peter, was in like manner entrusted to every other single Apostle, as well as to him, and consequently that this of universal Pastor was no personal privilege, or peculiarity of S. Peter's.  
§. 24. 
The Romanists argument from Tu es Petrus evacuated.  Thirdly, that argument which is taken by learned Romanists from the name of Peter [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Rock or foundation stone] bestowed on him by Christ, as if that were sufficient to found this pretended Supremacy, is presently evacuated, and retorted on the pretenders, when 'tis remembered 1. that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, directly the same, signifies vulgarly a stone (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in Homer's Iliad. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.) and of itself denotes no more, but by the context, Mat. 16.18. being applied to a building must needs signify a foundation stone; and then 2. that all the 12 Apostles are in like manner (and not he only, or above any other) styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, twelve foundations Apoc. 21.14. each of which stones having the name of an Apostle on it, in respect of the power, and dignity that belonged to every one, is severally compared to a precious stone; And it being there in vision apparent, that the wall of the city, i. e. of the Church, being measured exactly, and found to be an hundred forty four, i e. twelve times twelve cubits, 'tis evident that that mensuration assigns an equal proportion whether of power or province to all and every of the Apostles which is again a prejudice to the Universal Pastorship of any one of them.   

CHAP. V The Evidences from the Bishop of Rome's succeeding S. Peter examined.  
§. 1. 
No privilege by succession from S. Peter, but such as S. Peter is proved to have himself.  FRom this argument of the pretenders as it respects S. Peter's person, and hath thus been manifested to be utterly incompetent to infer the designed conclusion, It is now very easy, but withal very unnecessary to proceed to the other part of it, as it concerns S. Peter's successors in his Episcopal, or (which is all one as to this matter) his Apostolical seat, and power at Rome, For certainly what he had not himself, he cannot devolve to any of his successors upon that one score of succeeding him, and therefore as this of S. Peter's personal power, and eminence is the principal, So it is in effect the only ground of the Romanists pretention, this other of derivative power in his successor, being like water that flows from a spring, apt to ascend no higher, than the fountain stood, and therefore I again think fit to remind the Romanist, and peremptorily to insist on this exception, that if he cannot make good S. Peter's Ecumenical power, and Pastorship over all the rest of the Apostles, from the donation of Christ (which I suppose hath been evidenced he cannot do, and for any proofs made use of by any to that purpose, and drawn either from Feed my sheep, and lambs, or from the mention of the two swords, or from Thou art Peter— they have so little appearance of strength in them, and have so often been answered by those of our persuasion, that I cannot think it useful, or seasonable to descend to any farther survey of them) his other pretensions are at an end for the Universal Pastorship of the Pope his successor, whose power, and authority over all other Bishops cannot farther be extended (upon this account of succession) then S. Peter's was over all other Apostles, the several Bishops of the world holding from (as succeeding) some Apostle or other, as certainly as the Bishop of Rome can by any be supposed to succeed S. Pe-Peter, according to that of 
* De Prescript. c. 32.  Tertullian, Sicut Smyrnaeorum Ecclesia Polycarpum à Joanne collocatum refert, Sicut Romanorum Clementem à Petro ordinatum edit, perinde utique & caeterae exhibent quos ab Apostolis in Episcopatum constitutos Apostolici seminis traduces habent, As the records of the Church of Smyrna deduce Polycarp their Bishop from S. John, and as the Church of Rome relates that Clement (their Bishop) was ordained by S. Peter, in like manner the rest of the Churches show us the Bishops which they have had constituted by the Apostles, and who have brought down and derived the Apostolic seed unto them.  
§. 2. What therefore I shall now add in return to the second branch of this argument, concerning the power of S. Peter's successor, as such, will be perfectly ex abundanti, more than needs, and so I desire it may be looked on by the reader, whose curiosity perhaps may require farther satisfaction, when his reason doth not, and in compliance therewith I shall propose these few considerations. 
* The privileges attending S. Peter's successor belonging rather to the Bishop of Antioch then of Rome.  First whether S. Peter did not as truly plant a Church of Jewish believers at Antioch, and leave a successor Bishop there, as at Rome he is supposed to have done? 2. Whether this were not done by him, before ever he came to Rome? 3. Whether the Concession of these two unquestioned matters of fact▪ do not devolve all power, and Jurisdiction on the Bishop of Antioch S. Peter's successor there, which by that tenure and claim of succession from S. Peter can be pretended to by the Bishop of Rome, S. Peter's successor also? Nay, Whether the right of Primogeniture be not so much more considerable on this side, than any circumstance on the other side, which can be offered to counterbalance it, that he which succeeded him in his first seat (Antioch) is, if there be force in the argument of succession, to be looked on as the chief of his strength, partaker of more power by virtue of that succession, than he that afterward succeeded him at Rome?  
§. 3. This we know, that anciently there were three Patriarchates, and Antioch was one of them, as Rome was another; and though I, who lay not that weight on the argument of succession from S. Peter, am not engaged to affirm that Antioch was the chief of these, yet this I contend, that there is much less reason, that any precedence, which is afforded Rome by the ancient Canons, should be deemed imputable to this succession from S. Peter, when 'tis evident that claim belongs to Antioch, as well as to Rome, and first to Antioch, and afterwards to Rome, and no otherwise to Rome, then as it was first compatible to Antioch.  
§. 4. 
The Primacy belonged to Rome upon another score.  Of Rome it is confessed that the primacy of dignity or order belonged to that, the next place to Alexandria, the third to Antioch, which is an evidence that the succession from S. Peter was not considered in this matter, for then Alexandria, which held only from S. Mark, must needs have yielded to Antioch which held from S. Peter. The original of this precedence, or dignity of the Bishop of Rome is sure much more fitly deduced by the fourth General Council holden at Chalcedon, 
Can. penult.  confirming the decree of the Council of Constantinople, that that See shall have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, equal privileges, and dignities, and advantages with Rome, upon this account, that Constantinople was New Rome, and the seat of the Empire at that time, which, say they, was the reason (and not any donation of Christ's to S. Peter, or succession of that Bishop from him) that Rome enjoyed such privileges (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The Fathers at Constantinople being moved with the same reasons had rightly judged that now the same privileges should belong to that Church or City, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that this being next to Old Rome should in all Ecclesiastical affairs have the same dignity, or greatness that Old Rome had. Where, as the Original of the dignity of that See is duly set down, and (which is observable) in the whole contest never so much as quarrelled at by the Legates, viz. the residence of the Imperial Majesty there (a thing very remarkable in the several degrees of dignity in the Church, that of Patriarches, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, which generally observed their proportions with the civil state, as hath been showed) so is the nature of it also, no supremacy of power over all the Bishops of the world (for that monarchical power is not at once compatible to two equals or rivals) and withal the movableness or communicablenesse of that dignity, as that which may follow the Imperial seat, whithersoever it is removable, and is not fixed at Rome by any commission of Christ or succession from S. Peter.  
§. 5. 
The Canon of the Council of Chalcedon rejected by the Romanists.  But because I shall suppose that a Canon, though of an Universal Council, when it is found thus derogatory to the height which Rome now pretends to, shall not by the Romanist be acknowledged to be authentic, as wanting that which the Romanist makes absolutely necessary to the validity of Counsels or Canons, the suffrage of the Bishop of Rome and consent of his Legates; and because I mean not here to go out of my way to vindicate (which I could very readily do) the authority of that Canon, or to show the strangeness of this dealing, not to admit any testimony against them, but wherein they have given their own suffrage (a method of security beyond all amulets, if no man shall be believed against me, till I have joined with him to accuse and condemn my self) I shall therefore lay no more weight on this, then will, without this support, be otherwise upheld, and is in some measure evident by the Romanists rejecting this Canon, and adding that the Church of Antioch rejected it also; which argues that that which the Church of Constantinople was willing to acquire by this decree, was as derogatory to the dignity of Antioch as of Rome. And as that concludes that Antioch had professedly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, equal privileges with Rome, the dignity of a Patriarchate, and the attendants and pomps of that, So it proceeds on a concession, that all that Constantinople wanted, or in which this New came short of the Old Rome, was only the dignity of a Patriarchate, without any ordinary jurisdiction over other Churches. Which again shows us what was the nature of the preeminence of the Roman See at that time; no supreme authoritative power over other Primates, 
The dignity of Patriarches reconcileable with the independency of Primates.  but only a precedence, or priority of place in Counsels, an eminence in respect of dignity, which is perfectly reconcileable with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and independence, the no-subordination or subjection of other Primates.  
§. 6. 
The Canon of Ephesus against encroaching on any others Province.  This hath formerly been manifested, when we discoursed of the original, and power, and dignity of Primates, and Patriarches, and is put beyond all control by that Canon of the Council of Ephesus in the cause of the Archbishop of Cyprus, over whom the Patriarch of Antioch, though Patriarch of all the Orient, was adjudged to have no manner of power. And this independency of Cyprus, not only from the Patriarch of Antioch, but from all others whomsoever, was contested then, as from the Apostles times, and asserted, and vindicated by that Council, and order given indefinitely against all invasions for time to come, in whatever Diocese, that no Bishop shall encroach upon another's Province, or usurp a power, where from the Apostles times he had not enjoyed it; which how directly it (is applicable to, and) prejudgeth the pretensions of Rome, as well as of Antioch, is so manifest, that it cannot need farther demonstrating.  
§. 7. 
Instances of Independent power in Archbishops.  Of the same kind, two farther instances I shall here add; first of the Archbishop of Carthage, who being the chief Primate, or Metropolitan (for these two words in the African style, different from the usage of other Churches, are observable to signify the same thing) in afric, i. e. in one of the thirteen Dioceses of the Empire, appears to have been independent from all other power, an absolute Primate, subject to no superior, or Patriarch, whether of Alexandria, or Rome. This is evident by Justinian in the 131 Novel, where the Emperor gives the same privileges to the Archbishop of 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Carthage, which he had formerly given to the Bishop of Justiniana prima; which being the second example I meant to mention, I shall briefly show what that Prerogative was, which equally belonged to these two.  
§. 8. Justiniana Prima was the head of 
a Caetera Provinciae sub ejus sint authoritate, i. e. tam ipsa mediterranea Dacia, quàm Dacia Ripensis, nec non Mysia, Secunda Dardania, & Praevalitana Provincia & secunda Macedonia, & pars secunda etiam Pannoniae, quae in Bacen●i est civitate. Justin: de Privileg: Archiep: Just: Prim: ed: à Gothofred:  Dacia the new; a Diocese (as that signifies more than a Province, a 
b Volumus ut Primae Justinianae patriae nostrae pro tempore sacrosanctus Antistes, non solùm Metroplitanus, sed etiam Archiepiscopus fiat. Ibid.  Primat's, a Patriarch's dominion) erected by Justinian the Emperor; and that city thus dignified, as the 
c Multis & variis modis nostram patriam augere cupientes, in qua Deus praestitit nobis ad hunc modum (So Gothofred reads, but certainly it should be ad, or in hunc mundum) quem ipse condidit, venire. Ibid. Necessarium duximus ipsam gloriosissimam Praefecturam, quae in Pannoniâ erat, in nostrâ foelicissimâ patriâcollocare. Ib.  place where he had been born, and the Archbishop thereof made Primate of all that Diocese. This is thus expressed in the Imperial Constitutions, Nou. 11. that he shall have omnem censuram Ecclesiasticam, summum Sacerdotium, summum fastigium, summam dignitatem, all power of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the supreme Priesthood, supreme honour and dignity; And in the Constitutions set out by Gothofred out of an old MS. Copy, Tu & omnes Justinianae primae Antistites, quicquid oriatur inter eos discrimen, ipsi hoc dirimant, & finem eis imponant, & nec ad alium quendam eatur, sed suum agnoscant Archiepiscopum omnes praedictae Provinciae— that all the Provinces shall in the last resort make their appeal to him for all controversies. And Nou. 131. c. 3. that in all that Diocese he shall have locum Apostolicae sedis, the place or dignity of an Apostolical seat; which gave Nicephorus occasion (in his relation of this matter) to affirm that the Emperor made it a free city, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an head unto itself, with full power independent from all others: And though the first Bishop thereof was consecrated by Vigilius Bishop of Rome, as by some Bishop it is certain he must, yet that is of no force against the conclusion, to which I design this instance, it being evident that being consecrated, he was absolute, and depended not on any, and his 
* Quando autem te ab ●âc▪ luce decedere contigerit, pro tempore Archiepiscopum ejus à venerabili suo Concilio Metropolitanorum ordinari sancimus, quem ad modum decet Archiepiscopum omnibus honoratum Ecclesiis provehi. Ibid.  successors were to be ordained by his Council of metropolitans, and not by the Pope.  
§. 9 Which as it makes a second instance of the point in hand, so when it is remembered, that all this independent absolute power was conferred upon this city (the Emperor's favourite) only by his making it a Primate's, or chief Metropolitane's See, and that Carthag's being the Prime Metropolis of afric is expressed by having the same privileges, that Justiniana Prima had, It will follow (what is most certain, and might otherwise be testified by innumerable evidences) that every Primate, or chief Metropolitan was absolute within his own circuit, neither subject nor subordinate to any foreign Superior, whether Pope, or Patriarch; And that was all which was useful (much more than was necessary) to be here demonstrated. And being so, there remains to the See of Rome no farther claim to the subjection of this Island, nor appearance of proof of the charge of schism, in casting off that yoke, upon this first score of S. Peter's, or his successors right to the Universal Pastorship.  
§. 10. 
The unreasonableness of confining the Catholic Church to the number of those that live in the Roman subjection.  Upon this head of discourse depends also all that is, or can be said for the confining the Catholic Church to the number of those, who live in obedience to the Roman Church, or Bishop. For if there have been from the Apostles times, an independent power vested in each Primate, or chief Metropolitan (as hath been evidently shown) then how can it be necessary to the being of a member of the Catholic Church, to be subject to that one Primate? 'Tis certainly sufficient to the conservation of the unity of the whole Church, that every one pay an obedience, where an obedience is due, and no way useful toward that end, that those that are born free, should resign up, divest themselves of that privilege, and become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 servants or subjects of their own making. But I shall not enlarge on this matter, but conclude with that of our Bishops in Convocation, Anno Chr: 1537. in their Book entitled, [The Institution of a Christian man:] that it was many hundred years before the Bishop of Rome could acquire any power of a Primate over any other Bishops, which were not within his Province in Italy, And that the Bishops of Rome do now transgress their own profession made in their Creation, For all the Bishops of Rome always when they be consecrated and made Bishops of that See, do make a solemn profession and vow, that they shall inviolably observe all the Ordinances made in the eight first General Counsels, among which it is especially provided, that all causes shall be determined within the Province, where they be begun, and that by the Bishops of the same Province; which absolutely excludes all Papal, i. e. foreign power out of these Realms.   

CHAP. VI Their third plea from the Bishop of Rome having planted Christianity among us.  
§. 1. THE next part of the Romanist's arguing against us, is taken from a peculiar right, or claim, that the Bishop or See of Rome hath to our obedience, upon the score of having planted Christianity among us.  
§. 2. 
The plea from Planting the Faith unreconcilable with the former.  But before I proceed to show the invalidity of this plea, I desire it may first be observed, that the pleading of this, as the title by which the Bishop of Rome hath right to our subjection, is absolutely unreconcilable with his former pretensions founded in his ecumenical Pastorship by succession to S. Peter; For certainly he that is supposed (in gross) to have that original title to all power over all Churches, cannot be imagined to acquire it afterward (by way of retail) over any particular Church. He that claims a reward, as of his own labour and travail, must be supposed to disclaim Donation, which is antecedent to, and exclusive of the other, as the title of descent is to that of Conquest, And it is a very great prejudice to the justice of his pretensions, who finds it necessary to mix things that are so incompetible.  
§. 3. 
A Dilemma to the Romanist.  And therefore I am obliged to offer this Dilemma to the Romanist in this place, and to demand, Which is the Pope's true title to the subjection of this Island? the Donation of Christ, or conversion wrought by Augustine the Monk? If the latter be affirmed to be it, than it must be granted by him, both that this Island before the time of Pope Gregory was no way subjected to the Romish See, and withal that no Christian nation is at this day thus subject, but such as doth appear to have been converted by Rome, as the Saxons here are supposed to have been; And then this concession will lose more subjects to the Apostolic See, than the return of these Islands to the desired subjection would ever be able to countervail, or recompense; and therefore it is reasonable to insist on the terms of this bargain, and not to yield the one, till the other be yielded to us, But if the former be affirmed to be it, and that indeed the commission from Christ to S. Peter be still the fundamental hold, by which our subjection is, and always hath been due to his successors, then is that other of the conversion by Augustine but a fallacious pretence, a non causa pro causâ, to amuse us, and need not farther be answered, or invalidated, then by this confession.  
§. 4. 
The Faith planted here before Augustine the Monk.  But then passing by this advantage, and taking the objection, as it lies by itself, these farther considerations will take off all force from it. 1. That this Island was converted to the Faith of Christ, long before Augustine's preaching to the Saxons, either in, or very near the Apostles times, in Tiberius his reign, saith Gildas, and long before Tertullian's, and Origen's time, as by them appears, Tertull: in Apol: and Orig: in Ezech: Hom: 4. To this I shall not need to add the testimony of Eleutherius the Bishop of Rome, in the vulgar Epistle to our Lucius, the first Christian King of the world, styling him vicarium Dei in regno suo, God's vicegerent in his own kingdom, because, as there is some doubt of the authenthenticknesse of that Epistle, so the 
* Suscepistis nuper in Regno Britanniae legem & fidem Christi.  only thing that we have now need to conclude from it, is otherwise evident, viz: that the Nation was in his time converted, and so long before Augustine's coming. And though by Dioclesian's persecution, Christianity were here shrewdly shaken, yet I suppose, that will not be thought argumentative, both because it might be of ill example against other nations, where the faith was as bloodily persecuted in that, or other times, and possibly at some point of time against Rome itself, 
And not quite destroyed by Dioclesian.  where S. Peter's chair was not always amulet sufficient to avoid the like destructions, and especially because it is evident, that the British Church survived that calamity, three of our Bishops being ten years after that, present (and their names subscribed, Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelfius Coloniae Londinensium) at the Council of Arles, eleven years before the first Council of Nice. So likewise at the time of that Nicene Council it appears, that as Britain was one of the six Dioceses of the West Empire (see Notitia Provinc: Occident:) so there were in it three metropolitans, the Bishop of York (his Province Maxima Caesariensis) the Bishop of London (his Province Britannia prima) the Bishop of Caeruske (his Province Britannia secunda) in Monmouthshire, 
* See S. Hen: Spelman, Concil: Anglic: pag. 26. out of the Annals of Gisburne.  which after in King Arthur's time was translated to S. David's, where it continued an Archbishopric, till King Henry I. who subjected it to Canterbury, and 
† à Samsone usque tempus Henrici primi, sederunt Meneviae undecim Episcopi, & usque ad hoc tempus Episcopi Meneviae à suis su●fraganeis Wallensibus ibidem fuerunt consecrati, nullâ penitus professione v●l subjectione factâ alteri Ecclesiae. Ibid.  all this space of about 500 years after Augustine's coming, the Bishops thereof, eleven in number, were all consecrated by the suffragan Bishops of that Province, without any profession, or subjection to any other Church, as the Annals there affirm.  
§. 5. To the same purpose is it, 
The Britain's rejection of the Bishop of Rome.  that when Augustine required subjection to the Pope and Church of Rome, the Abbot of Bangor is recorded to have returned him this answer, Notum sit vobis, quòd nos omnes sumus— Be it known unto you, that we are all subject, and obedient to the Church of God, and the Pope of Rome, but so as we are also to every pious and good Christian, viz: to love every one in his degree and place, in perfect charity, and to help every one by word and deed to attain to be the sons of God; 
† Concil: Anglic: p. 188.  Et aliam obedientiam quàm istam non scio debitam ei quem vos nominatis esse Papam, nec esse Patrem Patrum vendicari & postulari, And for any other obedience I know none due to him whom you call the Pope, and as little do I know by what right he can challenge to be father of fathers, Bishop of Bishops, or Universal Bishop. Praeterea nos sumus sub gubernatione Episcopi Caerlegionensis super Oscâ— As for us, we are under the rule of the Bishop of Caerlegion upon Vsk, who is to overlook and govern us under God.  
§. 6. 
The invalidity of the argument from conversion, when the Britain's were certainly not converted by Augustine.  From hence the result is clear, that whatever is pretended from Augustine the Monk, or supposed to have been then pressed by him, for the advancing of the Pope's interest in this Island, and concluding us guilty of Schism in casting off that yoke, yet the British Bishops still holding out against this pretention, and that with all reason on their side, if the title of conversion, which the Romanist pleads for our subjection, may be of any validity with him, it must needs follow, that the whole Island cannot upon this score of Augustine's conversion, be now deemed schismatical, it being certain, that the whole Island, & particularly the Dominion of Wales, was not thus converted by Augustine, nor formerly by any sent from Rome, or that observed the Roman Order (as appears by the observation of Easter, contrary to the usage received at Rome) but either by Joseph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes, as our Annals tell us most probably. And this in the first place must needs be yielded to by those that expect to receive any advantage to their cause by this argument; And if they will still extend their title equally, to those parts of Britanny, which Augustine did not, as to those which he did convert, to Wales, as well as to Kent, it is evident they must do it upon some other score (whatsoever the pretence be) and not upon this of conversion.  
§. 7. But then 2dly, for as much of this Island, as was really converted to the Faith by the coming of Augustine, 
No title from conversion for subjection.  there is no title for their subjection, and the perpetual subjection of their posterity from this.  
§. 8. To examine this a while by other known practices of the Christian world, S. Paul by himself or his Apostles, or Procurators, was the great Converter of the Gentiles; Concerning him I shall demand, whether all those nations converted by him and his ministers, are to all ages obliged to be subject to that chair, where S. Paul sat (whether in the Church at Antioch, or Rome, or the like) at the time of his sending out, or going himself to convert them; If so, then 1. there cannot be a greater prejudice imaginable to S. Peter's Universal Pastorship; And 2. it will in the story of the fact appear to have no degree of truth in it; Timothy that was placed over Asia in Ephesus, and Titus over Crete, being (as hath formerly appeared) supreme in those Provinces, and independent from any other See, And generally that is the nature of Primates or Patriarches, to have no superior either to ordain, or exercise jurisdiction over them, but themselves to be absolute within their Province, and their successors to be ordained by the suffragan Bishops under them; which could not be, if every such Church, where such a Primate was placed, were subject to that Church, from which they received the Faith.  
§. 9 
The power of Kings to erect Patriarchates.  To put this whole matter out of controversy, It is, and hath always been in the power of Christian Emperors, and Princes within their Dominions to erect Patriarchates, or to translate them from one city to another, and therefore whatever title is supposeable to be acquired by the Pope in this Island upon the first planting of the Gospel here, this cannot so oblige the Kings of England ever since, but that they may freely remove that power from Rome to Canterbury, and subject all the Christians of this Island to the spiritual power of that Archbishop or Primate, independently from any foreign Bishop.  
§. 10. For the erection of Primacies or Patriarchates, that of Justiniana Prima 
† Examples in Justiniana Prima, c. 5. §. 8.  forementioned, and set down at large, is an evident proof, Justinian erecting that (long after the rest of the Primates seats in the Empire) to be an Archiepiscopal See, absolute and independent, and subjecting all Dacia the new to it▪ And though the Pope Vigilius was by the Emperor appointed to ordain the first Bishop there, yet were his successors to be ordained by his own metropolitans, and the Bishops under him not to appeal to any others, as hath in each particular formerly been evidenced.  
§. 11. 
Carthage.  The same also hath in like manner been shown of Carthage, which was by the same Justinian (not originally dignified, but) 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: 131.  after the rescuing it out of the Vandals hands, restored to a state of Primacy, after the pattern or image of Justiniana Prima, and two Provinces more annexed, then had anciently belonged to that Bishop's jurisdiction.  
§. 12. 
Ravenna.  Before either of these the Emperor Valentinian the 3d, Anno Christi 432. by his Rescript constituted Ravenna a Patriarchal seat; And from his time that held the Patriarchate without any dependence on the Bishop of Rome to the time of Constantinus Pogonatus, And though at that time the Greek Emperors Vicarii or Exarches being not able to support the Bishop of Ravenna against the Longobards, he was fain to fly for support to the Bishop of Rome, and so submitted himself unto him, and after Reparatus, the next Bishop Theodorus did the like to Pope Agatho, whether upon the score of great friendship with him, or in despite to his own Clergy (with whom he had variance) saith Sabellicus, yet the people of Ravenna thought themselves injured hereby, and joined with their next Bishop Foelix to maintain their privilege, though Pope Constantine stirring up Justinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against them, they were worsted, and defeated in their attempt.  
§. 13. Other examples there are of this kind, 
* de privileg: Patriar:  Balsamon points at some, which from the 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Emperor's charter had this privilege, not to be subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople, calling them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which were Archbishops independent: So under Phocas, the Patriarchate of Grado in Italy was erected, saith 
* l. 4. c. 34. Grado.  Warnefridus de gestis Longobard: Others, as Eginartus Chancellor to Charles the Great, and who wrote his life, say it was done by Charles the Great. And so doth Rhegino who lived in the next age. And accordingly in Duarenus de Benef: lib. 1. cap. 9 among the Minorum Gentium Patriarchatus, that of Grado is reckoned for one, and joined with Aquileia, Canterbury and Bourges.  
§. 14. 
Frequent in the East.  And that it was a frequent usage in the East, may appear by the 12th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, where we find mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cities honoured by letters patents from the Kings or Emperors with the name and dignity of Metropoles, and where the Council represses the ambition of Bishops, which sought those privileges 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by Rescripts from the Emperors, and censures it, (in them that so sought it) as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not agreeable to the Ecclesiastical Canons, repressing the ambition of the Bishops, but not cassating the Rescripts, nor withdrawing the honour from the Metropolis so erected; Of this Canon Balsamon saith, that when it was made, many Emperors had erected many metropolitans, and naming three, adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that other Bishoprics were thus honoured, and that the Emperors did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the power that was given them. Where it is farther to be observed, 1. that this Council was within 20 years after that grant of Valentinian, and consequently, if Balsamon say right, (that at that time many Emperors had erected many) there must needs be others before Valentinian. 2. That the 17th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon doth more expressly attribute this power to the Prince, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, If a city be built or restored by the King's power, let the Ecclesiastical order follow the Political. And the same power is acknowledged to belong to the Prince by the Council in Trullo Can: 38. And then 3. that these two last Canons are reconciled with that 12th of Chalcedon, by the law of Alexius Comnenus, and assented to by the Synod under him, See Balsam: in Can: 38. Concil: in Trullo, who concludes that the King might do it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, upon his own incitation or motion, but it should not be lawful for any by base solicitation to seek or obtain it, adding that in that case, upon any such Rescript of the Emperor for such erection, it might be lawful for the Patriarch to suspend the confirmation of the Charter, until he represented to the Emperor what the Canons were in that case, and understood if the Emperor did it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from his own motion, which appearing, the Patriarch was to admit thereof.  
And accordingly the same Balsamon (on Concil: Carthag: Can: 16.) doth upon that Canon professedly found the authority of Princes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to advance an Episcopal See into a Metropolis, and anew to constitute Bishops and metropolitans.  
§. 15. 
So also to translate.  As for the transplanting it also from one city to another, besides that the power of doing that, is consequent to the former, the examples of this practice are ancient, 
Examples in England. Concil: Angl: p. 26.  and frequent in this kingdom; The passage set down out of the Annals of Gisburne may be sufficient, From Caeruske the Metropolitan seat was translated to S. David's by King Arthur, where it continued till Henry I. and then was reduced to Canterbury.  
§. 16. In like manner 'tis evident that the Kings of England have divided Bishoprics, and erected new ones; About the year 630. Kinigilsa King of the Westsaxons, and Oswald of the Northumber's, erected an Episcopal See at Dorchester, and placed Birinus in it, so saith Guil: Malmesb: de Gest: Pontif: Angl: l. 2. About the year 660, Kenewalch King of the Westsaxons divided this Bishopric, and left part to Dorchester, and assigned the western part to be the Diocese of the new Bishop, which he constituted at Winchester, so saith Hen: Huntingd: Hist: l. 3. Then Winchester was subdivided in the time of King Ina, who also erected a new Bishopric at Sherburne, and gave it to Aldelme, so Henr: Huntingd: l. 4. and Guil: Malm: de Reg: Angl: l. 1. c. 2. And after the Norman conquest, Henry I. divided Cambridgeshire from the See of Lincoln, and erected the Bishopric of Elie, so saith Guiliel: Malm: de Gest: Pontif: Angl: l. 4. and Florentius Wigorn: Anno 1109. who lived at that time. So also saith Eadmer with some variation, Regi, Archiepiscopo, caeterísque Principibus regni visum fuit de ipsâ Parochiâ (Lincolniae) sumendum, quo fieret alter Episcopatus, cujus cathedra Principatus poneretur in Abbatiâ de Eli, It seemed good to the King, the Archbishop, and the rest of the Princes of the kingdom to take as much out of the Diocese of Lincoln, as would make another Bishopric, the chair whereof should be set up in the abbacy of Elie. Adding indeed that Anselme (a zealous, promoter of the Papal authority, as the author Eadmer was a disciple and admirer of Anselme) wrote to Pope Paschalis, desiring his consent to it, as a thing fit to be done, and yet to which he assures him he would not give his consent, but saluâ authoritate Papae, reserving the rights of the Pope; Which though it doth suppose the Pope's pretensions to that authority at that time, and Anselm's yielding it to him, yet it proves also this right of our Kings to have been even then adhered to, preserved, and exercised by them, as the former authors had set it down.  
§. 17. 
So to exempt from Episcopal jurisdiction.  Of this nature also is the authority of Kings in exempting any Ecclesiastical person from the Bishop's Jurisdiction, and granting Episcopal Jurisdiction to such person, which is largely asserted and exemplified in Cawdries case 5. Report. 14. One instance of this will serve for all, that of William the Conqueror, who exempted Battle Abbey in Sussex from the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Chichester, and gave the Abbot Episcopal Jurisdiction in his Territory and the words of the Charter are produced by Mr▪ Selden on Eadmer, Hoc regali authoritate & Episcoporum ac Baronum meorum attestatione constituo, I appoint this by my royal authority by the attestation of my Bishops and Barons.  
§. 18. 
King's Founders of Bishoprics and Patrons,  Add even unto this, that even the Western Princes (in those parts where the Bishops of Rome have much heightened their power, ever since the Kings were Christians) the Germane Emperors, the Kings of France and England, always claimed to be founders of all Bishoprics in their Dominions, Patrons of them to bestow them by investiture, that the Kings of France and England often claimed and were acknowledged to have right, that no Legate from Rome might come into the Land, and use jurisdiction without their leave; All which put together are a foundation for this power of the Princes to erect or translate a Patriarchate, It being withal acknowledged that our Kings have the same authority in their Territories, that the Roman Emperor had in the Empire.  
§. 19 
The Reason of all, supreme power of Kings,  And the reason of all this is clear, not only from the supreme authority of Kings in all sorts of causes, even those of the 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the King is as it were the common director and ruler of the Church, both in title and reality. Demetrii Chomateni Resp: ad Const: Cab: Jur. Graec: Rom: l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ye are Bishops of the Church for those things which are celebrated within it, but for external things, I am constituted overseer or Bishop by God, saith Constantine the Great in an assembly of Bishops. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I am King and Priest, saith Leo Isaurus to Gregory the second, Nec tamen eo nomine à Pontifice reprehenditur, and was not for this reprehended by the Pope, see J. C. de lib. Eccl: ap: Goldast: Monarch: t. 1. p. 686. So Socrates the historian, of the Emperors in general, after their receiving the faith of Christ, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the affairs of the Church depended on them, in Prooem. l. 5. And by Optatus l. 2. it is noted, and censured as a Schismatical piece of language in the Donatists, Quid enim Imperatori cum Ecclesiâ? And all this according to the principles of civil policy acknowledged by Aristotle Pol. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the King hath power of those things that belong to the Gods; and by Diotogenes in S●obaeus, that a perfect King ought to be both a good Captain, and a Judge, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea and a Priest also; And accordingly among the ancient Roman regal Laws, this is one, Sacrorum omnium potestas sub Regibus esto, Let the power of all sacred things be under the Kings, and so in the practice, Caius Caesar in Suetonius c. 13. was both Augur and Summus Pontifex▪ Galba tres Pontificatus gerebat, Ibid: Gal. c. 8. Claudius is by Josephus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the greatest Highpriest, and Tacitus makes it his observation, Deûm nunc munere summum Pontificem summum hominum esse. Annal: l. 3. The same appears among the Jewish Kings in Scripture, David ordering the courses of the Priests, Solomon consecrating the temple, Hezekiah 2 Chron: 29. 2 Kin: 18. and Josiah 2 Kin: 22. ordering many things belonging to it. And so S. Paul appealed from the judgement of the chief Priests to the tribunal of Caesar, see G: de Heimberg: de usurp: Pap: so in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the whole third book is made up of Justinians, i e. the Emperor's constitutions, de Episcopis, Clericis & Sacris, concerning Bishops, Clergy men, and sacred offices. And the Canons of Counsels have mostly been set out (and received their authority) by the Emperors, and accordingly in the Theodosian Code we shall find many of those which are now called Papal decrees.  Church, as well as Civil (as might be proved at large, if here it were needful, and cannot be reasonably so confined, as not to belong to a matter of this nature) but peculiarly from that which hath been already noted (and expressly, ordered, Can. 17. of the Council of Chalcedon even now cited) of the Ecclesiastical division of Provinces &c: 
and Ecclesiastical division of Provinces following the Civil.  following the civil, For 1. it being certainly in the power of the King to place his Praetoria or courts of Assizes, where he please; and 2. it being the known original of Metropoles, and divisions of Provinces (as Strabo saith, Geogr. l. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Provinces are variously distributed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because the Romans divide them not by tribes or families, but after another manner in relation to the cities, where they set up their courts of Assizes—) and again it being most reasonable, that as any new accident raises one city to a greater populousness, or depresses another, so for the convenience of the people one should be made the seat of Judicature, the other cease to be so, (and no man so fit to pass the judgement when this should be, as the King) and 3. the very same reasons of convenience moving in the Church, as in the State, the Bishops, and over them metropolitans and Primates having their judicatures, and audiences, which in all reason must be so disposed of, as may be most for the convenience of administration, that they and all under them may do their duties with most facility, and to greatest advantage, and lastly there being no obstacle imaginable from any contrary constitution either of Christ or his Apostles, against which the Prince can be said to offend either directly or interpretatively (as I suppose is already clear from the refutation of the plea from S. Peter's universal Pastorship) whensoever he shall think fit to make such changes, the Conclusion is rational, as well as evident; just that it should be so, as well as clear, that elsewhere it hath oft been so de facto, (and appointed by the Canon of Chalcedon de jure) that the King may erect a Primacy when he please (and so it is certain that King Ethelbert at the time of Augustine's planting the faith, did at Canterbury, the seat of his Kingdom, Imperit sui totius Metropolis saith Bede l. 1. c 25.) & conquently remove it from any other place at his pleasure: Had it not been for this, there is no reason assignable, why, this nation being in Constantine's time under three Metropolitans, the Archbishop of York (and the Primacy belonging to that city, as being then the Emperor's seat, where Septimius Severus, and Constantius Chlorus died, and the Praetorium of the Diocese of Britanny) the Archbishop of London, and the Archbishop of Caerusk in Monmouthshire, either 1. there should be (as there was) an addition of two Provinces more, Valentia, and Flavia Caesariensis, or 2. the Metropolitical power should be removed from London to Canterbury (as also from Caerusk to S. David's, as hath been said) and the Primacy from York to Canterbury.  
§. 20. 
This Power of Kings if taken away by foreign laws etc. resumable.  Now what is thus vested in the Regal power, cannot be taken away by foreign laws, or by prescription be so alienated, but that it remains perfectly lawful for the Prince to resume it.  
sect;. 21. That laws made at Rome do not take away the liberty of another national Church to make contrary laws thereunto, and that by such obviation no Schism is incurred, we find delivered in the Council of Carthage (Can: 71. according to Balsamon's division) And though the Canon be not set down by Binius, yet both he and Baronius acknowledge, that what was contained in that particular Canon, was the main occasion of the Synod; And the Antiquity thereof is considerable, those Canons being made, say Baronius and Binius, Anno 401.  
§. 22. So likewise that a Law (though made by a General Council and with the consent of all Christian Princes, yet) if it have respect to a civil right, may, in this or that nation, be repealed, is the judgement of Roger Widrington (or Father Preston) in his last rejoinder to Fitzherbert c. 11. §. 44. and c. 8. he confirms it by the doctrine of Zuarez, l. 2. the leg: c. 19 and the reason of Zuarez is, because such a law made at a general meeting of Princes, is intrinsically a civil law; and hath not force by virtue of the law to bind the subjects of any particular kingdom, or Commonwealth, any otherwise then as it is enacted, or received by the Governors and subjects of that kingdom.  
§. 23. And this is affirmed, and extended by Balsamon to all Canons in general, as the judgement of learned men, in his notes on that 16th Canon of the Council of Carthage before cited.  
§. 24. 
So if alienated by prescription.  And for the matter of Prescription, the decision of 
† Clav: Reg: l. 9 c. 12.  Sayr is worth observing, that in such cases as these, Cum Praescriptio sit tantùm de jure Civili & Canonico, When the Prescription is neither of the law of Nature, nor the Divine law, nor the law of Nations, but only of the Civil and Canon law, there non plus se extendit quàm unusquisque supremus Princeps in suo Regno eam suis legibus extensam esse velit, it extends no farther than every supreme Prince in his Realm by his laws is supposed to will that it shall be extended, which, saith he, cannot be supposed, in matters of this nature, of exempting subjects from making their appeal to their King, for saith he, non est de ment alicujus Principis ut quispiam subditorum possit praescribere quòd ad Principem ab eo non appelletur, aut quòd eum coercere non potest, quando ratio & justitia postulat. It is not imaginable to be the mind of any Prince, that any of his subjects should be able to prescribe that he is not to appeal to his Prince (but to some other) or that his Prince may not punish him when reason and justice requires. It were easy to apply this distinctly to the confirming of all, that I here pretend, but I shall not thus expatiate.   

CHAP. VII. Their third Evidence from our casting off Obedience to the Bishop of Rome at the Reformation.  
§. 1. UPon that one ground laid in the former Chapter, the power of Kings in general, and particularly ad hunc actum to remove Patriarchates; whatsoever can be pretended against the lawfulness of the Reformation in these kingdoms, will easily be answered. And therefore supposing the third, and last objection to lie against our Reformation, that it was founded in the casting off that obedience to the Bishop of Rome, which was formerly paid him by our Bishops, and people under them, I shall now briefly descend to that, first laying down the matter of fact, as it lies visible in our records, and then vindicating it from all blame of schism, which according to the premises can any way be thought to adhere to it.  
§. 2. 
The history of what was done against the Bishop of Rome in the Reformation.  And first for the matter of fact, it is acknowledged, that in the reign of King Henry VIII. the Papal (and with it all foreign) power in Ecclesiastical affairs was both by acts of Convocation of the Clergy, and by statutes or acts of Parliament, cast out of this kingdom. The first step or degree hereof was the clergy's synodical recognising the King, singularem Ecclesiae Anglicanae Protectorem, unicum & supremum Dominum— the singular Protector, the only and supreme Head of the Church of England, Upon this were built the statutes of 24 Hen: VIII. prohibiting all Appeals to Rome, and for the determining all Ecclesiastical suits, and controversies within the kingdom; The statute of 25 Hen: VIII. for the manner of electing and consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops, and another, in the same year, prohibiting the payment of all impositions to the court of Rome, and for the obtaining all such dispensations from the See of Canterbury, which were formerly procured from the Popes of Rome, and that of 26 Hen: VIII. declaring the King to be the supreme head (which in Queen Elizabeth's reign was, to avoid mistakes, changed into supreme Governor) of the Church of England, and to have all honours and praeeminencies, which were annexed to that title.  
§. 3. This was in the next place attended with the submission of the Clergy to the King, agreed on, first in Convocation, and afterward in 25 Hen: VIII. enacted by Parliament, to this purpose, that as it was by the Clergy acknowledged that the Convocation of the Clergy than was, always had been, and aught to be assembled by the King's writ, and as they submitting themselves to the King's Majesty had promised in verbo sacerdotis, that they would never from thenceforth presume to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure, enact, promulge, or exercise any new Canons, Constitutions, Ordinances Provincial or other— unless the King's most royal assent may to them be had to make, promulge, & execute the same— so it was now enacted, that none of the Clergy should enact, promulge, or execute any such Canons, Constitutions, and Ordinances Provincial or Synodical, without assent and authority received from the King, upon pain of imprisonment, and fine at the King's pleasure.  
§. 4. The third and last step of this began with the debate of the Universities, and most eminent Monasteries in the kingdom; An aliquid authoritatis in hoc Regno Angliae Pontifici Romano de jure competat, plusquam alii cuiquam Episcopo extero? Whether any authority did of right belong to the Bishop of Rome in the Kingdom of England more than to any other foreign Bishop? and upon agitation, it was generally defined in the negative, and so returned testified under their hands and seals. The like was soon after concluded, and resolved by the Convocation of the Bishops, and all the Clergy, and subscribed and confirmed by their corporal oaths: And at that time was written and printed the Tract de verâ differentiâ Regiae et Ecclesiasticae potestatis, set out by the Prelates, the chief composers of which were, John Stokesly, Bishop of London; Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of Durham; Stephen Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester; and Dr Thirlby afterward Bishop; where from the practice of the Saxon, and first Norman Kings they evidence the truth of that Negative out of story. And what was thus concluded by the Clergy was soon turned into an Act of Parliament also in 28 Hen: VIII. called An Act extinguishing the authority of the Bishop of Rome, and prescribing an oath to all Officers Ecclesiastical, and lay, of renouncing the said Bishop and his authority.  
§. 5. By these three degrees it is acknowledged that the Bishops and Clergy first, than the King confirming the Acts of the Convocation, and after making Acts of Parliament to the same purposes, renounced the authority of the Roman See, and cast it out of this Island; 
The Praemunire.  and though the first Act of the Clergy in this were so induced, that it is easy to believe that nothing but the apprehension of dangers which hung over them (by a Praemunire incurred by them) could probably have inclined them to it, & therefore I shall not pretend that it was perfectly an act of their first will, and choice, but that which the necessity of affairs recommended to them, yet the matter of right being upon that occasion taken into their most serious debate in a synodical way, and at last a fit and commodious expression uniformly pitched upon by joint consent of both houses of the Convocation, there is no reason to doubt, but that they did believe what they did profess, the fear being the occasion of their debates, but the reasons or arguments offered in debate, the causes (as in all charity we are to judge) of their decision.  
§. 6. But I shall not lay much weight on that judgement of charity, because if that which was thus determined by King and Bishops were falsely determined, than the voluntariness, or freeness of the determination will not be able to justify it, and on the other side, if the determination were just, then was there truth in it, antecedent to, and abstracted from the determination, and it was their duty so to determine, and crime that they were unwilling to do it. And therefore the whole difficulty devolves to this one enquiry, Whether at that time of the reign of Henry VIII. the Bishop of Rome were supreme head, or Governor of this Church of England, or had any real authority here, which the King might not lawfully remove from him to some other, viz: to the Archbishop of Canterbury, if he pleased.  
§. 7. 
The Right of the Bishop of Rome considered.  And this is presently determined upon the grounds which have been formerly laid, and confirmed to have truth in them. For the pretensions for the Pope's supremacy of power among us being by the assertors thereof founded in one of these three, either in his right (as S. Peter's successor) to the Universal Pastorship, that including his power over England, as a member of the whole; or 2. by the paternal right which by Augustine's planting the Gospel among the Saxons is thought to belong to the Pope (and his successors) that sent him; or 3. in the voluntary concession of some Kings; the two former of these have been largely disproved already, Chap. 4, 5, and 6. in discourses purposely, and distinctly applied to those pretensions. 
The concession of Kings.  And for the third, that will appear to have received its determination also, I. by the absoluteness of the power of our Princes, (to which purpose I shall mention but one passage, that of 
† in Goldast: de Mon:  G. de Heimburg, some two hundred years since in the last words of his tract de Injust: Usurp: Pap: where speaking of the Emperors making oath to the Pope, he saith, that this is a submission in him, and a patience above what any other suffers, and proves it by this argument, Nam eximius Rex Angliae, Franciae, Dux, Marchio, non astringitur Papae quocunque juramento: factus Imperator jurare tenetur secundum Decretales eorum fabulosè fictas, ita ut supremus Monarcha magis servilis conditionis, quàm quilibet ejus inferior fieri censeatur, The King of England and France, any Duke or marquis of that Kingdom is not bound to the Pope by any oath, yet the Emperor at his creation is thus bound to swear according to the Pope's Decretals fabulously invented, so that the supreme Monarch is made to be of a more servile condition than any his inferior Prince—.) And 2. by the rights of Kings to remove or erect Patriarchates, and will be farther confirmed in the Negative, if answer be first given to this Dilemma.  
§. 8. 
A Dilemma against the plea drawn from that.  The authority of the Pope in this Kingdom, which is pretended to be held by the concession of our Kings, was either so originally vested in our Kings, that they might lawfully grant it, to whom they pleased, pleased, and so did lawfully grant it to the Pope; or it was not thus originally vested in our Kings; If it were not, then was that grant an invalid, null grant, for such are all concessions of that which is not ours to give, presumptions, invasions, robberies in the giver, which devolve no right to the receiver, and then this is a pitiful claim which is thus founded: But if that authority were so vested in the Kings of England, that they might lawfully grant it to whom they pleased, (which is the only way by which the Pope can pretend to hold any thing by this title of regal concession) then certainly the same power remains still vested in the King to dispose it from him to some other as freely, as the same King may upon good causes remove his Chancellor, or any other of his officers from his place, and commit it to another (this way of arguing is made use of by the Bishops in Convocation, Anno Chr: 1537. in the Book by them entitled [The Institution of a Christian man]) Or if the same power do not still remain in the King, then is the King's power diminished, and he consequently by this his act, of which we treat, become less a King, then formerly he was, And then we know that such acts which make him so, are invalid acts, it being acknowledged to be above the power of the King himself, to divest himself and his successors of any part of his regal power.  
§. 9 
Two sorts of gifts.  To which purpose it must be observed, 1. that some things are so ours, that we may freely use them, but cannot freely part with them, as all those things, wherein our propriety is not confined to our persons, but entailed on our posterity, and such the regal power is supposed to be; 2. That as some things which are part of our personal proprieties, are so freely ours to give, that when they are given, they are departed out of ourselves, and cannot justly be by us resumed again (in which case that Maxim of the civil law stands good, data eo ipso qu● dantur, fiunt accipientis, what is given, by the very act of being given, becomes the goods of the receiver) so other things are given to others, so as we do not part with them ourselves, they are as truly, and properly ours, after, as before the Concession.  
§. 10. 
Some revocable.  Thus the Sun communicates his beams, and with them his warmth and influences, and yet retains all which it thus communicates, and accordingly withdraweth them again, And God the spring of all life, and grace, doth so communicate each of these, that he may, and doth freely withdraw them again, and when he taketh away our breath we die— And thus certainly the King, being the fountain of all power and authority, as he is free to communicate this power to one, so is he equally free to recall, and communicate it to another, And therefore may as freely bestow the power of Primate, and chief Metropolitan of England, or (which is all one) of a Patriarch, on the Bishop of Canterbury, having formerly thought fit to grant it to the Bishop of Rome, as he or any of his Ancestors can be deemed to have granted it to the Bishop of Rome; And then as this being by this means evidenced to be no more than an act of regal power, (which the King might lawfully exercise) takes off all obligation of obedience in the Bishops to the Pope, at the first minute, that he is by the King divested of that power, or declared not to have had it de jure, but only to have assumed it formerly (which freedom from that obedience immediately clears the whole business of schism, 
The reasonableness of revoking it.  as that is a departure from the obedience of the lawful superior) so will there not want many weighty reasons, deducible from the ancient Canons, as well as the maxims of civil government, why the King who may freely place the Primacy, where he please, should choose to place it in a Bishop and subject of his own nation, rather than in a foreign Bishop fare removed, and him not only independent from that King, but himself enjoying a Principality, or territory, which it is too apparent how willing he is to enlarge unlimitedly, and to improve the concessions, which are either acknowledged, or pretended to be made him, to that purpose.  
§. 11. And here it is not amiss to observe, in the reign of Queen Mary, 
Title & power of Supreme head of the Church retained by Queen Mary.  who was no way favourable to the Reformation in points of doctrine and Liturgy, and made all speed to repeal what had been done in King Edward's time in that matter, yet 1. that she left not the title of Supreme head, till the third Parliament of her reign; and 2. that in the second Parliament authority is granted her to make, and prescribe to all such Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, as were erected by Henry the VIII. such statutes and orders as should seem good to her, and that statute never repealed but expired: 3. that in her third Parliament it was with much difficulty obtained, that the supremacy of the Pope should be acknowledged, the matter being urged by her, as that which concerned the establishing the Matrimony of her Mother, and her legitimation, which depended upon the absolute power of the Pope: 4. that in the 4th year of her reign, when the Pope sent Cardinal Petow to be his Legate in England, and to be Bishop of Sarisbury, she would not permit him to come into the Land, neither could he have that Bishopric, which as it was some check to the Pope's absolute supremacy, and an assertion and vindication of the Regal power, so being added to the former it will be less strange, that this Supreme power of the Popes should be by the Bishops in the reign of Henry VIII. disclaimed, and ejected.  
§. 12. Upon this bottom the foundation of Reformation being laid in England, the superstructure was accordingly erected by the King and Bishops and Clergy in Convocation, but this not all at once, but by distinct steps and degrees. Somewhat in the reign of this Henry the VIII. as in the number of the Sacraments, the use of the Lords Prayer etc. in the English tongue, and the translation of the Bible, all resolved on in Synod, the King which duly assembled it, presiding in it by his Vicar General.  
§. 13. This was much farther advanced in the time of his son Edward the VI who being a child, 
The advance of the Reformation in King Edward's days.  and the Laws and Constitution of this Realm committing the exercise of the Supreme power in that case, into the hands of a Protector, what was thus regularly done by that Protector, cannot be doubted to be of the same force, and validity, as if the King had been of age, and done it himself; Or if it should, it would be an unanswerable objection against all hereditary, successive Monarchy, a maim in that form of Government, which could no way be repaired, there being no amulet in the Crown, which secures the life of each King, till his successor be of age, nor promise from heaven that the children of such Princes shall, by succeeding to the Crown, advance by miracle to the years, and abilities of their Parents, So irrational is the scoff, and exception of some, that what was done in King Edward's days being the Acts of a child is as such to be vilified▪ and despised.  
§. 14. In the Reign of this Prince, many Changes were made in the Church, and Recessions from the Doctrines, and practices of Rome; Beside that of Images, the lawfulness of the marriage of the Clergy was asserted, a body of an English Liturgy form, and settled for public use, the Eucharist appointed to be administered to the people in both kinds, etc. and though Bishop Gardner of Winchester, and Bishop Bonner of London made opposition against these changes, and for some misbehaviours herein, were imprisoned, (and two more moderate, learned men, Bishop Tunstal of Durham, and Bishop Day of Chichester, upon another score) yet Archbishop Cranmer, and the rest of the Bishops making up the fare greater number, joined with the Supreme power in the Reformation. And as it is no great marvel, that there should be some (so few) dissenters, so the punishment inflicted on them will not be deemed excessive by any, that shall compare it with the fare severer executions, the fire, and faggot, which were soon after in Queen Mary's days inflicted on Archbishop Cranmer, Bishop Ridley, and Bishop Latimer, as the reward of their disputing in the Synod against Transubstantiation, (and the like cruelties on multitudes more) and the Exiles, and deprivations, which befell so many others in her Reign; However this can be no prejudice to the regularity of the Reformation in the reign of King Edward, wrought, as hath been said, by the Supreme power, with the consent of the major part of Bishops.  
§. 15. 
In Queen Elizabeth's.  That which afterward followed in the beginning of Qu. Elizabeth's reign, may be thought more distant, and less reconcileable to our pretensions, (not that of her sex, her being a woman, for so was Qu. Mary before, which acted so vigorously for the contrary way, and the constitution of our Monarchy invests equally either sex in the plenitude of Regal power, in sacred, as well as civil affairs, and it was but to raise envy against the Reformation that Queen Elizabeth's sex, as before King Edward's nonage hath by some been thought fit to be mentioned, and cannot by any sober judgement be admitted to have any force in it) but because, as it is from our histories more pertinently objected, most of the Bishops were by her divested of their dignities, and new created in their stead, To this therefore in the last place, I must apply myself to give satisfaction. And 1.  
§. 16. In this matter, as much as concerns the Ordination of those new Bishops, that it was performed regularly, according to the Ancient Canons, each by the Imposition of the hands of three Bishops, hath been evidently set down out of the Records, and vindicated by Mr Mason in his Book de Minist: Anglic: and may there be viewed at large, if the Reader want satisfaction in that point.  
§. 17. 
The Creation of new Bishops in Queen Elizabeth's time, vindicated.  As for the second remaining part of the objection which alone is pertinent to this place, it will receive answer by these degrees, First that the death of Cardinal Pool Archbishop of Canterbury, falling near upon the death of her Predecessor Queen Mary, it was very regular for Queen Elizabeth to assign a successor to that See, then vacant, Archbishop Parker; 2dly, that those Bishops, which in Queen Mary's days had been exiled, and deprived, and had survived that calamity, were with all justice restored to their dignities; 3dly, that the Bishops by her deprived, and divested of their dignities, were so dealt with, for refusing to take the oath of Supremacy, form and enjoined in the days of Henry the VIII. and in the first Parliament of this Queen revived, and the statutes concerning it restored to full force, before it was thus imposed on them. So that for the justice of the cause of their deprivation, it depends Immediately upon the Right and power of the Supreme Magistrate to make laws, to impose oaths for the securing his Government, and to inflict the punishments, prescribed by those laws, on the disobedient, but Originally upon the truth of that decision of the Bishops, and Clergy, and Universities, in the reign of Henry the VIII. that no authority belonged in this Kingdom of England to the Bishop of Rome, more than to any other foreign Bishop. The former of these I shall be confident to look on as an undoubted truth, in the maintenance of which all Government is concerned, and hath nothing, peculiar to our pretensions, which should suggest a vindication of it in this place, And the second hath, I suppose, been sufficiently cleared in the former chapters of this discourse, which have examined all the Bishop of Rome's claims to this Supremacy, And both these grounds being acknowledged (or, till they be invalidated, or disproved, supposed) to have truth, and force in them, the conclusion will be sufficiently induced, that there was no injustice in that Act of the Queens, which divested those Bishops, which thus refused to secure her Government, or to approve their fidelity to their lawful▪ Sovereign.  
§. 18. Fourthly, that those Bishops being thus deprived, it was most Regular, and Necessary, and that against which no objection is imaginable, (that of their due Ordination being formerly cleared) that other Bishops should be nominated, and advanced to those vacant Sees, and that what should be for the future acted by those new Bishops in Convocation was regular, Synodical, and valid beyond all exception in respect of the formality of it.  
§. 19 Fiftly, that as by the uniform and joint consent of these Bishops thus constituted a Declaration of certain Principal Articles of Religion was agreed on, and set out by Order of both Archbishops, Metropolitans, and the rest of the Bishops, for the Unity of doctrine, to be taught, and holden of all Parsons, Vicars, and Curates etc. and this not before the third year of that Queen's reign, So before this time there had not been, as fare as appears, any debate in any former Convocation of that Queen's reign concerning Religion (only an offer of a disputation betwixt eight Clergymen on each side, which came to nothing) but all done by the Parliaments restoring what had been debated, and concluded by former Synods, in the reigns of King Henry the eight, and Edward the sixth, without any new deliberation in any present Synod. By this means were revived the Statutes for the Regal Supremacy, as also of the book of Common-prayer, as it was in the time of Edward the sixth, (with few alterations) which included the abolition of the Romish missals. And so all this again, as fare as it concerned Queen Elizabeth's part in the Reformation, is regularly superstructed on the forementioned foundation of Regal Supremacy (with the concurrence, and advise of Synods) which hath been in the former part of this discourse (I hope, sufficiently) vindicated.  
§. 20. And that being granted, it cannot be here necessary, or pertinent to descend to the consideration of each several matter of the Change thus wrought in this Church, either as branches of the Reformation, or under the name, or title of it. For our present enquiry being no farther extended, than this, whether the true Church of England, as it stands by Laws established, have in Reforming been guilty of Schism, as that signifies in the first place a recession, and departure from the obedience of our lawful Superiors, and this being cleared in the Negative, by this one evidence, that all was done by those, to whom, and to whom only, the rightful power legally pertained, viz: the King, and Bishops of this Nation, supposing (as now regularly we may, having competently proved it, and answered all the colours, that have been offered against it) that the Pope had no right to our obedience, and consequently that our departure from him is not a departure from our obedience to our superiors, it is presently visible, that all other matters will belong to some other heads of Discourse, and consequently must be debated upon other principles, All variation from the Church of Rome in point of Doctrine if it should (as I believe it will never) be proved to be unjust, falling under the head of Heresy, not of schism; and for acts of sacrilege, and the like impieties (as certainly Henry the eighth, and some others, cannot be freed from such) they are by us as freely charged upon the actors, as by any Romanist they can be, But yet sacrilege is no more schism, than it is adultery, and the Church, on which one sin hath been committed, cannot be from thence proved to be guilty of every other.   

CHAP. VIII. Of the Second sort of Schism, as that is an Offence against mutual Charity, This divided into three species, and the first here examined.  
§. 1. BUT beside that first species of schism, as it is an offence against the subordination, which Christ hath by himself and his Apostles settled in the Church, (from the guilt of which I have hitherto endeavoured to vindicate our Church) another was taken notice of, as it signifies an offence against the mutual unity, and peace, and charity, which Christ left among his Disciples; And to that I must now proceed, as fare as the Accusations of the Romanist give us occasion to vindicate our innocence.  
§. 2. 
Three branches of the second sort of Schism.  And for method's sake, this branch of Schism may be subdivided into three species. The first is a breach in the doctrines, or Traditions, a departure from the unity of the Faith, which was once delivered to the saints; under that head also comprehending the institutions of Christ, of his Apostles, and of the Universal Church of the first and purest ages, whether in Government, or other the like observances and practices: The second is an offence against external peace and Communion Ecclesiastical: The third and last is the want of that charity, which is due from every Christian to every Christian. Beside these I cannot foresee any other species of schism, and therefore the vindicating our Reformation from all grounds of charge of any of these three, will be the absolving the whole task undertaken in these sheets.  
§. 3. 
1. A departure from the Unity of Doctrines, or Traditions Apostolical.  For the first it may be considered either in the Bullion, or in the coin, in the gross, or in the retail, either as it is a departure from those rules appointed by Christ for the founding and upholding his truth in the Church, this Unity of Doctrine etc. or else as it is the asserting any particular branch of Doctrine, contrary to Christ's, and the (Apostolical, pure) Churches establishment.  
§. 4. 
Our Church vindicated from this, in two branches.  And here it is first suggested by the Romanist, that by casting out the authority of the Bishop of Rome, we have cast off the head of all Christian Unity, and so must needs be guilty of Schism in this first respect. To which the answer is obvious, 1. 
In the first, Christ's Rules for upholding the truth.  that that Bishop of Rome was never appointed by Christ to be the head of all Christian unity, or that Church to be the conservatory (for ever) of all Christian truth, any more than any other Bishop, or Church of the Apostles ordaining, or planting; and whatever can be pretended for the contrary will be easily answered from the grounds already laid, and cleared in the former part of this discourse concerning the Universal Pastorship of S. Peter's successors, which must not be here so unnecessarily repeated.  
§. 5. 2dly, That the way provided by Christ, and his Apostles for the preserving the unity of the faith, etc. in the Church, is fully acknowledged by us, and no way supplanted by our Reformation. That way is made up of two acts of Apostolical providence, First their resolving upon some few heads of special force, and efficacy to the planting of Christian life through the world, and preaching, and depositing them in every Church of their plantation. 2. Their establishing an excellent subordination of all inferior officers of the Church to the Bishop in every city, of the Bishops in every Province to their metropolitans, of the metropolitans in every region or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Patriarches, or Primates, allowing also among these such a Primacy of Order, or dignity, as might be proportionable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the scripture, and agreeable to what is by the ancient Canons allowed to the Bishop of Rome; And this standing subordination sufficient for all ordinary uses, and when there should be need of extraordinary remedies, there was then a supply to be had by congregating Counsels, Provincial, Patriarchal, General, as hath formerly been showed. And all this, it is most certain, asserted, and acknowledged by every true son of the Church of England, as zealously, as is pretended by any Romanist. And from hence, by the way, that speech of the learned and excellent Hugo Grotius (which I discern to be made use of by the Romanists, and looked on with jealousy by others) will, I suppose, receive its due importance, and interpretation, in his Rivet: Apologet: Discuss: p. 255. Restitutionem Christianorum in unum idémque corpus etc.  
§. 6. As for the subjection (and dependence) of this Church to the Monarchick power of the Bishop of Rome, this will never be likely to tend to the unity of the whole body, unless first all other Churches of Christians paid that subjection too, and were obliged, and so by duty morally ascertained always to continue it (which it is evident the Eastern Churches had not done long before the time of our pretended departure) and 2. unless the Bishop of Rome were in probability able to administer that vast Province, so as would be most to the advantage of the whole body, For which whether he be fitly qualified or no, as it is not demonstrable in the causes, so is it to be looked on, as a Politic Problem, the truth of which belongs to prudent persons, and and such as are by God entrusted with the Flock to judge of, i. e. to the Princes, the nursing Fathers of every Church, who are prudentially, and fatherly to determine for themselves and those that are under them, what is most ordinable to that end, and cannot be obliged to conclude, farther than the motives or premises will bear, to decree what they do not reasonably, and cordially believe.  
§. 7. 
In the Second, Particular doctrines.  Lastly, for the particular doctrines wherein we are affirmed by the Romanists to departed from the Unity of the Faith, and so by departing from the unity, to be schismatical, as heretical by departing from the faith, this must be contested by a strict survey of the particular doctrines, wherein as we make no doubt to approve ourselves to any that will judge of the Apostolical doctrine and traditions by the Scriptures, and consent of the first 300 years, or the four General Counsels, 
The Church of England's temper in respect of particular doctrines.  (the most competent witnesses of Apostolical traditions) so we shall secure ourselves of our innocence in this behalf, by that principle acknowledged in our Church, and owned, as the rule by which we are concluded in any debate, or controversy: That whatever is contrary to the doctrine, or practices of those first and purest ages, shall by us (assoon as it thus appears) be renounced, and disclaimed also. Which resolution of rulinesse, and obedience, will, I suppose, conserve us in the unity of the Faith, and render us approvable to God, though our ignorance (thus unaffected) should betray us to some misunderstandings of those first times, and be an instrument much more probable to lead us into all truth, than the supposed infallibility of the Church of Rome can be imagined to be, which as it leaves the proudest presumer really as liable to error, as him that acknowledgeth himself most fallible, so it ascertains him to persevere incorrigible whether in the least, or greatest error, which by fault, or frailty he shall be guilty of.  
§. 8. This consideration of the humble, docible temper of our Church (together with our professed appeal to those first and purest times, to stand or fall, as by those evidences we shall be adjudged) as it necessarily renders it our infelicity, not our crime, if in judging of Christ's truth we should be deemed to err, so may it reasonably supersede that larger trouble of the Reader, in this place, which the view and examination of the severals would cost him, it being thus fare evident, that it is our avowed wish and our care (should it be denied to be our lot) a special mark of the Church of England's Reformation, to preserve the Unity of the Apostolical Faith and Primitive practices, as entire, as we would have done Christ's body or garment, and the probability being not weak on our side, that the fact of the crucifying soldiers which hath so much of our abhorrence and detestation, shall never be our choice, our known, or wilful guilt, or if it be, that we so fare recede from our Profession.   

CHAP. IX. The Second species of this Schism examined, as it is an offence against external peace, or Communion Ecclesiastical.  
§. 1. 
This Church free from breach of Communion Ecclesiastical.  NOW for the second branch of this second sort of Schism, as it is an offence against external peace or communion Ecclesiastical. This cannot with any colour be charged on us, 
As appears by six Considerations.  of whom these 6 things are manifest, and that by the tenure of our Reformation, 1. 
The first.  that we have always retained the form of Government▪ in, and under which the Apostles founded Ecclesiastical assemblies, or Communion, viz: that of the Bishop, and his inferior officers in every Church, and so in that respect are, in Ignatius his phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, within the altar, have no part of that breach of Ecclesiastical communion upon us, which consists in casting out that order. 2. 
The second.  That as we maintain that Order, so we regularly submit to the exercise of it, acknowledge the due authority of these Governors, profess Canonical obedience to them, submit to their Censures, and Decrees, and give ourselves up to be ruled by them in all things that belong to their cognizance secundum Deum, according to God. 3. 
The third.  That the circumstances which are necessary to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the assembling ourselves together for the public worship, whether 1. that of place, (our Churches consecrated to those offices) or 2. that of time, (the Lord's day, and other primitive festivals, and Fasts, and, in their degree, every day of the week) or 3. that of forms of Prayer, and Praises, celebration of Sacraments, and sacramentals, Preaching, Catechising, etc. or 4. that of Ceremonies, such as the practice of the Primitive Church hath sent down recommended to us; or lastly, that of Discipline to bind all these performances upon every member of the Church in his office, or place, are all entered into our Confessions, settled by Article, as part of our establishment, and so the want of either, or all of those are not imputable to our Reformation.  
§. 2. 
The fourth.  Fourthly, That in every of these three, whatsoever the Romanist requires us to add farther to that which we voluntarily, and professedly receive, (1. the supreme, transcendent, monarchick power of the Pope, 2. the acknowledgement of, and obedience to his supremacy, 3. the use of more ceremonies, festivals, etc.) is usurpation, or imposition of the present Romanists, absolutely without Authority, or Precedent from the ancient, Primitive Church, from whom we are so unwilling to divide in any thing, that we choose a conformity with them, rather than with any later model, and if by receding from the Ordo Romanus in any particular, we do not approve ourselves to come nearer to the first, and purest times, it is the avowed Profession of our Church, the wish, and purpose of it, which I may justly style part of our establishment, to reduce, and restore that, (whatsoever it is) which is most pure, and Primitive in stead of it.  
§. 3. 
The fift.  Fiftly, That as we exclude no Christian from our communion, that will either filially, or fraternally embrace it with us, being ready to admit any to our assemblies, that acknowledge the Foundation laid by Christ, and his Apostles, so we as earnestly desire to be admitted to the like freedom of external Communion with all the members of all other Christian Churches, as oft as occasion makes us capable of that blessing of the one heart, and one lip, and would most willingly, by the use of the ancient method of literae Communicatoriae, maintain this Communion with those, with whom we cannot corporally assemble, and particularly with those which live in obedience to the Church of Rome.  
§. 4. 
The sixth.  Sixtly, that the only hindrances that interpose and obstruct this desired freedom of external Communion, are wholly imputable to the Romanists.  
§. 5. First, their excommunicating, and separating from their assemblies all that maintain communion with the Church of England, which we know was done by Bull from the Pope about the tenth year of Q. Elizabeth (before which time those English, which had not joined in our Reformation, might, and did come to our assemblies, and were never after rejected by us, but upon their avowed contumacy against the orders of our Church, which consequently brought the censures on them) and to that it is visibly consequent, that we that were cast out, cannot be said to separate, as in the former part of this discourse hath been demonstrated.  
§. 6. Secondly, their imposing such conditions on their Communion (belief of doctrines, and approbation of practices, which we neither believe, nor approve of, and are ready to contest and maintain our Negatives, by grounds that all good Christians ought to be concluded by) that we cannot without sinning, or seeming to sin against conscience, without wilful falling on one side, or dissembling and unsound confession on the other side, or at least the scandal of one of these, accept of their communion upon such conditions, as hath formerly been demonstrated also.  
§. 7. 
A consideration concerning our Church.  And in this matter it were very well worthy our considering, how fare the Articles of our Church of England proceed in accord with the present Roman doctrines and practices, and in what particulars 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we cannot persuade ourselves to consent to them, and then to offer it to the umpirage of any rational arbitrator, whether we that unfeignedly profess to believe so much and no more, nor to be convinced by all the reasons, and authorities, proofs from Scripture, or the first Christian writers, (those of the first three hundred years) or the four General Counsels) produced by them (being in full inclination and desire of mind, ready to submit upon conviction) are in any reason, or equity, or according to any example, or precept of Christ, or his Apostles, or the ancient, Primitive Church, to be required to offer violence to our minds, and to make an unsound profession, or else (for that one guilt of not doing so) to be rejected as heretics, and denied the benefit of Christian Communion, which we hearty desire to extend and propagate to them which deny it to us. All this thus put together, and applied to this present matter will certainly vindicate us from all appearance of guilt of this second branch of the second sort of Schism.   

CHAP. X. The third species of this Schism, as an offence against that charity due from every Christian to every Christian, examined.  
§. 1. 
Contrary to charity due from all to all.  LAstly, as Schism is an offence against that charity which is due from every Christian to every Christian, so it will be best distributed (according to what we see noted by by the Apostle, Rom. 14. in the Jewish, and Gentile Christians) 
1. Judging▪ 2. Despising.  into the judging, and the despising of others, either of which was, if not formally Schism, yet soon improveable into it, when it would not be repressed by the Apostles admonitions, 
Separating the effect of both.  The Jewish Christians we know judged, and damned all that would not observe the Mosaical law, and would not associate, or communicate with the Gentiles, and the like height Diotrephes, and some of the Gentile believers, who began with the other branch, that of vilifying the weak Jew, at last arrived to, not receiving, forbidding to receive, and casting out the brethren, 3 Joh. 10. And whether the Romanists or we, are thus guilty, will soon be discernible.  
§. 2. 
Of Judging & separating the Romanists guilty ex Confesso  For the former, that of judging, and so separating from their brethren (if yet we may be allowed that title) it is evident by their own acknowledgement, how guilty they are, and how guiltless we.  
§. 3. It hath been a special motive, and argument to gain proselytes to their party for some years, that by our Confession there is salvation to be had among them, but in their judgement no possible hope of it for us. This weapon of theirs used so studiously against us, to anticipate and prejudge, in general, whatsoever can be particularly said to assert our doctrines, and practices, will certainly be as useful in our hands, as Goliah's sword in David's to give this wound (I wish it may not prove as fatal) to our vaunting enemies: For certainly, if there be any truth in that motive, then are they professedly the men, that judge their brethren, and as confessedly we the men, that do not judge them. And if S. Cyprian's rule be true (who had as well considered the nature of Schism, and as diligently armed the Christians of his age against it, and given us as sure rules to judge by, in this matter, as any) that they that maintain any difference in opinion against other Christians, must, if they will avoid the evil of schism, manage it with this temper (neminem damnantes, neminem à communione nostrâ arcentes) never condemn any, or forbidden them our communion, then is the schism (because the uncharitableness) on their parts, not on ours. And it is not the saying, we are Heretics, and so certainly excluded salvation, Schismatics, and so out of the Church, the way to salvation, that can give this sanguinary judgement any meeker a title; For that we are such, being as much denied, as any thing, and that negative offered to be proved, and vindicated by all those evidences, by which any matter of doctrine, (from whence this question depends) can duly be cleared, this unproved affirmation, that we are such, is certainly a petitio principii, a begging of the question, a supposing that in the debate, which they know we are as fare from confessing, as they from having proved, and that is the most certain proof, that such judging is uncharitable; I wish there were not many other as pregnant indications of it.  
§. 4. And for that of despising or setting at nought the brother, which is the Ap 
Of despising. We are guiltless of it  ostles. argument also that they walk not charitably, and the effect whereof is evident, the casting them out of the Church, if the cause may be concluded by the effect, the guilt lies on the Romanists side, not on ours (as hath formerly appeared) And truly we are so sensible of the many prepossessions, and strong prejudices, which by the advantage of education, the prescribed credulity to all that the Church shall propose, the doctrine of infallibility, the shutting up the scriptures in an unknown language, the impossibility that the multitude should search▪ or examine tradition with their own eyes, the prosperous flourishing estate of the Roman Church (and the persecutions, and calamities▪ and expressions of God's displeasure on the Church of England) the literal sound of [Hoc est corpus meum] for their principal (espoused) doctrine of Transubstantiation, and some other the like means, are infused into the multitude of men and women, that are brought up without any knowledge of ours, in a firm belief of all their pretensions, that we are as fare from setting them at nought, or despising them, as from that (which by their doing it first is made impossible for us to be guilty of) the casting them out of the Church.  
§. 5. I foresee not any objection, which may give me temptation, or excuse farther to enlarge on this matter, And profess not to know any other branch of Schism, or colour of fastening that guilt upon our Church, made use of by any, which hath not been either prevented in the grounds of this discourse, or distinctly taken notice of, and competently vindicated, as fare as the designed brevity would permit.   

CHAP. XI. Concerning the present Persecution of the Church of England, and the advantages sought from thence.  
§. 1. OUr Establishment being thus freed from Schism, I shall not now entertain myself with any fear, that the Persecution, which we are under, will involve us in it. 
The Romanists argument from our present condition of Persecution.  Yet can I not but take notice of the style, that some Romanists have in these last years, on this occasion, chosen to make use of, calling us [the late Church of England] The interpretation whereof is to my understanding this, that the calamities, under which now we suffer, have made us cease to be a Church: And therefore having learned, and abundantly experimented, what scandal the Cross hath always carried along with it, how willing enemies are to take advantage, and ground arguments on afflictions, and how ordinary it is for friends, to take impressions from such sensible, carnal motives, and being secured by the story of the Ancient Gnostics, that it is neither scandalous excess of fear, nor want of charity, to think it possible, that this, as other ancient heresies, may now as in a Platonic year (if not carefully warded) return on us, as in a revolution, I shall therefore conclude this paper with an attempt to remove this prejudice; The utmost whereof being form into an objection, is this, that it is absolutely necessary to communicate with some one visible Church, that now the Church of England is not such, and consequently that it must be cast off, and the Roman Church so illustriously visible, be taken up in stead of it.  
§. 2. 
Answered.  To this reserve I shall make my returns by these degrees, First that by the making this objection, or drawing any argument against any member of the Church of England, from the present 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or improsperous circumstances of affairs, It must be supposed, that twenty years since, this person, the supposed subject of discourse, living regularly in this Church, under his superiors, was not then chargeable with this crime of not communicating with a visible Church.  
§. 3. This consequent I shall not be so much my own flatterer as to think it will be allowed me▪ by the Romanist, who will, I know, at another time accuse the whole Church of England (ever since the Reformation) of schism from the Catholic Church, and make the communicating with it 20 years since, as dangerous as now the not communicating with any: But the reason of my laying this foundation is, to show the vanity of the present objection, For if the Church of England 20 years since, were not a Church, but a society of Schismatics, not a particular Church (which, if so, must be a part, or member of the Universal, and such it is not, if it be truly separated from that body, in the unity of which it is obliged to remain) but a separated, and torn off, and so a liveless, ejected branch, than whatsoever hath now befallen us, and the consequence of that, the supposed impossibility of communicating with the Church of England, will but leave us where we were, the impossibility of communicating with a schismatical society, being not chargeable on us, as a crime, by them, who make the communicating with all such societies so damnable; And therefore I say, to the making this any objection, 'tis necessary, that that be supposed, which I have for that cause laid as my foundation, that 20 years since a member of the English Church was not under this guilt of not communicating with some one visible Church; And if then he were not, (or, for discourse sake, be by the objecter supposed not to have been) than it infallibly, and irrefragably follows (which is the second proposition) that he that 20 years since was not under this guilt of not communicating— is either not guilty of it now, or else hath voluntarily committed or omitted somewhat, which commission or omission hath been the contracting of this guilt. For that somewhat, which hath not been his choice, shall become his crime, that what hath been his saddest part of infelicity, the evil against which he hath most industriously contended, should be accounted his offence▪ when it is his punishment, I shall not fear will be affirmed by any.  
§. 4. Thirdly then, the business is brought to this issue, that that person, which is the subject of our discourse (he that 20 years since, was a member of the Church of England) be now proved by some commission or omission of his, voluntarily to have contracted this guilt, or else be absolved, and freed from it; If he have contracted it, it must be by some irregularity of actions, contrary to the standing rule and Canons of this Church; or by disobedience to some commands of his Ecclesiastical superiors; And as in neither of these I shall excuse any that hath been guilty, so if, being not fallen under the actual Censures of the Church for it, he now timely and sincerely return with contrition, and reformation, I shall hope it will not be imputed to him; But however this cannot be insisted on by the objecter, because I speak, and so must he, of him that hath lived regularly (not of him that hath not) And of him 'tis apparent, that all that he hath done, is, to adhere to his former principles, when others have not, to have testified his constancy with (not only venturing but) actually losing either possessions, or liberty (and the benefit of Ecclesiastical assemblies) rather than he would join, or appear to join with Schismatics, when others have made all worldly advantages by the rapture; In a word, that he hath been patiented, and not fainted; and never departed from his rule, though it have cost him dear to stick fast to it; And I hope no body will be so uncharitable, as to grieve, and gall him, whom God hath thus suffered to be chastised, upon no other provocation, but this, his having been thus afflicted and persecuted. This is too clear a truth to need confirming, and yet this is the utmost, that it can be driven to, supposing the most that the objection can be imagined to suppose, viz: that the Church of England is now invisible.  
§. 5. But then in the fourth place, it must be added, that as yet, Blessed be God, the Church of England is not invisible; It is still preserved in Bishops and Presbyters rightly ordained, and multitudes rightly baptised, none of which have fallen off from their profession; And the only thing imaginable to be objected in this point, being this, that the schism hath so fare been extended by the force, that many, if not most Churches parochial are filled by those, who have set up a new, or a no-form of worship, and so that many men cannot any otherwise▪ then in private families, serve God, after the Churchway, that sure will be of little weight, when the Romanists are remembered to be the objecters, who cannot but know, that this is the only way, that they have had of serving God in this Kingdom, these many years, and that the night-meetings of the Primitive Christians in dens and caves are as pertinent to the justifying of our condition, as they can be of any, and when 'tis certain, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the forsaking of the assemblies, Heb. 10.25. is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, our wilful fault v. 26. but only our unhappy lot▪ who are forced either not to frequent the assemblies, or else to encourage (& incur the scandal of seeming to approve) the practices of those that have departed from the Church. That we do not decline order, or public communion▪ and consequently are not to be charged for not enjoying those benefits of it, which we vehemently thirst after, is evident by the extensive nature▪ of our persecution, the same tempest having with us thrown out all order, and form, Bishops, and Liturgy together, and to that curstness of theirs, and not to any obstinateness, or unreconcileablenesse of ours (which alone were the guilt of non-communion) is all that unhappiness of the constant sons of the present English Church to be imputed, in which alone this whole objection is founded.  
§. 6. 
What this may come to in the future.  I cannot discern any farther appearance of difficulty in this matter, and therefore shall no farther lengthen this Appendage, then by offering it to the consideration of the indifferent Reader, whether this objection can ever in future times be improveable into a charge against us, or our posterity, as long as either Bishops stand, and continue to ordain among us, or it is not our faults that they do not stand. To which purpose it may be remembered▪ what befell the Jews whether under the Zelots fury, or the Romans yoke; The former threw out the lawful successive High Priests, and Priests of the sons of Aaron, and put into those sacred offices the most ignorant rustics, some so void of all degree of knowledge, saith Josephus, that they knew not what the very word [Priest] signified. The Roman Conquerors by their Procurators put in annually whom they pleased to choose (without consideration of the Aaronical line) into the chief Priest's office; I shall here demand of any, Whether (supposing and granting it as undeniable, that the Zelots were formally Schismatics, or with some improvement, in Josephus his style 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seditious) there can be any ground of reason, or equity, to involve, or conclude under the same guilt those that lived under those imposed, usurping High Priests, supposing those inferiors to have been as fare from consenting to the continuance, as to the beginning of such usurpation, and that the circumstances were such, that they lay not under the appearance of doing, what they did not, and so had not the scandal, any more, than the reality of that guilt. The Reader, I suppose, will be able to answer this Quaere to himself, and supersede all necessity of making up the Parallel.  
§. 7. 
The Conclusion.  And then I have at this time no farther exercise for him, but that he will join in ardent prayers with me, that God will restore that which is lost, reduce that heavenly grace, and incomparable blessing of Christian peace and holy communion among all, that have received the honour of being called by his name, that we may all mind the same thing, fix the same common designs, love, and aid, and promote one another's good, unanimously glorify him here with one tongue, and heart, that we may all be glorified with him, and sing joint Hosannah's, and Hallelujahs to him to all eternity.  
Amen.    

ERRATA.  

PAge 42. line 3. deal)  
p. 73. li. 9 lege S. Peter, so—  
p. 81. marg: li. 12. lege 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
p. 85. l. 24. league Where as  
p. 91. li. 4. lege 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
p. 107. li. 2. for third lege second  
p. 141. li. 25. for quae re: quo  
p. 157. li. 3. lege that the    

The Contents.  

CHAP. I. AN Introduction, the danger, and sin of Schism. page 1  
CHAP. II. What Schism us, together with some general considerations thereon. 12  
CHAP. III. The several sorts of Schism. 31  
CHAP. IV. The pretended evidences of the Romanist against the Church of England examined, and first that from the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy by Christ's donation to S. Peter. 66  
CHAP. V The evidences from the Bishop of Rome's succeeding S. Peter examined. 92  
CHAP. VI Their second plea from the Bishop of Rome having planted Christianity among us. 107  
CHAP. VII. Their third Evidence from our casting off Obedience to the Bishop of Rome at the Reformation. 132  
CHAP. VIII. Of the second sort of Schism, as that is an offence against mutual Charity, This divided into three species, and the first here examined. 155  
CHAP. IX. The second species of this Schism examined, as it is an offence against external peace, or Communion Ecclesiastical. 163  
CHAP. X. The third species of this Schism, as an offence against that charity due from every Christian to every Christian, examined. 169  
CHAP. XI. Concerning the present Persecution of the Church of England, and the advantages sought from thence. 174   
THE END.   

A CATALOGUE of some Books Printed for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane, London.  

A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament by Henry Hammond D. D. in fol.  
The Practical Catechism, with all other English Treatises of Henry Hammond D. D. in two volumes in 4o.  
Dissertationes quatuor, quibus Episcopatus Jura ex S. Scriptures & Primaeva Antiquitate adstruuntur, contra sententiam D. Blondelli & aliorum. Authore Henrico Hammond. in 4o.  
A Letter of Resolution of six Quaere's, in 12o.  


The names of several Treatises and Sermons written by Jer. Taylor D. D. viz.  
1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, A Course of Sermons for all the Sundays of the Year; Together with a Discourse of the Divine Institution, Necessity, sacredness, and Separation of the Office Ministerial, in fol.  
2. Episcopacy asserted, in 4o.  
3. The History of the Life and Death of the Ever-blessed Jesus Christ, 2d Edit. in fol.  
4. The Liberty of Prophesying, in 4o.  
5. An Apology for authorized and Set-forms of Liturgy; in 4o.  
6. A Discourse of Baptism, its institution and efficacy upon all Beleivers, in 4o.  
7. The Rule and Exercises of holy living, in 12o.  
8. The Rule and exercises of holy dying, in 12o.  
9 A short Catechism for institution of young persons in the Christian Religion, in 12o.  
10. The Real Presence and Spiritual of CHRIST in the Blessed Sacrament proved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, in 8o.    
Certamen Religiosum, or a Conference between the late King of England, and the late Lord Marquis of Worcester concerning Religion, at Ragland Castle; Together with a Vindication of the Protestant Cause, by Chr. Cartwright in 4o.  
The Psalter of David, with Titles and Collects according to the matter of each Psalm, by the Right honourable Chr. Hatton, in 12o.  
Boanerges and Barnabas, or Judgement and Mercy for wounded and afflicted souls, in several Soliloquies, by Francis Quarles, in 12o.  
The life of Faith in Dead Times, by Chr. Hudson in 12o.  
Motives for Prayer upon the seven days of the Week, by Sir Richard Baker Knight, in 12o.  
The Guide unto True Blessedness, or a Body of the Doctrine of the Scriptures, directing man to the saving knowledge of God, by Sam. Crook, in 12o.  
Six excellent Sermons upon several occasions, preached by Edward Willan Vicar of Hoxne, in 4o.  
The Dipper dipped, or the Anabaptists ducked and plunged over head and ears, by Daniel Featly D. D. in 4o.  
Hermes Theologus, or a Divine Mercury: new descants upon old Records, by Theoph. Wodnote, in 12o.  
Philosophical Elements, concerning Government and Civil society: by Thomas Hobbs of Malmesbury, in 12o.  
An Essay upon Statius, or the five first books of Publ. Papinius Statius his Thebais, by Tho. Stephen's Schoolmaster in S. Edmondsbury, in 8o.  
Nomenclatura Brevis Anglo-Latino Graeca in usum Scholae Westmonasteriensis, per F. Gregory, in 8o.  
Grammatices Graecae Enchiridion in usum Scholae Collegialis Wigorniae, in 8o.  
A Discourse of Holy Love, by Sir Geo. Strode Knight, in 12o.  
The Saint's Honeycomb full of Divine Truths, by Rich. Gove Preacher of Henton S. Gorge in Somersetshire, in 8o.  
Devotion digested, into several Discourses and Meditations upon the Lords most holy Prayer: Together with additional Exercitations upon Baptism, The Lord's Supper, Heresies, Blasphemy, The Creatures, Sin, The souls pant after God, The Mercies of God, The souls complaint of its absence from God; by Peter Samwaies, Fellow lately resident in Trinity College, Cambridge, in 12o.  
Of the Division between the English and Romish Church upon Reformation, by Hen. Fern D. D. in 12o.  
Directions for the profitable reading of the Scriptures, by John White M. A. in 8o.  
The Exemplary Lives and Memorable Acts of 9 the most worthy women of the world, 3 Jews, 3 Gentiles, 3 Christians, by Tho. Heywood, in 4o.  
The Saints Legacies, or a Collection of promises out of the Word of God, in 12o.  
Judicium Universitatis Oxoniensis de Solemni Lega & Foedere, Juramento Negativo etc. in 8o.  
Certain Sermons and Letters of Defence and Resolution to some of the late Controversaries of our times by Jasper maine D. D. in 4o.  
Janua Linguarum Reserata, sive omnium Scientiarum & Linguarum seminarium, Auctore Cl. Viro J. A. Com●nio, in 8o.  
A Treatise concerning Divine providence, very seasonable for all Ages, by Tho. Morton Bishop of Duresme, in 8o.  
Animadversions upon Mr. Hobbs his Leviathan, with some Observations upon Sir Walter Raleigh's History of the World, by Alex. Rosse, in 12o.  
Fifty Sermons preached by that learned and reverend Divine John Donne, in fol.  
Wits-Common-wealth, in 12o.  
The Banquet of Jests new and old, in 12o.  
Balzac's Letters the fourth part, in 8o.  
Quarles Virgin Widow a Play, in 4o.  
Solomon's Recantation, in 4ᵒ. by Francis Quarles.  
Amesii antisynodalia, in 12o.  
Christ's Commination against Scandalisers, by John Tombs in 12o.  
Dr. Stuart's Answer to Fountain's Letter, in 4o.  
A Tract of Fortifications, with 22 brass cuts, in 4o.  
Dr. Griffiths Sermon preached at S. Paul's, in 4o.  
Blessed birthday, printed at Oxford, in 8o.  
A Discourse of the state Ecclesiastical, in 4o.  
An Account of the Church Catholic where it was before the Reformation, by Edward Boughen D. D. in 4o.  
An Advertisement to the Jurymen of England touching Witches, written by the Author of the Observations up▪ Mr. Hobbs Leviathan, in 4o.  
Episcopacy and Presbytery considered, by Hen. Fern D. D. in 4o.  
A Sermon preached at the Isle of Wight before His Majesty, by Hen. Fern D. D. in 4o.  
The Commoners Liberty or the Englishman's Birthright, in 4o.  
An Expedient for composing Differences in Religion, in 4o.  
A Treatise of Self-denial, in 4o.  
The holy Life and Death of the late Vi-countesse Falkland in 12o.  
Certain Considerations of present Concernment: Touching this Reformed Church of England, by Hen. Fern, in 12o.  
England's Faithful Reprover and Monitour, in 12o.  


Newly published,  
The grand Conspiracy of the Members against the Mind, of Jews against their King. As it hath been delivered in four Sermons, by John Allington, B. D. in 12o.  
The Quakers Questions objected against the Ministers of the Gospel, and many sacred acts and offices of Religion, with brief Answets thereunto: Together with a Discourse of the holy Spirit his workings and impressions on the souls of men, by R. Sherlock B. D. in 8o.    


Now in the Press,  
Of Fundamentals in a notion referring to Practise, by H. Hammond, D. D. in 12o.