CLARIOR E TENEBRIS  
BEATAM AETERNA  
CAELI SPECTO  
ASPERAM AT LEVEM  
CHRISTI TRACTO  
In verbo tuo Spes mea  
MUNDI CALCO  
SPLENDIDAM AT GRAVEM  Alij diutius Imperium tenuerunt, nemo tam fortiter reliquit. Tarit, Histor. Lib. 2. c. 47. p. 417.   

 portrait of Charles the Second 
Augustissimi CAROLI Secundi Dei Gratia ANGLIAE SCOTIAE FRANCIAE ET HIBERNIAE REX.  
Bona agere & mala pati Regium est Page. 1.    

The Established Church: OR, A SUBVERSION OF ALL The Romanist's Pleas FOR THE POPE'S SUPREMACY IN ENGLAND.  
Together with A VINDICATION of the present Government of the Church of England, as allowed by the Laws of the Land, against all Fanatical exceptions; particularly of Mr. Hickeringill, in His Scandalous Pamphlet, styled NAKED TRUTH, the 2d. Part.  
In Two Books.  
By FRAN. FULLWOOD, D. D. Archdeacon of Totnes in Devon.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to the King's most Sacred Majesty, at the Angel in Amen-Corner, MDCLXXXI.   

REVERENDISSIMO In Christo Patri GULIELMO Archiepiscopo CANTUARIENSI, Totius ANGLIAE PRIMATI, & Regiae Serenissimae Majestatis à Sanctioribus Conciliis.  
FRANCISCUS FULLWOOD, Olim Collegii EMANUEL.  
Apud CANTABRIGIENSES, Librum hunc, humillimè D. D. D.   

TO THE RIGHT REVEREND Father in God, GEORGE Lord Bishop of WINTON, Prelate of the Most Noble Order of the GARTER.  
My very good Lord:  
BLessed be God, that I have Survived this Labour, which I once feared I should have sunk under; and that I live to publish my Endeavours once more, in the Service of the Church of England; and thereby, have obtained my wished opportunity, to dedicate a Monument of my deep Sense, of your Lordship's manifold obligations upon me.  
In particular, I rejoice in the acknowledgement, that I owe my Public Station, next under God and His Sacred Majesty, to your Lordship's Assistance and Sole Interest; though, I cannot think, so much out of kindness to my Person (then, altogether unknown to your Lordship) as affection and care of the Church; grounded in a great and pious intention, (however the object be esteemed) truly worthy of so Renowned a Prelate, and (many other ways) excellent and admired Patriot of the Church of England.  
If, either my former attempts have been anywise available to the weakening the Bulworks of Nonconformity; or my present Essay, may succeed, in any measure, to evince or confirm the Truth in this greater Controversy; I am happy; that, as God hath some glory, and the Church some advantage; so some honour redounds upon your Lordship; who, with a virtuous design, gave me a Capacity at first, and ever since, have quickened and animated my Endeavours, in those Services.  
I may be permitted to name our Controversy with the Church of Rome, the great Controversy: For having been exercised, in all the sorts of Controversy with Adversaries, on the other hand; I have found, that all of them put together, are not considerable; either, for weight of matter, or copiousness of Learning; or for Art, Strength, or Number of Adversaries, in comparison of this.  
It takes in, the Length of time; the Breadth of place; and is managed, with the Height of Wit, and Depth of Subtlety; the Hills are covered with the Shadow of it, and its Boughs are like the goodly Cedars.  
My Essay in these Treatises, is, to shorten and clear the way; and therefore, though I must run with it through all time; I have reduced the place; and removed the Wit and Subtleties, that would impede our progress.  
I have endeavoured to lop off luxuriant branches, and swelling excrescencies; to lay aside all personal reflections, captious advantages, Sophistical and Sarcastical Wit; and to set the Arguments on both sides, free from the darkness of all kind of cunning, either of escape or reply, in their plain light and proper strength; as also, to confine the Controversy, as near as I can, within the bounds of our own Concern, i. e. our own Church.  
And when this is done, the plain and naked truth is; that the meanest of our other Adversaries (I had almost said the silly Quaker himself) seems to me, to have better Grounds, and more like Christian, than the glorious Cause of the Papacy.  
But to draw a little nearer to our Point; your Lordship cannot but observe, that one end of the Roman Compass, is ever fixed upon the same Centre; and the sum of their clamour is, our disobedience to the See of Rome. Our defence stands, upon a twofold Exception: 1. Against the Authority: 2. Against the Laws of Rome; and if either be justified, we are innocent.  
The first Exception (and the defence of our Church, against the Authority of that See) is the matter of this Treatise; the second, is reserved.  
I have determined, that all the Arguments for the Pope's Authority, in England, are reduceable, to a  Plea: the Right of Conversion as our Apostle; the Right of a Patriarch; the Right of Infallibility; the Right of Prescription, and the Right of Universal Pastorship: the Examination of them, carries us through our Work.  
Verily, to my knowledge, I have omitted nothing Argumentative of any one of these Pleas: yea, I have considered all those little inconsiderable things, which, I find any Romanists seem to make much of. But, indeed, their pretended Right of possession in England, and the Universals Pastorship, (to which they adhere, as their surest holds) have my most intended and greatest strength, and care and diligence; that nothing material, or seemingly so, might escape, either unobserved, or not fully answered; let not the contrary be said, but shown.  
I have further laboured to contract the Controversy, two ways.  
1. By a very careful, as well as large, and I hope, as clear state of the question, in my definition and discourse of Schism, at the beginning: whereby, mistakes may be prevented, and much of matter disputed by others, excluded.  
2. By waving the dispute of such things, as have no influence into the Conclusion; and (according to my use) giving as many and as large Concessions to the Adversary, as our Cause will suffer.  
Now, my end being favourably understood, I hope, there is no need to ask your Lordships, or any others, pardon, for that I have chosen not to dispute, two great things.  
1. That, in the Words (tu es Petrus, & super hanc Petram) there is intended, some respect, peculiar to saint Peter's Person: it is generally acknowledged, by the most learned Defenders of our Church, that Saint Peter had a Primacy of Order; and your Lordship well knows, that many of the Ancient Fathers have expressed as much; and I intent no more.  
2. That Tradition may be Infallible, or indefectible, in the delivery of the Essentials of Religion, for aught we know. By the Essentials, we mean no more, but the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, the Decalogue, and the two Sacraments: in this I have my Second, and my Reason too: for than Rushworth's Dialogues, and the new Methods of Roman opposition, need not trouble us.  
My good Lord, it is high time, to beg your Pardon; that I have reason to conclude with an excuse, for a long Epistle: the truth is, I thought myself accountable to your Lordship, for a Brief of the Book, that took its being from your Lordship's Encouragement; and the rather, because it seems unmannerly to expect, that your good Old Age should perplex itself with Controversy: which the Good God, continue long and happy, to the honour of his Church on Earth; and then, crown with the Glory of Heaven. It is the hearty prayer of,  
My Lord, Your Lordship's most obliged and devoted Servant, FR. FULLWOOD.   

A PREFACE TO THE READER.  
Good Reader,  
OUr Roman Adversaries claim the Subjection of the Church of England by several Arguments; but insist, chief, upon that of possession, and the Universal Pastorship: if any shall deign to answer me, I think it reasonable to expect, they should attach me there, where they suppose their greatest strength lies: otherwise, though, they may seem to have the Advantage, by catching Shadows, if I am left unanswered in those two main Points, the Substance of their Cause is lost.  
For, if it remain unproved, that the Pope had quiet possession here; and the contrary proof continue unshaken, the Argument of Possession is on our side.  
I doubt not, but you will find, that the Pope had not possession here before; that he took not possession by Austin the Monk; and that he had no such possession here, afterwards, sufficient to create or evince a Title.  
‛ 'tis confessed, that Austin took his Archbishopric of Canterbury, as the Gift of Saint Gregory; and having recalled many of the People to Christianity, both the Converts and the Converter, gave great Submission and respect▪ to Saint Gregory, then Bishop of Rome; and how far the People were bound to obey their Parent that had begotten them, or he, his Master, that sent him and gave him the Primacy, I need not dispute.  
But, these things to our purpose, are very certain. 1. That Conversion was anciently conceived to be the ground of their Obedience to Saint Gregory, which Plea is now deserted; and that Saint Gregory himself abhorred the very Title of Universal Bishop, the only thing now insisted on.  
2. ' 'tis also certain, that the Addition of Authority, which the King ' s Silence, Permission or Connivance gave to Austin, was more than Saint Gregory's Grant; and yet, that Connivance of the new Converted King, in the Circumstances of so great Obligation and Surprise, (who might not know, or consider, or be willing to exercise his Royal Power, then, in the Point) could never give away the Supremacy, inherent in his Crown, from his Successors for ever.  
3. ' 'tis likewise certain, that neither Saint Gregory's Grant, nor that King's Permission, did or could obtain Possession for the Pope, by Austin, as the Primate of Canterbury, over all the British Churches and Bishops: which were then many, and had not the same Reason from their Conversion by him to own his Jurisdiction; but did stiffly reject all his Arguments and Pretences for it. King Ethelbert, the only Christian King at that time, in England, had not above the twentieth part of Britain, within his Jurisdiction; how then can it be imagined, that all the King of England' s Dominions, in England, and Wales, and Scotland, and Ireland, should be concluded within the Primacy of Canterbury, by Saint Augustine ' s possession of so small a part?  
4. ' 'tis one thing to claim, another to possess. Saint Augustine's Commission was, to subject all Britain: to erect two Archbishoprics, and twelve Bishoprics, under each of them; but what possession he got for his Master, appears in that, after the death of that Gregory and Austin, there were left, but one Archbishop and two Bishops, of the Roman Communion, in all Britain.  
5. Moreover, the Succeeding Arch-Bishops of Canterbury, soon after, discontinued that small possession of England which Augustine had gotten; acknowledging, they held of the Crown, and not of the Pope; resuming the Ancient Liberties of the English Church, which before had been, and aught always to be Independent on any other; and which of Right returned, upon the Return of their Christianity: and accordingly our Succeeding Kings, with their Nobles, and Commons, and Clergy, upon all occasions, denied the Papal Jurisdiction here, as contrary to the King's Natural Supremacy, and the Customs, Liberties, and Laws of this Kingdom.  
And, as Augustine could not give the Mitre, so neither could King John give the Crown of England to the Bishop of Rome. For (as Math. Paris relates) Philip Augustus answered the Pope's Legate) no King, no Prince, can Alienate or give away his Kingdom, but by Consent of his Barons (who, we know, protested against King John' s endeavour of that kind) bound by Knighs Service to defend the said Kingdom; and in case the Pope shall stand for the contrary Error, his Holiness shall give to Kingdoms a most pernicious Example: so far is one unwarrantable act of a fearful Prince, under great Temptations, from laying a firm ground for the Pope's Prescription; and 'tis well known, that both the preceding and succeeding Kings of England, defended the Rights of the Crown, and disturbed the Pope's possession, upon stronger grounds of Nature, Custom, and plain Statutes, and the very Constitution of the Kingdom, from time to time, in all the main Branches of Supremacy; as, I doubt not, but is made to appear by full and Authentic Testimony beyond dispute.  
2. The other great Plea for the Pope ' s Authority in England, is that of Universal Pastorship: now, if this cannot be claimed by any Right, either Divine, Civil or Ecclesiastical; but the contrary be evident; and both, the Scriptures, Emperors, Fathers and Councils, did not only not grant, but deny and reject the Pope ' s Supremacy, as an Usurpation; What Reason hath this, or any other Church to give away their Liberty, upon bold and groundless Claims?  
The pretence of Civil Right, by the Grant of Emperors, they are now ashamed of, for three Reasons; 'tis too scant, and too mean, and apparently groundless; and our discourse of the Councils, hath beaten out an unanswerable Argument against the claim by any other Right, whether Ecclesiastical or Divine: for all the General Councils are found; first, not to make any such Grant to the Pope, whereby the Claim, by Ecclesiastical Right, is to be maintained: but, secondly, they are all found, making strict provisions against his pretended Authority; whereby, they, and the Catholic Church in them, deny his Divine Right.  
'Tis plainly acknowledged by Stapleton himself, that, before the Council of Constance, non divino sed humano Jure, & positivis Ecclesiae Decretis, primatum Rom. Pont. niti senserunt, speaking of the Fathers; that is, the Fathers before that Council, though the Primacy of the Pope, was not of Divine Right; and that it stood only upon the Positive Decrees of the Church: and yet he further confesseth in the same place, that the Power of the Pope now contended for (nullo sane decreto publico definita est) is not defined by any Public Decree, tacito tamen Doctorum Consensu.  
Now what can remain, but, that which we find him immediately driven to, viz. to reject the pretence of humane Right by Positive Decrees of the Church; and to adhere only (as he himself affirmeth, they generally now do) to the Divine Right: Nunc (inquit) autem nemini amplius Catholoco dubium est, prorsus Divino Jure, & quidem illustribus Evangelii Testimoniis hunc Primatum niti.  
Thus, how have they entangled themselves! if they pretend a humane Right, he acknowledgeth, they cannot find it, where it ought to be found, in the Public Decrees of the Church: if a Divine Right, he confesseth, the Fathers denied it, before the Council of Constance; and he knows, that Council condemned it.  
Stapleton at length affirms, that, now no Catholic doubts, but the Pope's Primacy is of Divine Right; whence the heart of the Roman Cause is stabbed, by these clear and sharp Conclusions.  
1. Concl. That, all Catholics of the present Roman Church, do, now hold, a New Article, touching the Pope's Primacy, not known to the Fathers before the Council of Constance, An. 1415. and condemned by that Council, as an Error.  
2. Concl. That, therein, the Faith of the present Roman Church, stands counter to the Faith, Decrees, and Practices of all the first General Councils; consisting of Fathers that flourished therein, long before the Council of Constance, i. e. in their own sense, the Ancient Catholic Church.  
You will find that the Evidence hereof ariseth, not only from the Words of Stapleton, but from the Decrees of all the first eight General Councils, every one of them, one way or other, expressly declaiming that Supremacy, which the Pope and his present Church would arrogate; and in those Councils, all the Fathers, and the Catholic Church are confessedly concluded; and consequently, Antiquity, Infallibility, and Tradition, are not to be found at Rome.  
The Sum is, the Church of England, that holds the true, Ancient, Catholic Faith; and the four first General Councils: and hath the Evidence of four more in the Point; cannot be blamed, for rejecting, or not readmitting, a Novel and groundless Usurpation, contrary to them all; and contrary also, to the Profession of the present Roman Church; that pretends to believe, that the Faith of the eight first general Councils, is the Catholic Faith.   

Imprimatur,  
GUIL. JANE R. P. D. HEN. Episc. LAND. à Sacris Domest. Jan. 24. 1678.   

THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS and SECTIONS.  

THe Introduction. The Design. The Controversy contracted into one point, viz. Schism. Page 1  
CHAP. I. The Definition of Schism. 

Sect. 1. Of the Act of it. p. 3  
Sect. 2. The Subject of Schism. p. 4  
Sect. 3. The Object of Schism. 

1. Faith. p. 7  
2. Worship. p. 9  
3. Government. p. 11    
Sect. 4. The Conditions. Causeless. Voluntary. p. 14  
Sect. 5. The Application of Schism; 'tis not applicable to us. p. 16 

In the Act. p. 17  
Or Cause. p. 19    
Sect. 6. The Application of it to the Romanists. p. 20  
Sect. 7. The charge retorted upon them. p. 21  
The Controversy broken into two Points. The Authority. The Cause. p. 23    
CHAP. II. 

An Examination of the Papal Authority in England. Five Arguments proposed and briefly reflected on. p. 24  
1. Conversion. 2. Prescription. 3. Western Patriarchate. 4. Infallibility. 5. Succession. p. 25    
CHAP. III. 

Of the Pope's claim from our Conversion, by Eleutherius, Gregory. p. 28    
CHAP. iv His claim as Patriarch. Four Propositions laid down. 

1. The Pope was Patriarch of the West. p. 32  
2. He had then a limited Jursdiction. p. 33  
3. His Patriarchate did not include Britain. p. 35  
4. A Patriarch and Universal Bishop inconsistent. p. 37    
CHAP. V 

The Third Papal claim, Prescription. The Case stated. p. 39  
Their Plea. Our Answer, in three Positions, viz. 

1. The Pope never had possession absolutely.  
2. That which he had, could never create a Title.  
3. However his Title extinguished with his possession. p. 40      
CHAP. VI 

The Papacy of no power here for the first 600 years (Augustine Dionoth.) in fact, or faith p. 41. etc.  
Sect. 1. No one part of Papal Jurisdiction was exercised here, for six hundred years; not Ordination, till 1100 years after Christ, etc. nor any other. p. 46  
Sect. 2. No possession of Belief of his Jurisdiction then, in England or Scotland. p. 52  
Sect. 3. This belief could have no ground in the Ancient Canons. Apostolic. Nicen. Milev. etc. p. 54  
Sect. 4. Of Concil. Sardi. Calced. Constantinop. p. 56  
Sect. 5. Arabic Canons forged; not of Nice. p. 60  
Sect. 6. Ancient practice interpreted the Canons against the Pope: Disposing of Patriarches: S. Cyprian, S. Augustine's sense, in practice. p. 63  
Sect. 7. The Say of Ancient Popes, Agath●, Pelagius, Gregory, Victor, against the pretence of Supremacy. p. 69  
Sect. 8. The words of the Imperial Law against him. p. 90  
Sect. 9 The Conclusion, touching possession in the first Ages, vix. six hundred years from Christ. p. 97    
CHAP. VII. 

The Pope had not full possession here, before Hen. 8. I. Not in St. Augustine's time, nor after. p. 100  
Sect. 1. Not in St. Augustine's time. ibid.  
A true State of the question betwixt the Pope and the King of England in seven particulars. p 102  
Sect. 2. No clear or full possession in the Ages after Austin, till Hen. 8. p 104  
In eight distinctions of Supremacy. ibid.  
The question stated by them. p. 105    
CHAP. VIII. 

What Supremacy Hen. 8. took from the Pope; the particulars of it; with Notes upon them. p. 107. etc.    
CHAP. IX. 

Whether the Pope's possession here, was a quiet possession till Hen. 8. as to the Point of Supremacy. p. 109  
Sect. 1. Of Appeals to Rome. Three Notions of Appeal. Appeals to Rome Locally, or by Legates. Wilfrid. Anselm. ibid.  
Sect. 2. Of the possession by Legates; the occasion of them here; their entertainment. p. 117    
CHAP. X. 

Of the Pope's Legislative power here, before Hen. 8. Canons oblige us not without our Consent: our Kings, Saxon, Danish, Norman, made Ecclesiastical Laws. p. 126    
CHAP. XI. 

Of the Power of Papal Licenses, etc. in Edw. 1. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Hen. 7's. time. p. 133    
CHAP. XII. 

The Patronage of this Church; ever in our own Kings; by History; by Law. p. 140    
CHAP. XIII. 

Of Peter-pences, and other payments to the Pope. p. 149  
First-Fruits. p. 151  
Payments extraordinary. p. 154  
Casual. p. 156    
CHAP. XIV. 

The Conclusion of the Argument of Prescription; 'tis on our side. p, 158  
On their side, of no force. p. 159    
CHAP. XV. 

The Plea from Infallibility; considered, in its Consequence; Retorted. p. 161  
Sect. 1▪ Scripture Examples for Infallibility. p. 163  
High Priest, not infallible, nothing to the Pope. p. 164  
Apostles. p. 166  
Sect. 2. Scripture-promises of Infallibility. p. 167    
CHAP. XVI. 

2. Argument for Infallibility, viz. Tradition; four Concessions; three Propositions about Tradition. Arguments. Objections. p. 171 etc.    
CHAP. XVII. 

The third way of Argument for Infallibility, viz. by Reason; three Reasons answered; the Point argued; Retorted. p, 177    
CHAP. XVIII. 

The Universal Pastorship; its Right, Divine or Humane; this, Civil or Ecclesiastical; all examined; Constantine; King John; Justinian; Phocas, etc. p. 182. as to Civil Right.    
CHAP. XIX. 

His Ecclesiastical Right, by General Councils; the eight first, to which he is sworn. Justinians Sanction of them; Canons Apostol. allowed by the Council of Nice and Ephesus. p. 190  
Sect. 1. Canons of the Apostles. p. 194  
Sect. 2. 1. General Council of Nice. Bellarmine's Evasion. p. 195  
Sect. 3. Council 2 gen. Constantinop, An. 381. p. 196  
Sect. 4. Concil. Ephesin. 3 gen. An. 431. p. 197  
Sect. 5. Concil. Calced. 4 gen An. 451. p. 199  
Sect. 6. Concil. Constantin. 2. the fifth gen. Council, An. 553. p. 202  
Sect 7. Concil. Constant. 6 gen. An. 681. v. 685. Concil. Nic. 7 gen. An. 781. p. 203  
Sect. 8 Concil. gen. ● Constant. An. 870. p. 204  
Seven Conclusions from Councils. p. 205  
Sect. 9 Of the Latin Church; the Councils of Constance; Basil. etc. An. 1415. 1431. p. 206  
Sect. 10. The Greek Church; African Canons; Synod. Carthag. Council▪ Antiochen. the faith of the Greek Church, since in the Point. p. 208 etc.  
Sect. 11. The Sardican Canons. No Grant from their matter, manner, or Authority. No Appendix to the Council of Nice. Zozimus his Forgery; they were never Ratified, nor received, as Universal; and were contradicted by after Councils. p. 212    
CHAP. XX. 

The Pope's Title, by Divine Right. The Question. Why not sooner? 'Tis their last Refuge. p. 217  
Sect. 1. Whether the Government of the Church be Monarchical, Jure Divino? Bellarmine. Reason. Scripture. p. 218  
Promises, Metaphors▪, and Example of the High Priest in Scripture. p 221  
Sect. 2. Of St. Peter's Monarchy. T●●e● Petrus. p. 223  
Fathers Expressions of it. p 228  
Fathers corrupted, and Council of Chalcedon, by Thomas. p. 230 etc.    
CHAP. XXI.▪ 

Of the Pope's Succession. p: 237  
Sect. 1. Whether the Primacy descended to the Bishop of Rome, as such, by Succession from Saint Peter. Neg. Bellar. 28 Prerogatives of Saint Peter; personal or false. p. 238, 239 etc.  
Application of this Section. p. 241  
By three great Inferences: the Pope's Ancient Primacy not that, of Saint Peter: not, Jure Divino; not to descend to succeeding Popes.  
Sect. 2. Whether the Pope have Supremacy, as Successor to Saint Peter. Neg. not Primate, as such: Peter himself not Supreme; the Pope did not succeed him at all. p. 244  
Sect. 3. Arg. 1. Peter Assigned it to the Pope: answered. p. 245  
Sect. 4. Arg. 2. The Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter, because Antioch did not: answered. p. 246  
Sect. 5. Arg. 3. Saint Peter died at Rome; answered: question de facto, not the fide. p. 247  
Sect. 6. Arg. 4. From Councils, Popes, Fathers, p. 249  
Sect. 7. Arg. 5. For prevention of Schism, Saint Hierom. p. 250  
Sect. 8. Arg. 6. The Church committed to his care; Saint Chrysostom. p. 251  
Sect. 9 Arg. 7. One Chair. Optatus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Acatius. ibid.  
Sect 10. The Conclusion touching the Fathers. Reasons, why, we are not more particular about them. A Challenge touching them: there cannot be a Consent of the the Fathers for the Papacy; as is evident from the General Councils: Reasons▪ for it: Rome's contradiction of faith: the Pope's Schism, Perjury, etc. p. 255 etc.  
The Sum of the whole matter: a Touch of another Treatise; the material Cause of Separation. p. 261    
THE POSTSCRIPT: Objections touching the first General Councils; and our Arguments from them, answered more fully. 

SECT. 1. THE Argument from Councils drawn up; 'tis conclusive of the Fathers, and the Catholic Church. p. 263  
SECT. 2. Obj. Touching the Council of Nice answered. p. 267  
SECT. 3. Obj. Touching the Council of Constant. Second General. p. 269  
SECT. 4. The third General Council, viz. Ephesin. p. 272  
SECT. 5. Of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth General Councils. Binius his quotations of Ancient Popes, considered. p. 274    
Conclusion. p. 279  
AN APPENDIX. 

A Serious Alarm▪ to all sorts of Englishmen, against Popery; from Sense and Conscience; their Oaths and their Interests. p. 281  
The Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy. p. 289      

ERRATA.  
PAge 6. line 7. for and the, read and though, p. 136. l. 13. add, ' 'tis observed that, p. 137. l. 23. blot out and the abundant, p. 138. l. 5. add of, before the grievances, p. 147. l. 17. before the word evacuate, add not, p. 164. l. 24. for is, r. are, p. 175. l. 10. for his messenger, r. the Pope's messenger, p. 177. after Sentence, add with the Fathers, was ever taken, p. 205. l. 22. after the word Faith, add of the Church, p. 213. l. 31. for they r. these Canons, p. 227. l 34. for Kingdoms, r. the Kingdom, p. 235. l. 1. for are, r. are not.   

The Printer to the Reader.  
THe absence of the Author, and his inconvenient distance from London, hath occasioned some lesser escapes in the Impression of this Book. The Printer thinks it the best instance of pardon, if his Escapes be not laid upon the Author, and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary understanding may amend, and a little charity may forgive.   


THE INTRODUCTION.  
The Design. The Controversy Contracted into one Point, viz. SCHISM.  
THE Church of England hath been long possessed, both of herself and the true Religion; and counts it no necessary part of that Religion to molest or censure any other Church: Yet she cannot be quiet, but is still vexed and clamoured with unwearied outcries of Heresy and Schism from the Church of Rome, provoking her defence.  
The Ball hath been tossed as well by cunning as learned Hands, ever since the Reformation; and 'tis complained, that by weak and impertinent Allegations, tedious Altercations, unnecessary Excursions, and much Sophistry, needlessly lengthening and obscuring the controversy, it is in danger to be lost.  
After so great and so long exercises of the best Champions on both sides, 'tis not to be expected, that any great Advance should be made on either: Yet how desirable is it, that at length the true difference were clearly stated, and the Arguments stripped of their said Cumber, and presented to us in their proper Evidence, and the controversy so reduced, that the World might perceive where we are: and doubtful inquirers after Truth and the safest Religion, might satisfy their Consciences and fix their Practice.  
This is in some measure the Ambition of the present Essay: In order to it, we▪ have observed that the Shop out of which all the Arms, both Offensive and Defensive, on both sides are fetched, is Schism; and the whole Controversy is truly contracted into that one Point, which will appear, by two things.  

1. By the State of the allowed Nature of Schism.  
2. By the Application of it so explained.    

CHAP. I.  
The Definition of SCHISM.  

SECT. 1.  
Of the Act of Schism.  
THat we may lie open to their full Charge, we lay the Notion in as great a Latitude, as, I think, our Adversaries themselves would have it.  
Schism is a voluntary division of a Christian Church, in its external Communion, without sufficient cause.  
1. 'Tis a Division, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Divisions or 
Act. Division in the Church particular.  Rents among you: This division of the Church is made either in the Church or from it; in it, as it is a particular Church, which the Apostle blames in the Church of Corinth, c. 11. Though they came together, and did not separate from the external Communion, but divided in it and about it.  
2. Division is made also in the Church as 
Catholic.  Catholic or Universal, and some charge the Church or Court of Rome (as we shall observe hereafter) herewith, as the cause of many deplorable Rents and Convulsions in the bowels of it, and indeed in a true sense, all that are guilty of dividing either in, or from a particular Church (without just cause) are guilty of Schism in the Catholic, as the Aggregatum of all particular Churches.  
There is division as well from, as in the Church, and this is either such as is improperly called Separation, or properly, or more perfectly so.  
1. Separation improperly so called, we may term, Negative; which is rather a recusancy or a denial of Communion, where it is either due or only claimed and not due, but was never actually given.  
2. 'Tis properly so, where an actual separation is made, and Communion broken or denied, where it has wont to be paid.  
3. Or yet more perfectly, when those that thus separate and withdraw their Communion from a Church, join themselves in an opposite body, and erect Altar against Altar.   

SECT. II.  
Subject of Schism.  
THus of the Act of Schism, Division: Let us briefly consider the Subject of this division, 
Subject.  which is not a civil or an Infidel Society, but a Christian Church. I do not express it a true Church; for that is supposed: For if it be a Christian Church it must be true, otherwise it is not at all.  
Some learned of our own side, distinguish here of the truth of the Church Physically or metaphysically considered; or morally: and acknowledge the Roman Church to be a true Church, or truly a Church, as some would rather have it, but deny it to be such morally: and plead for separation from it only in a moral sense, or as it is not a true Church, i. e. as it is a false and corrupt Church, not as it is a Church.  
But finding this distinction to give offence, and perhaps some advantage to our Adversaries, at least for the amusing and disturbing the method of disputation, and being willing to reduce the difference as much as I am able, I shall not insist upon these distinctions.  
I confess (pace tantorum) I see no danger in, but rather a necessity of granting the Church of Rome to be a true Church even in a moral sense, largely speaking; as moral is distinguished from Physical or metaphysical: and the necessity of this concession ariseth from the granting or allowing her to be a true Church in any sense, or, a Church of Christ.  
For to say, that a Christian Church is not a true Church morally, yet is so really, i. e. Physically or Metaphysically, seems to imply that it is a Christian Church, and it is not a Christian Church; seeing all the being of a Christian Church depends upon its truth in a moral sense, as I conceive is not questioned by either side.  
And when we grant that the Church of Rome or any other is a true Christian Church in any sense, we do mean that she retains so much of Christian truth in a moral sense, as is requisite to the truth and being of a Christian Church.  
Indeed the very Essence of a Christian Church seems to be of a Moral nature, as is evident in all its causes; its Efficient, The preaching of the Gospel under divine Influence is a Moral cause; the form, living in true faith, and Religion, is moral; its End and all its formal Actions, in Profession and Communion, are of a Moral nature, and the Christians as they are Men, are indeed natural Being's, yet as they are Christians and the matter of the Christian Church, and more, as they are in a Society, they fall properly under a Moral Consideration.  
But how can a Church be true and not true, and both in a Moral sense? How can we own the Church of Rome as a true Church, and yet leave her as a false Church, and true and false be both taken Morally? Very well: And our Learned Men intent no other, though they speak it not in these terms.  
For to be true and false in the same (Moral) Sense; doth not imply the being so, in the same respects: Thus the Church of Rome may be granted to be a true Christian Church, with respect to those Fundamentals retained in her Faith and Profession, wherein the being and truth of such a Church consisteth; and yet be, very false, and justly to be deserted, for her gross Errors, in many other points, believed also and professed by her: as a Bill in Chancery, may be a true Bill for the substance of it and so admitted; and yet in many things falsely suggested, it may be very false, and as to them, be rejected.  
2. The Church as the Subject of Schism may 
1. Catholic.  be further considered as Catholic, i. e. Absolute, Formal, Essential, and as it lies spread over all the world, but united in one common Faith: From this Church the Donatists and other ancient Heretics, are said to have separated.  
2. As Particular, in a greater or lesser number 
2. Particular.  or part of the Catholic: Thus the modern Separatists forsaking the Church of England are said to be Schismatics.  
3. In a Complex and mixed Sense, as the particular 
3. mixed.  Roman Church pretending also to be the Catholic Church, calls herself Roman Catholic, and her Particular Bishop the universal Pastor. In which sense, the Church of England is charged with separation from the Catholic Church, for denying Communion with the particular Church of Rome.   

SECT. III.  
Object of Schism.  

1. Faith.  
THe third Point is the Object, about, and 
External Communion.  in which, Separation is made: Namely, External Communion; in those three great Means or Bonds of it; Faith, Worship and Government: under that Notion, as they are bonds of Communion.  
The first is Faith or Doctrine: and it must 
Faith.  be acknowledged, that to renounce the Church's Faith, is a very great Schism: yet, here, we must admit two exceptions; it must be the Church's Faith: that is, such Doctrine, as the Church hath defined as necessary to be believed; if we speak of a particular Church: for in other Points, both Authorities allow Liberty. Again, though the Faith be broken, there is not Schism presently or necessarily, except the external Communion be also, or thereby disturbed. Heretical Principles not declared, are Schism in Principle, but not in Act: Hast thou Faith, have it to thyself. 'Tis farther agreed, that we may and some times must differ with a particular Church in Doctrine; wherein She departs from the Catholic Faith: but here we must take care, not only of Schism, but Damnation itself, as Athanasius warns us.  
Every one should therefore endeavour to satisfy himself in this great Question; What is Truth? or the true Catholic Faith? To say presently, that it is the Doctrine of the Roman Church, is to beg a very great Question, that cannot easily be given. I should think Athanasius is more in the right; when he saith, this is the Catholic Faith, etc. in my opinion, they must stretch mightily that can believe, that, the Catholic Faith, without which no man can be saved; and therefore, which every man ought to understand, takes in all the Doctrines of the Council of Trent.  
Till the contrary be made evident; I shall affirm after many great and learned men, that he that believes the Scriptures in general, and as they are interpreted by the Eathers of the Primitive Church; the three known Creeds; and the four first general Councils, and knows and declares himself prepared to receive any further Truth that he yet knows not, when made appear to be so, from Reason, Scripture, or Just Tradition, cannot justly be charged with Schism from the Catholic Faith.  
Methinks, those that glory in the Old Religion, should be of this mind; and indeed, in all reason, they ought to be so; unless they can show an Older and better means of knowing the Catholic Faith, than this: what is controverted about it, we shall find hereafter in its due place.  
In the mean time, give me leave to Note, that our more Learned and Moderate Adversaries, do acquit such a man or Church, both from Heresy and Schism; and indeed come a great deal nearer to us, in putting the issue of the Controversy very fairly upon this unquestionable Point. They who first Separated themselves 
Mr. Knot in fid. unm. c. 7. s. 112. p. 534.  from the Primitive pure Church, and brought in Corruptions, in Faith, Practice, Lyturgy, and use of Sacraments, may truly be said to have been Heretics, by departing from the pure Faith; and Schismatics, by dividing themselves from the external Communion of the true uncorrupted Church.   

2. Object. Worship.  
A second band of external Communion is 
2: Worship.  Public Worship; in which, Separation from the Church, is notorious.  
But here (Public Worship) must be understood, only so far, as it is a bond of Communion, and no farther; otherwise, there is no breach of Communion, though there be difference in Worship, and consequently no Schism.  
This will appear more plainly, if we distinguish of Worship in its Essentials or Substantials, and its Modes, Circumstances, Rites and Ceremonies.  
'Tis well argued by the Bishop of Chalcedon, that none may Separate from the Catholic Church, (or indeed from any particular) in the Essentials or Substantial Parts of Worship: for these are God's ordinary means of conveying his Grace for our Salvation; and by these, the whole Church is knit together, as Christ's visible body for Divine Worship.  
But, what are these Essentials of Worship? Surely nothing else but the Divine Ordinances, whether moral or positive, as abstracted from all particular Modes, not determined in the Word of God. Such as Prayer, the reading the Holy Canon, interpreting the same, and the Sacraments: therefore, that Church that worships God in these Essentials of Worship, cannot be charged, in this particular, with Schism, or dividing from the Catholic Church.  
And, as for the Modes and particular Rites of Worship, until one Public Liturgy and Rubric be produced, and proved to be the Rule of the Catholic Church, if not imposed by it, there is no such bond of Union in the Circumstantial Worship in the Catholic Church; and consequently, no Schism in this respect.  
Much less, may one particular Church, claim from another (par in parem non habet imperium) exact Communion in all Rites and Ceremonies, or for want thereof, to cry out presently, Schism, Schism!  
Indeed, our Roman Adversaries do directly and plainly assert; that about Rites and Ceremonies, the guilt of Schism is not concerned; and that particular Churches may differ from one another therein, without breach of Communion.  
Though, for a Member of a particular Church to forsake the Communion of his own Church, in the Essentials of Worship, merely out of dislike of some particular innocent Rites, seems to deserve a greater Censure.  
But the Roman Recusants in England, have a greater difficulty upon them, to excuse their total Separation from us, in the Substantials of our Worship (at which they can pretend to take no offence; and wherein they held actual Communion with us many years together, at the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign) against the Law of Cohabitation, observed in the Scripture, where a City and a Church were commensurate, contrary to the Order (as one well observes) which the Ancient Church took for preserving Unity, and excluding Schism: by no means suffering such disobedience or division of the Members of any National Church, where that Church did not divide itself from the Catholic. And lastly, contrary to the Common right of Government; both of our Civil and Ecclesiastical Rulers, and the Conscience of Laws, both of Church and State.  
But their pretence is, Obedience to the Pope; which leads us to consider the third great bond of Communion, Government.   

3. Object. Government.  
Thirdly, The last bond of Ecclesiastical external 
Government.  Communion, is that of Government; that is, so far as it is lawful in itself, and exerted in its Public Laws.  
This Government can have no influence from one National Church to another, as such; because, so far they are equal (par in parem) but must be yielded by all Members of particular Churches, whether National, Provincial, or truly Patriarchal, to their proper Governors in all lawful things, juridically required; otherwise, the guilt of Schism is contracted.  
But for the Government of the Catholic, we cannot find it wholly in any one particular Church, without gross Usurpation; as is the plain sense of the Ancient Church: indeed it is partly found in every Church: it was at first diffused by our Universal Pastor and Common Lord, into the hands of all the Apostles; and, for aught hath yet appeared, still lies abroad among all the Pastors and Bishops of particular Churches, under the power, protection and assistance of Civil Authority. Except, when they are collected by just power and legal Rules, into Synods or Councils; whether Provincial, National or General: here, indeed, rests the weight of the Controversy, but, I doubt not, it will at last be found to make its way, against all contradiction from our Adversaries.  
In the mean time, we do conclude, while we profess and yield all due obedience to our proper Pastors, Bishops and Governors, when there are no Councils sitting; and to all free Councils, wherein we are concerned, lawfully convened; we cannot be justly charged with Schism from the Government of the Catholic Church: though, we stiffly deny obedience to a Foreign Jurisdiction, and will not rebel against the Government, that God hath placed immediately over us.  
This fair respect, the Church of England holds to the Communion both of the Catholic and all particular Churches; both in Doctrine, Worship and Government: and the main exception against her is, that she denies obedience to a pretended Power in the See of Rome; a Power, not known, as now claimed, to the Ancient Church; a Power, when once foreseen, warned against, as Antichristian, by a Pope himself; and when usurped, condemned by a General Council: And lastly, such a Power, as those that claim it, are not agreed about, among themselves.  
But the charge of Schism falls after another sort, upon our Roman Adversaries; who have disturbed the Universal, and all particular Churches by manifest violation of all the three bonds of external Communion.  
The Doctrine and Faith, by adding to the Canon of the Scripture, Apocryphal Books; by adding to the revealed will of God, groundless Traditions: by making new Creeds without the Consent of the present, and against the Doctrine and practice of the Ancient Churches: and as for Worship, how have they not corrupted it? by Substraction, taking away one essential part of a Divine Ordinance, the Cup from the Laity, etc. by additions infinite, to the Material and Ceremonial Parts of Worship; and by horrid Alterations of the pure and Primitive Worship, to childish Superstitions, and some say, dangerous Idolatry.  
Lastly, As to Government: they have plainly separated themselves, both from the Ancient and present Catholic Church, and all other particular Churches; by usurping a Dominion, condemned by the Ancient, and that cannot be owned, without betraying the Liberty of the present Church. By exerting this Usurpation in unlawful and unreasonable Conditions of Communion; and as it is said, by Excommunicating for Nonobedience to these Impositions, not only the Church of England, but three Parts of the Christian World: The proof, on both sides, we are to expect in due place.    

SECT. iv  
The Conditions of Schism. Causeless. Voluntary.  
THe fourth and last thing considerable 
Condition:  in the Definition, is the Condition; which adds the guilt and formality of Schism to Separation: which is twofold, it must be Causeless and Voluntary.  
1. It must be voluntary Separation, or denial 
Voluntary.  of Communion: but of this, I shall say nothing; a greater man received a check from his Romish Adversaries for the proof of it; saying, who knows not that every sin is voluntary? 
S. W, Causeless.   
2. It must be causeless, or as it is usually expressed, without sufficient cause: 'tis a Rule generally allowed, that the Cause makes the Schism; i. e. if the Church give cause of Separation, there is the Schism; if not, the cause of Schism is in the Separatist; and consequently, where the cause is found, there the charge of Schism resteth.  
I know, 'tis said, that there cannot be sufficient cause of Separation from the true Church; and, therefore, this Condition is needless: but, they ever mean (by the true Church) the Catholic Church.  
'Tis granted, the Catholic Church cannot be supposed, to give such cause; she being the ordinary Pillar of Truth, wherein the means of Salvation can be only found; therefore, we rarely meet with any such condition, in the Definitions of Schism, given by the Fathers of the Ancient Church; because they had to deal with Schisms of that kind, that separated from the whole Church.  
But hence to infer, that we cannot have just cause to separate from the Church of Rome, will be found bad Logic.  
However, if we could grant this Condition to be needless, it cannot be denied to be true. and the lawfulness of Separation for just cause, is an eternal verity; and if the cause be supposed just, cannot be said to be unjust; seeing there cannot be supposed a sufficient cause of Sin; the Act is justified while it is condemned.  
Besides it is not questioned by our Adversaries, but there may be sufficient cause of separation from a particular Church; then if at last we find, that the Church of Rome is no more, there is more than reason to admit this Condition in the present Controversy.  
But the Cause must not be pretended to effect, beyond its influence or Sufficiency: Therefore none may be allowed to deny Communion with a Church, farther than he hath cause; for beyond its Activity, that which is said to be a cause, is no cause.  
Hence we admit the distinction of partial and total separation; and that known Rule, that we may not totally separate from a true Church; and only so far, as we cannot communicate without sin.  
The Reason is evident, because the truth and very being of a Christian Church, implieth something wherein every Christian Church in the very Foundation and being of it, hath an agreement both of Union and Communion.  
Far be it from us therefore, to deny all kind of Communion with any Christian Church, yea we frankly and openly declare, that we still retain Communion, out of fraternal charity, with the Church of Rome, so far as she is a true Church: Only protesting against her Usurpations, and reforming ourselves from those corruptions of Faith and Worship, of which Rome is too fond and consequently the more guilty.   

SECT. V  
The Application of Schism. Not to our Church.  
IF this definition of Schism be not applicable to the Church of England, she is unjustly charged with the guilt of Schism. If the Church of England doth not voluntarily divide in or from the Catholic Church, or any particular Church, either by separation from, or denying Communion with it, much less by setting another Altar against it without sufficient cause, than the definition of Schism is not applicable to the Church of England.  
But she hath not thus divided, whether we respect the Act or the Cause.  
With respect to the Act, viz. Division: We 
1. In the Act.  argue, if the Church of England be the same for Substance since the Reformation, that it was before; then by the Reformation we have made no such Division: for we have divided from no other Church further than we have from our own, as it was before the Reformation, as our Adversaries grant: And therefore if we are now the same Church as to Substance that we were before, we hold the same Communion for substance, or essentials with every other Church now, that we did before.  
But, for Substance, we have the same Faith, the same Worship, the same Government now, that we had before the Reformation; and indeed from our first Conversion to Christianity.  
Indeed, the Modern Romanists have made new Essentials in the Christian Religion, and determine their Additions to be such: But so Weeds are of the essence of a Garden, and Botches of the essence of a Man.  
We have the same Creed to a word, and in the same sense, by which all the Primitive Fathers were saved; which they held to be so sufficient, 
Con. Ept. p. 2. Act. 6. c. 7.  that in a general Council, they did forbid all persons (under pain of deposition to Bishops and Clerks, and Anathematization to Laymen) to compose or obtrude upon any persons converted from Paganism or Judaisme.  
We retain the same Sacraments and Discipline; we derive our holy Orders by lineal succession from them. It is not we who have forsaken the essence of the Modern Church by substraction, or rather Reformation, but they of the Church of Rome, who have forsaken the essence of the ancient Roman Church, by their corrupt Additions, as a learned Man observes.  
The plain truth is this, the Church of Rome hath had long and much Reverence in the Church of England; and thereby we were by little and little drawn along with her into many gross errors and superstitions both in Faith and Worship; and at last had almost lost our liberty, in point of Government. But that Church refusing to reform, and proceeding still further to usurp upon us, we threw off the Usurpation first, and afterwards very deliberately Reformed ourselves from all the corruptions that had been growing upon us, and had almost overgrown both our Faith and Worship: If this be to divide the Church, we are, indeed, guilty, not else.  
But we had no power to reform ourselves: Here indeed is the main hinge of the Controversy; but we have some concessions from our worst and fiercest Adversaries, that a National Church hath power of herself, to reform abuses in lesser matters, provided she alter nothing in the Faith and Sacraments without the Pope: And we have declared before, that we have made no alteration in the essentials of Religion.  
But we broke ourselves off from the Papal Authority, and divided ourselves from our lawful Governors: 'Tis confessed the Papal Authority we do renounce; but not as a lawful Power, but a Tyrannical Usurpation; and if that be proved, where is our Schism.  
But this reminds us of the second thing in the Definition of Schism, the Cause: For, what 
2. The Cause.  interpretation soever be put upon the Action, whether Reformation or Division and Separation, 'tis not material, if it be found we had sufficient Cause; and no doubt we had, if we had reason from the lapsed state and nature of our Corruptions, to Reform; and if we had sufficient Authority without the Pope, to reform ourselves: But we had both, as will be evident at last.  
Both these we undertake for satisfaction to the Catholic Church; but in defence of our own Church against the charge of Schism by and from the Church of Rome, one of them, yea either of them, is sufficient.  
For if the pretended Authority of the Church of Rome over the Church of England be ill grounded, how can our Actions fall under their censure? Especially seeing the great and almost only matter of their censure, is plainly our disobedience to that ill grounded Authority.  
Again, however their Claim and Title stand or fall, if we have or had cause to deny that Communion which the Church of Rome requires, though they have power to accuse us, our Cause being good will acquit us from the guilt, and consequently the charge of Schism.  
Here than we must join Issue, we deny the pretended Power of the Church of Rome in England, and plead the justness of our own Reformation, in all the particulars of it.   

SECT. VI  
The Charge, as laid by the Romanists.  
THis will the better appear by the indictment of Schism drawn up against us, by our Adversaries; I shall receive it as it is expressed by one of the sharpest Pens, and in the fullest and closest manner I have met with, viz. Card. Perron against Archbishop Laud, thus.  
Protestants have made this Rent or Schism by their obstinate and pertinacious maintaining erroneneous Doctrines, contrary to the faith of Roman or Catholic Church; by their rejecting the authority of their lawful Ecclesiastical Superiors, both immediate and mediate: By aggregating themselves into a separate Body or company of pretended Christians, independent of any Pastors at all, that were in lawful and quiet possession of Jurisdiction over them; by making themselves Pastors and Teachers of others, and administering Sacraments without Authority given them by any that were lawfully impowered to give it; by instituting new Rites and Ceremonies of their own in matters of Religion, contrary to those anciently received throughout all Christendom; by violently excluding and dispossessing other Prelates of and from their respective Sees, Cures, and Benefices; and intruding themselves into their places, in every Nation where they could get footing. A foul Charge indeed, and the fouler because in many things false. However, at present we have reason only to observe the foundation of all lies, in our disobedience and denying Communion with the Church of Rome; all the rest either concerns the grounds, or manner, or consequences of that.  
Therefore if it appear at last, that the Church of England is independent on the Church of Rome, and oweth her no such obedtence as she requires; the Charge of Schism removes from us and recoils upon the Church or Court of Rome, from her unjust Usurpations and Impositions; and that with the aggrevation of Sedition too in all such whether Prelates or Priests, as then refused to acknowledge and obey the just Power and Laws of this Land, or that continue in the same disobedience at this day.   

SECT. VII.  
The Charge of Schism retorted upon the Romanists. The Controversy to two Points.  
IT is well noted by a learned Man, that while the Papal Authority is under Contest, the question 
Dr. Hammond.  is not barely this, whether the Church of England be schismatical or no? (For a Romanist may cheaply debate that and keep himself safe, whatsoever becomes of the umpirage) but indifferently and equally, whether we, or the Romanist be thus guilty, or which is the Schismatic that lies under all those severe Censures of the Scriptures and Fathers, the Church of England or her Revolters, and the Court of Rome.  
Till they have better answered to the Indictment than yet they have done; we do and shall lay the most horrid Schism at the door of the Church or Court of Rome: For that they have voluntarily divided the Catholic Church, both in Faith, Worship, and Government, by their innovations; and excommunicated and damned, not only the Church of England, but as some account, three parts of the Christian Church, most uncharitably and without all Authority or just cause, to the scandal of the whole world.  
But we shall lay the charge more particularly, as it is drawn up by Archbishop Bramhal. The Church, saith he, or rather the Court of Rome, are causally guilty, both of this Schism, and almost all other Schisms in the Church. 1. By usurping an higher place and power in the Body Ecclesiastical, than of right is due unto them. 2. By separating, both by their Doctrines and Censures, three parts of the Christian World from their Communion, and as much as in them lies, from the Communion of Christ. 3. By rebelling against general Councils. Lastly, by breaking or taking away all the lines of Apostolical Succession except their own; and appropriating all Original Jurisdiction to themselves: And that which draws Sedition and Rebellion, as the great aggravation of their Schism, they Challenge a temporal Power over Princes, either directly or indirectly.  
Thus their Charge against us, is Disobedience; Our Charge against them is Usurpation and abuse of Power: If we own no such Obedience, or if we have cause not to obey; we are acquitted: If the Pope have both power and reason of his side; we are guilty: If he fail in either; the whole weight of Schism, with all its dreadful Consequences, remains upon him or the Court of Rome.   

The Conclusion.  
TThus, we see, the Controversy is broken into two great points:  
1. Touching the Papal Authority in England.  
2. Touching the Cause of our denying Communion in some things, with the Church of Rome, required by that Authority.  
Each of these, I design to be the matter of a distinct Treatise.  
This first Book, therefore, is to try the Title 
The Sum of this first Treatise.  betwixt the Pope and the Church of England: Wherein we shall endeavour impartially to examine all the Pleas and Evidences, produced and urged by Romanists on their Master's behalf; and show how they are answered: and where there appears greatest weight and stress of Argument, we shall be sure to give the greatest diligence: Omitting nothing but vnconcluding impertinencies, and handling nothing lightly but colours and shadows that will bear no other.  
Now to our Work.    

CHAP. II.  
An Examination of the Papal Authority in England. Five Arguments Proposed, and briefly reflected on.  
THis is their Goliath; and indeed their whole Army: if we rout them here, the day is our own: and we shall find nothing more to oppose us, but Skirmishes of Wit, or (when they are at their Wit's end) fraud and force; as I am troubled to observe, their Use hath been.  
For if the See of Rome hath no just claim or Title to govern us, we cannot be obliged to obey it: and consequently these two things stand evident in the light of the whole world. We are no Schismatics, though we deny obedience to the See of Rome, seeing it cannot justly challenge it. 2dly, Though we were so, yet the See of Rome hath no power to censure us, that hath no power to govern us. And hereafter we shall have occasion further to conclude, that the Papal Authority, that hath nothing to do with the English Church, and yet rigorously exacts our obedience, and censures us for our disobedience; is highly guilty, both of Ambition in its unjust claim, and of Tyranny in unjust execution of an usurped power, as well in her Commands as Censures, which is certainly Schism, and aliquid ampliùs.  
They of the Church of Rome, do therefore, mightily bestir themselves to make good their claim; without which they know, they can never hope either to gain us, or secure themselves.  
I find five several Titles pretended, though methinks the power of that Church should be built but upon one Rock.  
1. The Pope being the means of our first Conversion, as they say, did thereby acquire a Right 
1. Conversion.  for himself and successors, to govern this Church.  
2. England belongs to the Western Patriarohate; 
2. Patriarch.  and the Pope is the Patriarch of the West, as they would have it.  
3. Others found his Right in Prescription, and 
3. Prescription.  long continued possession before the Reformation.  
4. Others flee much higher; and derive this 
4. Infallibility.  power of Government from the Infallibility of the Governor: and indeed who would not be led by an unerring Guide?  
5. But their strong hold, to which at last resort 
5. Succession.  is still made; is the Pope's Universal Pastorship, as Successor to St. Peter, and supreme Governor not of Rome and England only, but of the whole Christian World.  
Before we enter upon trial of these severally, we shall briefly note, that where there are many Titles pretended, Right is justly suspected, especially if the Pretences be inconsistent.  
1. Now, how can the Pope, as the Western Patriarcb, or as our first Converter, pretend to be our Governor; and yet at the same time pretend himself to be universal Bishop: These some of our suttlest Adversaries know, to imply a contradiction, and to destroy one another.  
2. At first sight therefore, there is a necessity on those that assert the universal Pastorship, to wave the Arguments, either from the Right of Conversion, or the Western Patriarchate: or if any of them will be so bold as to insist on these, he may not think the Chair of St. Peter shall be his Sanctuary at a dead lift.  
3. Also for Possession; what need that be pleaded, if the Right be evident; Possession of a part if the Right be universal; unless by England, the Pope took livery and Seizin for the whole world. Besides, if this be a good plea, it is as good for us, we have it and have had it time out of mind; if ours have not been quiet, so neither was theirs before the Reformation.  
4. For Infallibility, that's but a Qualification, no Commission: Fitness sure gives no Authority; nor desert, a Title, and that by their own Law: otherwise they must acknowledge the Bishops of our Church, that are known to be as learned and holy as theirs, are as good and lawful Bishops, as any the Church of Rome hath.  
Thus we see where the Burden will rest at last; and that the Romanists are forced into one only hold: One great thing concerns them to make sure, or all is lost; the whole Controversir is tied to St. Peter's Chair, the Supremacy of the Pope must be maintained, or the Roman and Catholic are severed, as much as the Church of England and the Church of Rome; and a great breach is made indeed, but we are not found the Schismatics.  
But this is beside my task: Lest we should seem to endeavour an escape at any breach, all the said five Pleas of the Romanists, shall be particularly examined, and the main Arguments and Answers on both sides faithfully and exactly as I can, produced: And where the Controversy sticks, and how it stands at this day, noted, as before we promised.   

CHAP. III.  
Of the Pope's Claim to England from our Conversion, by Eleutherius, Gregory.  
THis Argument is not pressed with much confidence in Print, though with very much in Discourse, to my own knowledge: Perhaps 'tis rather popular and plausible than invincible.  
Besides, it stands in bar against the Right of St. Peter, which they say was good, near six hundred years before; and extends to very many Churches, that received grace neither by the means of St. Peter or his pretender Successor; except they plead a right to the whole Church first, and to a part afterwards; or one kind of right to the whole, and another to a part.  
The truth is, if any learned Romanist shall insist on this Argument in earnest, he is strongly suspected, either to deny or question the Right of St. Peter's Successor, as universal Pastor.  
But we leave these advantages to give the argument its full liberty; and we shall soon see, either its Arms or its Heels.  
The Argument must run thus: If the Bishop of Rome was the means of the English Churches Conversion, than the English Church oweth obedience to him and his Successors.  
We deny both propositions: The Minor, that the Pope was the means of our first Conversion: and the consequence of the Major; that if he had been so, it would not follow that we now own obedience to that See.  
For the Minor, Bishop Jewel knocked it down so perfectly at first, it was never able to stand since; he saith it is certain, the Church of Britain 
We were converted 9 years before Rome. Baron. An. 35. n. 5. & Marg. & An. 39 n. 23. & Suarez. c. 1. 1▪ Contr. Angl. Eccl. Error.  now called England, received not first the Faith from Rome.  
The Romanists proof, is his bare assertion, that Eleutherius the Pope was the first Apostle of the Britain's, and preached the Faith here by Damianus and Fugatius within little more than an hundred years after Christ's death. Bishop Jewel answers, that King Lucius was baptised near 150 years before the Emperor Constantine; and the same Constantine, the first Christian Emperor, was born in this Island: and the Faith had been planted here long before, either by Joseph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes, or the Greeks, or some others; which is plain, because the King being Christian before, requested Pope Eleutherius to send hither those Persons, Damianus and Fugatius, to Reform the Bishops and Clergy, which were here before; and to put things into better Order.  
They also urged, that, as Pope Elutherius in Britain; So Saint Gregory in England, first planted the Faith by Austin.  
But Bishop Jewel at first dashed this Argument out of Countenance; plainly proving out 
An. 210. An. 212. An. 334. An. 360. An. 400. An. 367.  of Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, Const. Emp. Chrisost. Theod. that the Faith was planted in England long before Austin's coming hither. See his Defence of his Apol. p. 11.  
Some would reply, that the Faith was utterly rooted out again, upon the Invasion of Heathen English: 'twas not so, saith he, for 
Lib. 1. c. 26. & lib. 2. c. 2.  Beda saith, that the Queen of England was christened; and that there were then in this Realm Seven Bishops, and one Archbishop, with other more great Learned Christian men: and Galfridus saith, there were then in England, Seven 
Lib. 82. 24.  Bishoprics, and one Arch- Bishopric, possessed with very many godly Prelates, and many Abbeys in which the Lord's People held the Right Religion.  
Yet we gratefully acknowledge that Saint Gregory was a special Instrument of God, for the further spreading and establishing the Gospel in England: and that both Elutherius and this Gregory seem to have been very good men, and great Examples both of Piety and Charity to all their Successors in that See; and indeed of a truly Apostolical spirit and care, though not of Authority; but if all History deceive us not, that Austin the Monk, was far enough from being Saint Augustine.  
But, what if it had been otherwise; and we 
The Consequence.  were indeed, first converted by the means of these Popes; will it therefore follow, that we ought for ever to be subject to the Papacy? This is certainly, a Nonsequitur, only fit to be imposed upon easy and prepared Understandings: it can never bear the stress and brunt of a severe Disputation; and indeed the Roman Adversaries do more than seem to acknowledge as much.  
However, the great Archbishop and Primate of Armach, hath slurred that silly Consequence 
Bramhall.  with such Arguments as find no answer. I refer the Reader, if need be, to his Just Vindication, p. 131, 132. Where he hath proved beyond dispute that Conversion gives no Title of Jurisdiction; and more especially to the prejudice of a former Owner dispossessed by violence; or to the subjecting of a free Nation to a Foreign Prelate without or beyond their own consent.  
Besides, in more probability, the Britain's were first converted by the Eastern Church; (as appeared by our Ancient Customs) yet, never were subject to any Eastern Patriarch. And sundry of our English and British Bishops, have converted Foreign Nations, yet never pretended thence to any Jurisdiction over them.  
Lastly, what ever Title Saint Gregory might acquire by his deserts from us, was merely Personal; and could not descend to his Successors.  
But no more of this, for fear of the scoffing rebukes of such as S. W. who together, with the Catholic Gentleman, do plainly renounce this Plea; ask Doctor Hammond with some show of Scorn, what Catholic Author ever affirmed it? There is no doubt (though some other Romanists have insisted upon this Argument of Conversion) some reason why these should think fit to lay it aside; and we have no reason to keep it up, having otherwise work enough upon our hands. An end therefore of this first Plea.   

CHAP. IU.  
Of the Pope's supposed Claim as Patriarch.  
THis Point admits likewise of a quick dispatch, by four Propositions; and the rather, for a reason you will find in the close of our Discourse, upon the last of them.  

PROP. I.  
The Pope was anciently reputed the Western Patriarch.  

Pope a Patriarch.  To this Dignity, he proceeded by degrees: the Apostles left no Rule for a Forreigu jurisdiction from one Nation to another: But according to the 33 Cannon of the Apostles, (if they were indeed theirs) it behoved the Bishops of every Nation to know him, who is their first (or Primate) and to esteem him as their Head.  
The Adventitious Grandeur which the Ancient Patriarches afterwards obtained, is judged to arise three ways: by the Canons of the Fathers, the Edicts of Princes, or Ancient Custom.  
Upon the last ground, viz. of Custom, the 
C. Nice. c. 6.  Council of Nice settled the Privileges of those three Famous Patriarchal Sees, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch: Saying, let Ancient Custom prevail; which Custom proceeded from the honour such Churches had, as being founded by the Apostles, if not rather from the Eminency of the Cities: Therefore the Council of Chalcedon, gives this as a reason of the greatness of the Sees of Rome and Constantinople, because they were the Seats of the Emperors.   

PROP. II.  
The Pope, as Patriarch, had but a limited Jurisdiction. 
Limited Jurisd.   
1. A Patriarchate, as such, is limited; especially, if the Title restrain it to the West: for East, North, and South, are not the West, in the same respect.  
2. It is further evident, from the first Number of Patriarches; for, if there were more than one of the same Dignity and Jurisdiction; they must be therefore, limited: for a Patriarch, as such, could have no Jurisdiction over a Patriarch, as such; for so they were equal; & par in parem non etc.  
3. But indeed, the first time, we hear of three, and then of five Patriarches at once; viz. 
Five Patriarches.  of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem: And that these had all their Jurisdictions limited to them; and no one of them had any thing like a Universal Monarchy, is evident, both from Canons and History; and also by this undeniable Observation; that several Parts of the World had their own Primates independent, and exempt from all these, in the height of their power: as afric at Carthage; the rest of Italy at Milan; France at Arles, or Lions; Germany at Vienna; and Britain also had the same privilege.  
4. The sixth Canon of the Council of Nice, 
C. Nice.  saith thus expressly: Let Ancient Custom prevail; according to which, let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis; because this was likewise the Custom for the Bishop of Rome; and accordingly in Antioch, and other Provinces, let the privileges be preserved to the Churches.  
The occasion of this Canon is said to be this: Miletius a Bishop of Egypt, ordained Bishops and others in Egypt, without the Consent of the Bishop of Alexandria: the Case heard in the Council, they pronounce such Ordinations Null, depose Miletius, and by this Canon (the more venerable because the first in such Cases) confirm the Ancient Customs of that, and all other Churches.  
The Romanists object, the Council did not Object. assign any limits to those Jurisdictions.  
But 'tis fully answered, that the Council supposed Answ. such limits, and proceed upon that supposition, to allow of them, and to enjoin the observation of them; and that is so much the more than a present limitation, as it is a proof of the greater Antiquity of such limitation.  
Sure Bellarmine was hard put to it, when the Object. words (because the Roman Bishop hath so accustomed) must be forced to speak against all Sense of Words, and Scope of the Matter; thus, i. e. saith he, the Roman Bishop hath so accustomed to let the Alexandrian Bishop govern them.  
The occasion of the Canon we had before▪ Answ. the Words themselves are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Who but Bellarmine seethe not, that (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,) imports a like Custom in the Church of Rome; as the excellent and learned Doctor, Stinlingfleet observes? The Bishop of Rome had such Jurisdiction over the Churches under him; and therefore ought the Bishop of Alexandria over the Churches under him: upon this Consideration the Council concludes, that so it should be.  
If it be replied, the Pope had limits as a Metropolitan, but not as Head of the Church; this grants the thing in present question; that, as a Patriarch, the Pope's Jurisdiction was limited. What Power he had as Head of the Church, shall be examined in its due place.  
What Power▪ the Pope had anciently in confirming, deposing and restoring Patriarches, will hardly be found so Ancient as the Council of Ephesus; and indeed, was challenged by him, not as a private Patriarch, but as Head of the Church; and therefore is to be considered under that Head also.   

PROP. III.  
The Ancient Patriarchate of Rome did not include 
Britain excluded.  Britain.  
But according to Ruffinus, (a Roman, who 
Ruffinus.  lived not long after the Council of Nice) it was limited to the Suburbicary Cities; i e. a part of Italy, and their Islands, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica: much less did it ever pretend to Britain, either by Custom, Canon, or Edict of any of our Princes.  
Consequently, we say, the Papal Power over us, was an after- encroachment and usurpation, and a plain violation of the general Council of Ephesus.  
Our Argument is this; the General Council 
Par, 2. Act. 7.  of Ephesus declare, that no Bishop should occupy any Province, which before that Council, and from the Beginning had not been under the Jurisdiction▪ of him or his Predecessors; and that if any Patriarch usurped any Jurisdiction over a free Province, he should quit it; for so it pleased the holy Synod, that every Province should enjoy its Ancient Rites, pure and inviolate.  
But it is evident, the Bishop of Rome had no Power in Britain, from the Beginning; nor yet before that general Council; nor for the first six hundred years after Christ (as will appear when we speak of the next claim, viz. Possession.)  
Now, if the Pope had no Patriarchal Power in Britain before the six hundredth year of 
Pope Boniface.  Christ, he could not well have any since: for Pope Boniface, three years after Saint gregory's death, disclaimed this Power, by assuring an Higher Title: so that had we been willing to admit him our Patriarch, contrary to what Augustine found, time had been wanting to settle his Power, as such, in England.  
From the whole, we conclude, either the Pope is none of our Patriarch: or if such; he stands guilty of Contempt of a general Council, and hath done so, many hundred years; i. e. he is no Patriarch at all, or a Schismatical one.   

PROP. IU.  
To be a Patriarch and Universal Bishop, in the 
Inconsistent with Head of the Church.  Sense of the Romanist, is inconsistent.  
Therefore the Pope must let fall his Claim as a Patriarch, if he pretend to be Universal Bishop: Thus the great Archbishop Bramhall reasons wisely and strongly; but S. W. gives no answer to it, only that he argues weakly and sillily.  
The Lord Primate proves the inconsistency by Arguments not yet answered: the Patriarch (saith he) professeth Humane; the Universal Pastor, challengeth Divine Institution: the one hath a limited Jurisdiction over a certain Province; the other pretendeth an Universal Jurisdiction over the World: the one is subject to the Canons of the Fathers, and a mere Executor of them; and can do nothing either against, or besides them; the other challengeth an absolute Sovereignty above the Canons, to make, abrogate, suspend them at his pleasure, with a Nonobstante, when, where, and to whom he pleaseth▪  
Therefore, the Claim of this absolute Power disclaimeth the limited; and the donation and acceptance of a limited Power, convinceth that there was no such absolute Power before: had the Pope been unlimited before, by divine donation; who can imagine, that he would ever have taken gradum Simeonis in this Sense, by 
Just. Vind. p. 282.  stooping so low to receive from the hand of man, the narrower dignity of a Patriarch?  
Besides, it is fully proved by Doctor Hammond 
Patriarches subject to Civil Power.  in his Book of Schism, beyond all the little exceptions of the Romanists, (as more at large hereafter) that, the See of a Patriarch is disposable by the Civil Power: and therefore, what ever Power the Pope may be thought to have had heretofore in Britain, is now lawfully otherwise disposed of by the Kings of England; as well as evidently rejected by the Usurpation of an higher, and an higher kind of Title, inconsistent with it; and justly forfeited many other ways, as will appear hereafter.  
But though our Adversaries would seem to say something in favour of this Title, they dare not stand to it; as indeed it is not convenient they should, if they would save their Head whole. Therefore, after much ado to very 
Schis. diarm. p. p. 157.  little purpose, S. W. concludes against Doctor Hammond thus. Besides, saith he, were all this granted, what is it to your, or our purpose? Since we accuse you not of Schism, for breaking from the Pope's Subjection, as a Private Patriarch, but as the chief Pastor and the Head of the Church.   
So there is an end of their Second Plea.   

CHAP. V.  
The Third Papal Claim, viz. Prescription, or long Possession. Case Stated: Their Plea; our Answer in three Propositions.  
THe true state of the case here, is this: 
Case stated.  It cannot be denied but the Church of England was heedlessly and gradually drawn into Communion with the Roman Church, in her additions, superinduced upon the ancient Faith and Worship: and likewise into some degrees of subjection to Papal Jurisdiction. And in this Condition we had continued for some considerable time, before King Henry the Eighth; and that bold King (upon what Motives is not here material) with the consent of his three Estates in Parliament, both houses of the Convocation, and both the Universities of the Land, threw off the Roman Yoke, as a manifest Usurpation, and a very grievous oppression; and recovered the people and Church of England to their ancient liberties of being governed by their own domestic Rulers. Afterwards, in the Reigns of Edward the Sixth, and Queen Elizabeth, and by their proper Authority, we reform ourselves by throwing off the Roman Additions to our Faith and Worship.  
Had we gone about a Reformation while we acknowledged subjection to the See of Rome, or indeed, before we had renounced it, there had been more colour to charge us with Schism and disobedience: But now the proper question is, first whether the State of England did then justly reject the Jurisdiction of the Pope in England; and only consequently, whether we did afterwards lawfully Reform without him: The cause of our Reformation belongs to another Argument, which we shall meet hereafter.  
The papal Plea here, is; the Pope's Authority was established here by long Possession: and therefore 
Plea.  if nothing else could be pleaded for it, Prescription was a good Title: and therefore it was injurious and Schismatical, first to dispossess him, and then to go about to reform without him.  
Our Answer is home and plain, in these Three Propositions. 

1. The Church of England was never actually Ans. under the Pope's Jurisdiction, so absolutely as is pretended.  
2. The Possession which it had obtained here, was not sufficient to create the Pope a good Title.  
3. Or if it were, yet that Title ceased when he lost his Possession.     

CHAP. VI  
Prop. I.  
The Papacy had no Power here, for the first Six Hundred Years. St. Aug. Dionoth.  
THe first Proposition is this, that the Church of England was not actually under the Papal Jurisdiction, so absolutely as is pretended; that is, neither Primarily for Plenarily.  
First not Primarily, in that we were free from 
1. Not Primarily.  the Papal Power for the first Six Hundred Years.  
This is confirmed beyond all exception, by the entertainment Augustine found among the sturdy Britain's, when he came to obtrude that Jurisdiction upon them: whence 'tis evident, that at that time, which was near six hundred 
In Fact or Belief.  years after Christ, the Pope had neither actual possession of Government over, nor of the belief of the Britain's, that he ought to have it.  
The good Abbot of Bangor, when pressed to submit to the Roman Bishop, answered, in the name of the Britain's; That he knew no Obedience 
Spel. conc. an. 601.  due to him, whom they called the Pope, but the Obedience of Love; and adds those full peremptory exclusive words, that under God, they were to be Governed by the Bishop of Caerleon: Which the Lord Primate Bramhall saith, is a full demonstrative convincing proof, for the whole time, viz. the first six hundred years. 
Vind. p. 84   
But 'tis added, that which follows, strikes the question dead. Augustine, St. Gregory's Legate, proposing three things to the Britain's.  

1. That they should submit to the Roman Bishop.  
2. That they should conform to the Roman Customs.  
3. Lastly, That they should join with him in Preaching to the Saxons.   
Hereupon, the British Clergy assembled themselves together, Bishops and Priests in two several Synods one after another; and upon mature deliberation, they rejected all his propositions Synodically; and refused flatly and unanimously to have any thing to do with him upon those terms: Insomuch as Augustine was necessitated to return over Sea to obtain his own Consecration; and after his return hither, to consecrate the Saxon Bishops alone; without the assistance of any other Bishop. They refused indeed to their own cost: Twelve hundred innocent Monks of Bangor, shortly after, lost their lives for it. The foundation of the Papacy here, was thus laid in Blood.  
'Tis objected; that the story of the Abbot of Obj. Bangor is taken by Sir H. Spelman, out of an old Welsh Author of suspected credit; but all Objections to that purpose are removed by my Lord Primate, and Dr▪ Hammond: Besides, we have other Authority sufficient for it, and beyond contradiction.  
The Story in Bede himself, as vouched by 
Bed. li. 2. c. 2.  T. H. himself, against Dr. Hammond, puts it beyond all doubt, that the Abbot and Monks opposed Austin, and would not subject themselves to the Pope of Rome, but referred themselves only to their own Governors, which is also the general result of other Author's account of this matter; and if the matter of Fact be established, 'tis enough to disprove the Pope's Possession at that time; whether they did well or ill, is not now considered.  
Baleus speaking of that Convention, saith, Dinoth 
In Dinoth.  disputed against the Authority of Rome: and defended stoutly (fortitèr) the Jurisdiction of St. David's, in the affairs of his own Churches.  
The same is observed by Geoffrey of Monmouth, and Sigebert and others, for which Dr. 
In an. 602.  Hammond refers us to the Collection of the Anglicane Councils, and Mr. Whelocks Notes on the Saxon Bede. p. 115.  
And indeed, the Author of the Appendix written on purpose to weaken this great instance, confesseth as much; when he concludes Austin in the Right, from the miracles and divine vengeance upon the refusers, continuing still refractory to his proposals.  
Of the right of the cause we now dispute not; and he acknowledgeth, that Augustine had not Possession; the thing we contend for. However, this instance being of great moment in the whole Controversy, let us briefly examine what T. H. hath said against it.  
T. H. questions the Authority of the Welsh Obj. 1 M. S.  
But the account there, is so perfectly agreeable 
An.  to the general account given by others (most competent Witnesses) and even Bede himself, that as we have no necessity to insist much upon it; so they have no reason at all to question it. Besides if the Reader would more fully satisfy himself, he may see all the exceptions against this by M. S. at large answered by Dr. Hammond and the Archbishop Bramhall.  
But Bede concludes, that the Britain's ought Obj. 2 to have yielded in the points specified, from the miracle wrought by Augustine upon the blind man; and from that divine vengeance, prophetically foretold by Augustine.  
1. We now know what tricks are used to 
An.  counterfeit miracles, in the sight of simple people.  
2▪ We know not, but that miracle might be said, but never done, as many in the Legends are: And Bede might report, from very slight tradition, a thing tending to the confirming his own Cause.  
3. By Bede's own Confession, the miracle did prevail with the Britain's, to acknowledge, that the way of Righteousness Augustine preached, was the true; yet they added, that they could not renounce their ancient Customs, without the consent and licence of their own Superiors: i e. they thought the miracle confirmed his Doctrine, but not the Pope's Authority over them: And therefore lastly, at their second meeting, they deemed his Pride a stronger Argument against him, than his Miracle for him.  
2. And for that latter Argument from the Slaughter, first threatened and then fulfilled: Bed. Sigisbert.  
Sure 'twas not strange thing, that a proud man 
An.  (as Augustine appeared to be) should threaten Revenge: And a bloody minded man, to endeavour to execute it, as is evident he did.  
Neither is it like a great miracle, that a vast Army should first overcome unarmed Monks; and then proceed victoriously against other opposers.  
Yet the latter part of the Story quite spoils the miracle; or the Argument from it: For when Edilfred in the heat of his Rage and Victory, proceeded to destroy the Remainder of those Monks; the avenger of Blood met him: the British Forces routed his Army, and killed Ten Thousand and Sixty of them.  
But the Conclusion for my present turn, stands firm however; that, notwithstanding these pretensions of Miracles, the British rejected the Papacy, and adhered to their proper Governors; i e. the Pope then had not the Possession of them.  
I shall conclude here, with that smart reply of Archbishop Bramhall to S. W. To demonstrate evidently how vain all his trifling is against the Testimony of Dionothus: why doth he not answer to the corroboratory proof, which I brought out of Bede and others, of two British Synods, held at the same time, wherein all the British Clergy did renounce all obedience to the Bishop of Rome, of which all our Historiographers do bear Witness? Why doth he not answer this; but pass it by in so great silence? He might as well accuse this of forgery as the other; since it is so well attested, that Dionothus was a great Actor and disputer in that business.  

SECT. I.  
That no one Part of Papal Jurisdiction was exercised here, for the first six hundred years; not Ordination: St. Telaus, etc. till 1100 years after Christ, etc. nor any other.  
IF we consider the Pope's Jurisdiction in its 
Not plenarily.  particular Acts, we find not so much as any one exercised or acknowledged here, during the space of the first six hundred years; but, as far as History gives us any account thereof, all Acts of Jurisdiction were performed by our own Governors.  
First, had the Pope had any Jurisdiction here at all, it would doubtless have appeared in the Ordination or Consecration of our Bishops. Ordinationis Jus caetera Jura sequuntur, is a known Rule in Law: but 'tis evident that our own Primates were independent themselves, and ordained 
Not Ordination.  new Bishops, and created new Bishoprics, without licence first obtained from, or giving any account thereof to the Pope. Saint Telaus Consecrated and ordained Bishops, as he thought fit: he made one Hismael Bishop of Saint david's; and in like manner advanced many others of the same Order to the same degree; sending them throughout the Country, and dividing the Parishes for the best accommodation of the Clergy and the People. Vid. Regl. apud Usher. prim. Eccles. Brit. p. 56.  
But were not our Primates themselves nominated Quest. or elected by the Pope, and Consecrated by him or had licence from him?  
The contrary is manifest enough: all our Answ. British Arch-Bishops and Primates were nominated and elected by our Princes, with Synods, and ordained by their own Suffragans at home; as Dubricius, Saint David, Samson, etc. not only in the Reigns of Aurelius Ambrose, and King Arthur; but even until the time of Henry the First, after the eleven hundredth year of Christ, as Giraldus Cambrensis saith; and always until the first Conquest of Wales they were Consecrated by the Archbishop of Saint david's; and he was likewise Consecrated by other Bishops, as his Suffragans, without professing any manner of Subjection to any other Church. Itinera. Cambr. l. 2. c. 2.  
Now is it not fair to expect from our Adversaries one Instance, either of a Bishop or Archbishop, ordained or Consecrated, during the first six hundred years, by Papal Authority in Britain from their own, or our British Records? But this Challenge made by Archbishop Bramhall receives no answer.  
Here the Bishop of Chalcedon only offers, Object. 
●. c.  that few or no Records of British Matters for the first six hundred years, remain.  
This is no Answer (saith the Primate) while Answ. all the Roman Registers are extant: yea, so extant, that Platina, the Pope's Library Keeper, is able out of them, to set down every Ordination, made by the Primitive Bishops of Rome, and the Persons Ordained.  
He adds, Let them show what Bishops they have Ordained for the first six hundred years: I have showed plainly (though he please to omit it) out of the List of the Bishops ordained, three by Saint Peter, eleven by Linus, fifteen by Clement, six by Anacletus, five by Evarastus, five by Alexander, and four by Sixtus. etc. that there were few enough for the Roman Province; none to spare for Britain. Vid. Bramh. Tom. 1. Disc. 3. p. 207.  
It is said that Saint Peter ordained here; but 
St. Peter.  that was before he had been at Rome: therefore not as Pope of Rome. 
Nor any other. Eluth.   
2. Elutherius sent Fugatius, etc. but what to do? to Baptise King Lucius: upon the same Errand he sent Victor into Scotland.  
3. Palladius and Ninian are instances of men 
Pallad. etc.  sent to preach to the Picts and Scotland, as Saint Patrick into Ireland: this was kindly done; but we have not one Syllable of any Jurisdiction all this while: besides it is remarkable, though there be a dispute about Palladius his being sent; yet, 'tis certain, he was rejected, and after 
Bed. in vit. S, Pat. l. 1.  died; in whose place, Saint Patrick succeeded, without any Mandate from Rome that we read of.  
Jeffry of Monmouth saith, that Dubricius Primate Object. 
Legates. S. W.  of Britain, was Legate of the See Apost: and we say that Jeffry tells many Fables: and that it is gross Credulity to believe him contrary to the Authentic History, and more undoubted practices of those Times: we read (saith the Primate) of many Legates; but certainly, they were either no Papal Legates; or Papal Legates, in those days, were but ordinary Messengers, and pretended not to any Legantine Power, as it is now understood: for we read so much as any one act of Jurisdiction done by them, and firmly conclude, thence, that there 
Pall.  was none.  
But R. C. saith St. Samson had a Pall from Obj. Rome.  
He had a Pall, but 'tis not proved that he had 
Sol.  it from Rome; 'tis Certain, Arch-Bishops and Patriaches in the Primitive times had Palls, which they received not from Rome.  
Besides, if he did receive that Pall from Rome, in all probability it was after the first six 
Irin. Cam. p. 1. c. 1.  hundred years: If either, according to Cambrensis, he was the five and twentieth Archbishop after St. David, or, according to Hoveden, the 
R. Hoved. an. 1199.  four and twentieth; and then 'tis nothing to our present question.  
St. Gregory granted to Austin the use of the Pall, saith R. C. the proper badge and sign of Obj. 
Pall.  Archiepiscopal dignity; and gave him liberty to ordain twelve Bishops under his jurisdiction, as Archbishop of Canterbury.  
This was done at the end of the first six hundred years, and therefore not to our present 
Sol.  question: However, if the Pagan Saxons had destroyed Christianity among the Britain's, (as they say) it was very Christianly done of St. Gregory, to send Augustine to convert and re-establish the Church among them; but none can imagine, that by receiving Augustine and his Bishops, they intended to submit themselves and Posterity to the See of Rome, which when pressed before, the Britain's so unanimously rejected.  
Neither indeed, could they do it to the prejudice of the ancient Primacy of the Britain's; existing long before; and confirmed in its independency upon any foreign power: For Bede himself, as well as all our own Historians, makes it most evident, that the Britain's had Bishops long before: We find the subscriptions of three of them to the first Council of Arles; Eborius of York Restitutus of London, and Adelfius de Civitate Coloniae Lond. and from the presence of some of them at the Sardican Synod, and the Council of Ariminum; as appears by Athanasius and others; and that they had also an Archbishop or Primate, whose ancient seat had been at Caerleon; who rejected the Papacy; then possessing and defending the privilege of their freedom from any foreign Jurisdiction.  
This their privilege was secured to them, both by the Nicene, Calcedonian, and Ephesian Councils. Contrary to these Councils, if the Pope did intent to give Augustine the primacy over the Britain's, it was a plain usurpation. Certainly the privileges of the Britannic Church returned with its Christianity; neither could Gregory dispose of them to Austin, or he to Gregory.  
Besides Lastly, 'tis not possible any sober man can imagine, that that humble and holy Pope, St. Gregory, who so much detested, if in earnest, the very Title of Universal Bishop, should actually invade the privilege of the Britain's, and 
If in earnest.  hazard his own Salvation in his own Judgement, when he so charitably designed the Conversion of England by sending Austin hither.  
T. C. saith, it appears that Britain was anciently Obj. subject to the See of Rome: For Wilfred, Archbishop of York, appealed to Rome twice; 
Wilfred.  and was twice restored to his Bishopric. a, 673.  
We see when this was done: Seventy and three 
Sol. An. 673.  years after the first six hundred.  
He appealed indeed, but was still rejected; notwithstanding the sentence of Rome in his favour, for six years together, during the Reigns of King Egbert and Alfrid his Son; so far is this instance, from being a proof of the Pope's possession here at that time: Yet this is the most famous, saith my Lord Bramhall, I had almost said, the only Appellant from England to Rome, that we read of before the Conquest.  
Moreover, the Answer of King Alfred to the 
Alfred. spell. conc. an. 705.  Pope's Nuncio, sent hither by the Pope on purpose, is very remarkable: He told him, he honoured them as his Parents for their grave lives and honourable Aspects; but he could not give any assent to their Legation because it was against reason, that a Person twice Condemned by the whole Council of the English, should be restored upon the Pope's Letter.  
At this time it is apparent, neither the Kings of England, nor the Councils of English Churchmen (as my Lord Bramhall expresseth it, two Kings successively, and the great Councils of the Kingdom, and the other Archbishop Theodore, with all the prime ecclesiastics, and the Flower of the English Clergy, opposing so many Sentences and Messages from Rome) did believe, that England was under the Jurisdiction of Rome, or aught to be so.  
Yea, the King and the Church, after Alfred's 
After Alfred.  death, still made good this Conclusion; that it was against Reason, that a person twice condemned by the whole Council of the English, should be restored upon the Pope's Bull.  
Malmsbury would suggest, that the King and the Archbishop Theodore, were smitten with remorse before their deaths, for the injury done to Wilfred, etc. But not the King only, but the whole Council; not Theodore alone, but the whole Clergy opposed the Pope's Letter: which is enough both to render the dream of Malmsbury, a ridiculous Fable; and for ever to confirm this truth, that England was not then, viz. in the six hundred seventy and third Year of Christ, under the Jurisdiction of the Pope, either actually or in the belief of the Church or Kingdom of England.  
The Latter, viz. the non-possession of out belief of the Pope's universal Jurisdiction, (which is so much insisted upon by the Romanists) will yet more evidently appear, by that which followeth.   

SECT. II.  
No Possession of our Belief, ancient.  
WE have found the Britain's, by the good Abbot, and two several Synods; 
Not in England.  we have found the State of England in three successive Kings, their great Councils and body of the Clergy, refused to yield Obedience both to the Pope's Persuasions, Injunctions, Sentences, and Legates: Therefore it seems impossible that Britain or England should then believe either the Pope's Infallibility, or their obligation to his Jurisdiction; or that there was any such thing as the Tradition of either delivered to them by their Ancestors or believed among them.  
Indeed, by this one Argument, those four great Characters of the Papacy are deleted and blotted out for ever, viz. Possession, Tradition, Infallibility, and Antiquity.  
I shall add the practice and belief of Scotland 
Nor in Scotland.  too; that other great part of our King's dominions: When the Pope's Legate, more than 
Math. Par. in H. 3. an. 1238.  twice six hundred years after Christ, viz. about 1238. entered Scotland, to visit the Churches there; Alexander the second, than King of the Scots, forbade him so to do. Alleging, That none of his Predecessors had ever admitted any such, neither would he suffer it: And therefore willed him at his own Peril to forbear. Hence 'tis evident, there was neither Tradition nor Belief, either of the Pope's ancient and necessary Government, and therefore not of his Infallibility; much less that anciently and from the beginning, the Pope had exercised his Jurisdiction more in Scotland than in England. We have that King's word for it, None of his Predecessors had ever admitted any such.   

SECT. III.  
In Canons, Apost: Nice, Milev, etc. This Belief could have no Ground. Sardia.  
What could possibly sway the first Ages to such a belief of the Pope's universal 
Vid. c. 20.  Jurisdiction? Certainly nothing from the Councils; nor the practice of the Church in other places, nor indeed the declared Judgement of the Pope himself, nor the words of the Laws.  
1. Nothing to be found in the Canons of the 
Not Councils. Apostles.  Ancient Councils could invite to such belief. In the Apostles Canons, we find the quite contrary; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the first or primate among the Bishops of every Nation shall be accounted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as their Head; and that every one of those Primates shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do those things only which belong to his Province and the Regions under it; and in pursuance of those Canons, the first Nicene Council decreed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
●ic●.  etc. that they that are cast out by some, shall not be received by other Bishops, and that this must be observed by the Bishops through every Province; and in further Harmony the Milevetan Council prohibits all appeal from their 
Mileve.  own Bishops, but to the African Councils and Primates of their own Provinces; and that they which shall appeal to any Foreign, whether Bishop or Council shall not be received into Communion with any in afric. And lastly, the Practice of all this is visible in the very Synodical Epistle of the African Council to Pope Celestine, where 
Vid. v. Dr. Ham. at large. dispar. disp. 397 398, 399, etc.  they beseech him for the future, that he will receive none such, because he may easily find it defined in the Council of Nice. These Canons are all in the Roman Codex, and cannot be pretended to be invalid; neither can they possibly oblige any man to believe that the Pope had universal Jurisdiction as is now pretended.  
Moreover, as Dr. Hammond Notes, to some of these Canons the Pope himself makes Oath, 
Disp. disp. p. 178. Pope swears to the Canons.  that he will inviolably observe them (see Corp. Juris can. decret. part. 1. dist. 16. c. 8.) and from that Oath, of the Pope, our Bishops made this very conclusion, that the Popes that Exercised a primacy over any other Bishops but those of their own province in Italy, transgressed their own profession made in their Creation: as further appears by the institution of a Christian man in the year 1538.  
But more largely of this in the last Chapters.  
Therefore, the Britain's could not believe that they then owed Subjection to the papacy, but they must charge the writers of the Apostolic Cannons (whether by Apostles or Apostolical men) and the Councils, for enacting Sacrilegious decrees; and the Pope also for swearing the Inviolable observation of them.  
These things are plain, and S. W. by pretending in general, that Words admit of Various interpretations, without applying his Rule to the Case; gives but too just occasion to Dr. Hammond to expose him as he doth. See disp. disp. p. 181 182 183 184.  
Eadmer speaks plain and home too; it was 
p. 58. 43.  inauditum in Britannia, quemlibet hominum super se vices Apostolicas gerere, nisi solum Archiepiscopum Cantuariae. it was a thing unheard of, no practice of it, no Tradition for it; therefore no such thing Can be believed, that any other (not the Pope himself) did Apostolically Govern the affairs of Britain, but only the Archbishop of Canterbury.   

SECT. 4.  
Conc. Sard. Calced. Constantinop.  
IT may be said, the Britain's might hear 
Vid. Cap. 20. Sict. 9  of the Canon of the Council of Sardica; where it was decreed that Bishops grieved, might 
Sardica.  appeal to the Bishop of Rome.  
The words of the Council are these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Sol.  etc. In Case any Bishop thought himself unjustly Condemned; if it seem good to you, let us honour the Memory of Peter the Apostle; that it be written by those who have Judged the Cause to Julius the Bishop of Rome; and if it seem good, let the judgement be renewed, and let them appoint such as may take Cognizance of of it. hereupon 'tis plain  
1 These Fathers did not acknowledge the Pope's Supremacy, who thus laid it at the feet, and pleasure of others, (if it seem good to you)  
2. Here is no peremptory Order, neither, and it might not Seem good to Civil Princes, to suffer such Appeals.  
3. No absolute appeal it seems was intended: but only the Bishop of Rome might review the Case: and how much a review differs from Apeal; 
More of Conc▪ Sar. hereafter.  and that nothing but power to revew is here given to the Bishop of Rome, are both fully manifested by the Archbishop of Paris, Petr. de Maro. de Concord. l. 7. c. 3. sect. 6, 7. etc.  
4. The Decree (such as it is) is not grounded upon any prior right, from Scripture, tradition, or possession, or any former Council; hath no other Argument but the honour of Saint Peter; and that not in his Authority, but his Memory; who first sat in that See, where Julius was now Bishop: but we may have leave to ask, where was the Supremacy of the Church of Rome before? or how should the Britain's dream of it before? or why did not these Canons take notice of the undoubted Canon of Nice to the contrary, made two and twenty years before, either to null or explain it?  
But that these Sardic Canons, neither established the Pope's Supremacy; nor were acknowledged to bind the Church afterwards; nor could be accounted an Appendix to the Council of Nice; and what weakness and falseness has been practised upon this Argument, is so largely, ingenuously and satisfactorily manifested by Doctor Sillingfleet, that I shall for his fuller satisfaction refer the Reader to him, in his Ration. acc. p. 419, 420, 421. etc.  
It is strongly argued in the last reasonings of my Lord Bramhall, that after the Eastern Bishops were departed, this Council of Sardica was no general Council; because the presence of five great Patriarches were ever held necessary to the being of a general Council; as Bellarmine confesseth the Conc. Li. c. 17.  
If this Council had been general: Why do Saint Gregory, Isiodore, and Bede, leave it out of the Number of general Councils? Why did Saint Austin, Alipius and the African Fathers, slight it? and which is more, why doth the Eastern Church not reckon it among their Seven; nor the Western Church among their Eight first general Councils? Why did the English Church omit it in their Number in the Synod of Hedifeld 
Apud Spel. An. 680. l. 169.  in the year 680. and embrace only unto this day the Council of Nice, the first of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and the first and second of Chalcedon?  
The five first general Councils were therefore incorporated into our English Laws; but this Council of Sardica never was: Therefore contrary to this Canon of Appeal, 'tis the Fundamental Law of England, in that Famous Memorial of Clarendon: All Appeals in England must proceed Regularly from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and if the Archbishop failed to do justice, the last Complaint must be to the King to give Order for redress.  
'Tis evident, the great Council of Chalcedon 
P. 2. ac. 14. c. 9  contradicted this Canon for Appeals to Rome: where Appeals from the Archbishop are directed to be made to every Primate, or the Holy 
Chalcedon.  See of Constantinople, as well as Rome: from which Evidence, we have nothing but silly Evasions, as that Primate truly observs, v. Sch. guarded p. 374.  
Besides, if our Forefathers had heard of the Canons of the Councils truly general, (as no doubt they had) how could they possibly believe the unlimited Jurisdiction of Rome, the Council of Chalcedon is not denied to give equal Privileges to the Patriarch of Constantinople, with the Patriarch of Rome. And the Council of Constantinople conclude thus: for the (Nicene) Fathers did justly give Privileges to the See of 
Constantinople.  old Rome, because it was the Imperial City; and the 150 godly Bishops moved with the same consideration, did give equal Privileges to the See of new Rome; that that City which was the Sear of the Empire and Senate should enjoy equal Privileges with the Ancient Imperial City of Rome; and be extolled and magnified in Ecclesiastical Affairs as well as it, being the Second in order from it: and in the last Sentence of the Judges upon Review of the Cause: the Archbishop of the Imperial City of Const. or new Rome, must enjoy the same Privileges of Honour; and have the same Power out of his own Authority, to ordain Metropolitans in the Asiatic, Pontic, and Thracian Diocese.  
Are these the Words of a General Council? could these Fatbers imagine the Pope at that time Monarch of the whole Church? or could this be acknowledged by England at first, and they yet give up their Faith to the Pope's Universal Power? Can these things consist? Yea, is there not something in all the Councils allowed by the Ancient Britain's, and the Ancient English Church, sufficient to induce a Faith quite contrary to the Roman Pretensions?  
But as to this Canon of Constantinople, S. W. Object. quits his hands; roundly telling us, that it was no free Act, but voted Tumultuously, after most of the Fathers were departed.  
S. W. had been safer, if he had been wiser: 
Sol.  for that which he saith, is altogether false; and besides such a cluster of Forgeries, as deserves the Whetstone to purpose; as my Lord Bramhall manifests against him, Sch-guard. p. 354.  
1. False: the Act was made before the Bishops had licence to departed; it had a Second Hearing; and was debated by the Pope's own Legates on his behalf, before the most glorious Judges; and maturely Sentenced by them in the Name of the Council. This was one of those four Councils, which Saint Gregory honoured next to the four Gospels. This is one of those very Councils, which every succeeding Pope doth swear to observe to the least tittle.  
2. For his Forgeries about it, he is sufficiently shamed by the Primate in the place cited: 'tis pity such shifts should be used; and 'tis folly to use them; when the Truth appears, what remains, but, both the Person and the Cause reproached.  
See more of the Councils at the latter end.   

SECT. V  
Arabic Canons forged; no Canons of the Council of Nice.  
YEt 'tis a Marvellous thing, that the Romanist Object. should dare to impose upon so great and learned a Primate, as the late Archbishop Land; that by the third Canon of the Council of Nice, the Patriarch is in the same manner over all those that are under his Authority; as he who holds the See of Rome is Head, and Prince of the Patriaches, resembling Saint Peter, and his Equal in Authority.  
When 'tis most evident to the meanest capacity, Answ. that will search into it; that, that is no Canon of the true Council of Nice; and that in stead of the third, it is the thirty ninth of the supposititious and forged Canons; as they are set forth in the Arabic Editions, both by Pisanus and Turrianus.  
In these Editions there are no less than eighty Canons pretended to be Nicene; whereas the Nicene Council never passed above twenty: as is evident from such as should know best, the Greek Authors; who all reckon but twenty 
Hist. Ecl. l. 1. c. 7.  Canons of that Council. Such as Theodoret, Nicephorus Calistus, Gelasius Cricenus, Alphonsus 
Ecl. Hist. l. 8. c. 19 Act. Conc. Nic. lib. 2.  Pisanus, and Binnius himself confesseth that all the Greeks say there were no more but twenty Canons, then determined.  
Yea, the Latins themselves allowed no more: for although Ruffinus make twenty two, 'tis by splitting of two into four.  
And in that Epitome of the Canons, which Pope Hadrian sent to Charles the Great, for the Government of the Western Churches, Anno 773. the same Number appears: and in Hincmarus' M. S. the same is proved, from the Testimonies of the Tripartite History, Ruffinus, the Carthaginian Council, the Epistles of Ciril of Alex. Atticus of Constant. and the twelfth Action of the Council of Chalcedon: and if we may believe a Pope, viz. Stephen, in Gratian, saith, the Roman Church did allow of no more 
Gra. dis. 16. c. 20.  than twenty.  
The truth is put beyond all question, lastly, both by the proceed of the African Fathers, in the case of Zosimus about the Nicene Canons, when an early and diligent search made it evident; and also by the Codex Canonum. Eccl. Afric. 
P. 363.  p. 58. where it is expressly said, there was but twenty Canons.  
But this matter is more than clear, by the 
P. 391, 392  elaborate pains of Dr. Still. defence of the late Archbishop Land, to whom, I must refer my Reader.  
Yet Bellarmine and Binius would prove there Obj. were more than twenty.  
But their proofs depend either upon things, 
Sol.  as suppositions, as the Arabic Canons themselves; such as the Epistles of Julius and Athanasius ad Marcum: or else they only prove, that some other things were determined by that Council, viz. Concerning Rebaptisation, and the keeping of Easter, etc. which indeed might be Acts of the Council, without putting them into the 
Ad an. 325. P. 108.  Canons; as Baronius himself confesseth, and leaves the patronage of them, and Spondanus, in his contraction of Baronius, relates it as his positive 
Ad an. 325. n. 42.  Opinion, that he rejected all but twenty, whether Arabic or other, as spurious.  
So that it will bear no further contest, but we may safely conclude, the Arabic Canons, and consequently this of the Pope's Authority, is a mere Forgery of later times; there being no evidence at all, that they were known to the Church in all the time of the four first general Councils. 
Vid. ●. 20.    

SECT. VI  
Practise interpreted the Canons to the same Sense against the Pope: Disposing of Patriarches. Cyprian. Aug.  
WE have found nothing in the Canons of the ancient Councils that might give occasion to the belief of the Pope's Jurisdiction in England, in the Primitive Ages of the Church; but indeed, very much to the contrary: But the Romanist affirms against my Lord of Canterbury, that the Practice of the Church is always the best Expositor and Assertor of the Canons. We are now to examine, whether the ancient practice of the Church was sufficient to persuade a belief of the Pope's Jurisdiction as is pretended. In the mean time not doubting, but that it is a thing most evident; that the Pope hath practised contrary to the Canons; and the Canons have declared, and indeed been practised against the Pope.  
But what Catholic Practice is found on Record, that can be supposed a sufficient ground of this Faith, either in England or any part of Christendom? Certainly not of Ordinations or Appeals, or Visitations. Yea, can it be imagined, that our English Ancestors, had not heard of the practice of the Britain's in maintaining their liberty when it was assaulted by Austin; and rejecting his demands of Subjection to the See of Rome? No doubt they had heard of the Cyprian Privilege; and how it was insisted on in bar of the universal Pastorship, by their friends the Eastern Church: from whom, they in likelihood received the Faith; and with whom they were found at first in Communion, about the observation of Easter and Baptism; and in practice, divers from the Church of Rome.  
But one great point of practice is here pitched Obj. upon by Baronius; and after him by T. C. It is the Pope's Confirmation of the Election, deposing and restoring of Patriarches: which they say he did, as Head and Prince of all the Patriarches, and consequently of the whole Church.  
But where hath he done these strange feats? 
Sol.  Certainly not in England: And we shall find the instances not many nor very early, any where else. But to each Branch.  
1. 'Tis urged, that the Pope's Confirmation 
Confirm. Patriarches.  is required to all new elected Patriarches.  
Admit it; but the Archbishop of Paris, Petrus 
Dr. Still.  de Marca, fully answers Baronius (and indeed every body else) that this was no token of Jurisdiction; but only of receiving into Communion; 
De conc. l. 6. c. 5. s. 2.  and as a Testimony of Consent to the Consecration. If any force be in this Argument, than the Bishop of Carthage had power 
Cypr. Ep. 52. p. 75.  over the Bishop of Rome; because he and other African Bishops, Confirmed the Bishop of Rome's Ordination.  
Baronius insists much upon the Confirmation of Anatolius by Leo I. which very instance answers itself. Leo himself tells us, that it was 
Ep. 38.  to manifest, that there was but one entire Communion among them throughout the World.  
Yet it is not to be omitted, that the practice of the Church supposeth that the Validity of the Patriarches Consecration, depended not upon 
Consec. depends not on Confirmation.  the Confirmation, or indeed, Consent of the Pope of Rome. Yea though he did deny his Comunicatory letters, that did not hinder them, from the Execution of their Office. Therefore Flavianus the Patriarch of Antloch; though opposed by three Roman Bishops, successively, who used all importunity with the Emperor, that he might be displaced; yet because the Churches of the Orient, did approve of him and Communicate with him, he was allowed; and their consent stood against the Bishops of Rome. At last, the Bishop of Rome, severely rebuked for his Pride by the Emperor, yielded; and his Consent was given only by renewing Communion with him. But where was the Pope's power; either to make, or make void a Patriarch, while this was in Practice?  
2. Doth Practice better prove the Pope's 
Deposing▪ Patriarches.  power, to depose unworthy Patriarches? The contrary is evident; for both before and after the Council of Nice; according to that Council, the practice of the Church placed the power of deposing Patriarches, in Provincial Councils; and the Pope had it not, till the Council of Sardica decreed in the case of Athanasius, as P. de Marca abundantly proves: Vid. de Concord. l. 7. c. 1. Sect. 6. Also, that the Council of Sardica itself, did not (as is commonly said) decree Appeals to Rome; but only gave the Bishop of Rome power to review their Actions; but still reserving to Provincial▪ Councils, that Authority which the Nicene Council had established them in.  
But T. C. urgeth, that we read of no less than Obj. eight several Patriarches of Constantinople deposed by the Bishop of Rome.  
Where doth he read it? In an Epistle of Pope 
Sol.  Nicolaus to the Emperor Michael. Well chosen saith Doctor Still. a Pope's Testimony in his own Cause. And such a one, as was then in Controversy with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and so late too, as the Ninth Century is: when his power was much grown from the Infancy of it.  
Yet, for all this, this Pope on such an occasion, and at that time, did not say, that the Patriarches mentioned by him, were deposed by the Pope's sole Authority, but not Ejected (Sine Consensu Romani Pontificis) without his Consent: and his design was, only to show that Ignatius the Patriarch, ought not to have been deposed without his Consent v. Nic. 1. 8. Mich. Imp. Tom. 6. Con. p. 506.  
Did not Sixtus the third depose Policronius Obj. Bishop of Jerusalem?  
No. He only sent eight Persons from a Synod 
Sol.  at Rome to Jerusalem; who offered not, by the Pope's Authority, to depose him, as should have have been proved: but by their means seventy Neighbour Bishops, were Called; by whom, he was deposed: besides Binius himself, 
T●m. 2. Con. p. 685.  Condemns those very acts, that report this story, for Spurious.  
3. But have we any better proof of the 
Restoring Patriarches.  Pope's power, to restore such as were deposed?  
The only Instance in this Case, brought by T. C. is of Athanasius and Paulus, restored by Julius, and indeed to little purpose.  
'tis true, Athanasius Cndemned by two Synods, goes to Rome, where he and Paulus, are received into Communion by Julius; not liking the decree of the Eastern Bishops. Julius never pleads, his Power to depose Patriarches; but that his consent for the sake of Unity, should also have been first desired; and that so great a Matter in the Church, required a Council both of the Eastern and Western Bishops. Vid. P. de Marca l. 7. c. 4. s. 6.  
But, saith Dr. Still. when we consider, with what heat and stomach this was received by the 
P. 401. Q. ac.  Eastern Bishops; how they absolutely deny, that the Western Bishops had any more to do with their proceed, than they had with theirs: When they say, that the Pope by this Usurpation, was the cause of all the mischief that followed: You see what an excellent instance you have made choice of, to prove the Pope's power of Restoring Bishops, to be acknowledged by the whole Church.  
Sure, so far the Church's practice abroad, could not prevail to settle his right of Jurisdion in the English Faith; especially, considering the Practice of our own Church, in opposing the Letters and Legates of Popes for six years together, for the Restoring of Archbishop Wilfred by two of our own successive Kings; and the whole State of England Ecclesiastical and Civil, as appeared above.  
Moreover St. Cyprian professeth in the Council of Carthage, neque enim quisquam, etc. for no one of us hath made himself Bishop of Bishops: or driven his Fellow Bishops to a necessity of Obedience: Particularly relating to Stephen then Bishop 
An. 258. n. 24.  of Rome; as Baronius himself resolves.  
But upon a matter of Fact, St. August. gave his 
St. August.  own judgement, both of the Pope's Power and Action in that known case of the Donatists. First, they had leave to be heard by foreign Bishops. 2. Forti non debuit, yet perhaps Melciades, the Bishop of the Roman Church, ought not to ufurp to himself this Judgement which had been determined by seventy African Bishops, Tigisitanus sitting Primate. 3. St. Augustine proceeds, and what will you say, if he did not usurp this Power? For the Emperor (being desired) sent Bishops, Judges; which should sit with him, and determine what was just upon the whole cause: So that upon the whole, 'tis easily observed, that in St. Augustine's judgement, both the Right and the Power, by which the Pope (as the rest) proceeded; was to be resolved to the Emperor, as a little before, ad cujus curam; to whose care it did chief belong; de qua, rationem Deo redditurus est, of which he was to give account to God. Can this consist with the belief of the Pope's universal Pastorship by Divine Right? if there can possibly, after so clear evidence need 
Vid. Dr. Ham. disp. p. 398. etc. & Still. Rationale. p. 405.  more to be said of St. Augustine's judgement in this; it is only to refer you to the Controversies between the African Bishops, and the Bishop of Rome in case of Appeals.   

SECT. VII.  
Not the Sayings of Ancient Popes, or Practice. Agatho, Pelagius, Gregory, Victor.  
WE can find nothing in the ancient Canons, or ancient practice, to ground 
Popes claimed.  a belief of the Pope's Authority in England upon, yet sure Popes themselves claimed it; and used Expressions to let us know it.  
Were it so indeed, experience tells us how little Popes are to be believed in their own cause; and all reason persuades us not to believe them, against the Councils and Practice of the Church, and the judgement of the Fathers.  
But some of the ancient Popes have been found so honest, as to confess against themselves; and acknowledge plain truth against their own greatness.  
The Pope's universal headship, is not to be believed from the words of Pope Agatho, in his 
Agatho.  Letter to the Emperor; where St. Paul stands as high as St. Peter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Con. To. 2. p. 61. B.  both are said by him to be heads or chief of the Apostles: Besides he expressly claimed only the Western Patriarchate.  
But Pope Pelagius the Second, is more plain 
Pelagius.  and home, to Rome itself. Nec etiam Romanus Pontifex universalis est appellandus, the Pope of 
Decret. p. 1. dis. 99 n. 10.  Rome is not to be called universal Bishop: This was the opinion of that Pope of Rome himself, as it is cited out of his Epistle, and put into the Body of the Law by Gratian: now, one would think, that the same Law denied the Power, that denied the Title properly expressing that Power.  
How triflingly doth S. W. object: these words are not found in the Council of Carthage, while they are found in the Corpus Juris; the Law, now of as much force at Rome as that Council.  
'Tis weaker to say, they are Gratians own Addition, seeing his Addition is now Law; and also proved to be the Sense of the Pope Pelagius: in his Epistle, he saith, let none of the Patriarches ever use the name of Universal, applying in the conclusion to himself, being then Pope, as one of that Number; and so, if he were either Pontifex Maximus, or a Patriarch, and neither himself nor any Patriarch might be 
Dr. Ham. disp. disp. p. 418, 419.  called Vniversalis; then sure nothing was added by him, that said in his Title to the fourth Chapter as Gratian did; Nec etiam Pontifex, not even the Bishop of Rome must be called Universal Bishop.  
But what shall be said to Saint Gregory: who, 
Gregory.  in his Epistle to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria, tells him, that he had prohibited him to call him Universal Father; that he was not to do 
Epis. ex Reg. l. 8. indic. 1. c. 30. etc. 4. ind. 13. c. 72 & 76.  it; that, reason required the contrary; that, it's derogatory to his Brethren; that this honour had, by a Council, that of Chalcedon, been offered to his Predecessors, but refused, and never used by any.  
Again, higher, he tells Mauritius, fidenter dico, who ever calls himself Universal Priest, or 
L. 7. Ep. 30.  desires to be so called; is by his pride, a Forerunner of Antichrist; his pride is an Indication of Antichrist approaching: as he saith to the 
Lib. 4. Ep. 38.  Empress, l. 4. Ep. 34. Yea, an Imitation of none but the Devil; endeavouring to break out to the top of Singularity; as he saith, to John himself: yea, elsewhere, he calls this Title, the name of Blasphemy; and saith, that, those that 
Ibid. Ep 32 & 40.  consent to it do, fidem perdere, destroy the Faith.  
A strong Title, that neither Saint Gregory, nor, as he saith, any one of his Predecessors; no Pope, that went before him, would ever accept of: and herein, saith he, I plead not my own 
Ibid. Ep. 32.  cause, but the cause of God, of the whole Church, of the Laws, the Venerable Councils, the Commands of Christ; which are all disturbed with the invention of this proud pompatick stile of Universal Bishop.  
Now, can any one imagine, except one prejudiced, as S. W. that the Power is harmless, when the Title that doth barely express it, is so devilish a thing? Can any one imagine, that Saint Gregory knew himself to be that indeed, which in Word he so much abominates? or that he really exercised that Universal Authority, and Universal Bishopric; though, he so prodigiously lets fly against the Style of Universal Bishop? yet all this is said, and must be maintained, lest we should exclude the Universal Pastorship out of the Primitive Church.  
There is a great deal of pitiful stuff used by the Romanist, upon this Argument; with which I shall not trouble the Reader, yet nothing shall be omitted that hath any show of Argument on their Side: among which the words of Saint Gregory following in his Argument, are most material.  
Saint Gregory saith, the care of the whole Object. Church was by Christ committed to the chief of the Apostles, Saint Peter; and yet he is not called the Universal Bishop.  
'Tis confessed that Saint Gregory doth say 
Sol.  that the care of the whole is committed to Saint Peter: again, that he was the Prince of the Apostles; and yet he was not called Universal Apostle: 'tis hence plain, that his being Prince of the Apostles, did not carry in it so much as Universal Bishop: otherwise, Saint Gregory would not have given the one, and denied him the other; and 'tis as plain, that he had the care of all Churches, and so had Saint Paul; but 'tis not plain, that he had Power over all Churches.  
Doctor Hammond proceeds irrisistibly to prove the contrary from Saint Gregory himself in the Novels: if any Complaint be made, saith he, against a Bishop, the Cause shall be judged before the Metropolitan, Secundum Regulas 
Ex Reg. lib. 11. Ep. 54.  Sanctas & Nostras Leges; if the Party stand not to his Judgement, the Cause is to be brought to the Archbishop or Patriarch of that Diocese; and he shall give it a Conclusion, according to the Canons and Laws aforesaid; no place left for Appeal to Rome.  
Yet it must be acknowledged, Saint Gregory Object. adds, si dictum fuerit etc. where there is no Metropolitan nor Patriarch, the Cause may be heard by the Apostolic See, which Gregory calls the Head of all Churches.  
Now, if this be allowed, what hath the Pope 
Sol.  gained, if perhaps such a Church should be found, as hath neither Primate nor Patriarch? how is he the nearer to the Universal Authority over those Churches that have Primates of their own; or which way will he by this means extend his Jurisdiction to us in England, who have ever had more than one Metropolitan? the Archbishop of Canterbury was once acknowledged by a Pope to be Alterius Orbis Apostolicus & Patriarch.  
But admitting this extraordinary Case; that where there is neither Metropolitan nor Patriarch there, they are to have recourse to the See Apostolic: 'tis a greater wonder that the Romanist should insist upon it, then that his late (Grace) should mention it; at which A. C. so much admires: for this one observation with the assistance of that known Rule in Law (exceptio confirmat Regulam in non exceptis) puts a plain and speedy end to the whole Controversy: for if recourse may be had to Rome, from no other place, but where there is neither Primate nor Patriarch; than not from England, either when Saint Gregory laid down the Rule, or ever since, and perhaps then from no other place in the World; and indeed provision was thus made against any such extraordinary Case that might possibly happen; for it is but reason▪ that, where there is no Primate to appeal to, appeal should be received somewhere else; and where better, than at Rome, which Saint Gregory calls Caput omnium Ecclesiarum? and this is the utmost advantage, the Romanist can hope to receive from the Words.  
But we see Saint Gregory calls Rome the Head Object. of all Churches.  
'Tis true, whether he intends a Primacy, of 
Sol.  Fame or visible Splendour and Dignity, being the Seat of the Emperor, or Order and Unity, is not certain? but 'tis certain, he intends nothing less by it, than, that which just now he denied; a Supremacy of Power and Universal ordinary Jurisdiction; he having, in the words immediately foregoing, concluded all ordinary Jurisdiction within every proper Primacy or Patriarchate.  
But saith S. W. Saint Gregory practised the Object. thing, though he denied the Word of Universal.  
What Hypocrisy! damn the Title as he 
Sol.  doth, and yet practise the thing! you must have good proof.  
His first Instance, is of the Primate of Byzacene; wherein the Emperor first put forth his Authority, and would have him judged by Gregory: Piissimus Imperator eum per nos voluit 
Vid. Ep. 65. l. 7.  judicari, saith Gregory: Hence, as Doctor Hammond smartly and sound observes, that Appeals from a Primate, lie to none but the Supreme Magistrate.  
To which purpose, in the Case of Maximus Bishop of Solana, decreed excommunicate, 
Ep. l. 3. Ep. 20.  by Gregory; his Sentence was still with this reserve and submission, nisi prius: unless I should first understand by my most Serene Lords (the Emperors) that they commanded it to be done.  
Thus, if this perfect instance (as S. W. calls it) have any force in it; his Cause is gone, what ever advantage he pretends to gain by it.  
Besides, the Emperor's Command was, that Gregory should judge him, juxta Statuta Canonica; and Gregory himself pleads, quicquid esset Canonicum Judicaremus.  
Thus S. W's. 'Cause is killed twice by his own perfect instance: for if Saint Gregory took the Judgement upon him in obedience to the Emperor; and did proceed, and was to proceed in judging, according to the Canons; where was then the Universal Monarchy?  
Yet, it is confessed by Dr. Hammond, which is a full answer to all the other, (not so perfect instances) that in case of injury done to any by a Primate or Patriarch, (there being no lawful Superior, who had power over him) the injured person sometimes, made his complaint to the Pope, as being the most Eminent Person in the Church; and in such case, he questionless might and aught, in all fraternal Charity, admonish the Primate or Patriarch, or disclaim Communion with him, unless he reform.  
But it ought to be shown that Gregory did formally excommunicate any such Primate or Patriarch; or juridically and authoritively act, in any such Cause, without the express licence of the Emperor, which not being done, his instances are answered: besides, Saint Gregory always pleads the Ancient Canons; which is far from any claim of Universal Pastorship by Divine Right, or Donation of Christ to Saint Peter. I appeal (saith Doctor Hammond) to S. W. whether that were the Interpretation of secundùm Canon's; and yet, he knows, that no other Tenure but that, will stand him in stead.  
Indeed, the unhappiness is, as the Doctor 
Vid. dispat. disp. p. 408. to p 423.  observes, that such Acts at first, but necessary fraternal charity were by ambitious, men drawn into example, and means of assuming power of Universal Pastorship; which yet cannot be more vehemently prejudiced by any thing, than by those Ancient examples, which being rightly considered, pretend no higher than Ecclesiastical Canons, and the Universal Laws of Charity; but never made claim to any Supremacy of power over all Bishops, by Divine Institution.  
It yet appears not that Saint Gregory practised, the thing, but to avoid Arrogance disclaims the name of Universal Bishop.  
A. C. against my Lord of Canterbury, goes another way to work: he grants the Title, and also the thing signified by it, to be both renounced by Saint Gregory; but distinguishes of the Term Universal Bishop, into Grammatical, to the exclusion of all other Bishops, from being properly Bishops; and Metaphorical, whereby the Bishops are secured, as such, in their respective Dioceses; yet all of them under the Jurisdiction of the Universal Bishop, viz. of Rome.  
This distinction, Doctor Stillingfleet destroys, 
Sol.  not more elaborately than fully and perfectly: showing, that, 1. 'tis impossible Saint Gregory should understand the Term of Universal Bishop 
Lib. 4. Ep. 32.  in that strict Grammatical Sense: for the reason, why this Title was refused, was because it seemed to diminish the honour of other Bishops, when it was offered the Bishops of Rome in a Council of six hundred and thirty Bishops; who cannot be imagined to divest themselves, by their kindness, of their very Office; though they hazarded somewhat of their honour. Can we think the Council, that gave the same Title to John, intended thus to depose themselves? how comes it to pass that none of John's or Ciriacus' Successors, did ever challenge this Title, in that literal sense, if so it was understood.  
But to wave many things impertinent; 'tis evident, Saint Gregory understood the Title Metaphorically, from the reasons he gives against it; which also equally serve to prove against S. W. that it was not so much the Title as the Authority of an Universal Bishop, which he so much opposed.  
He argueth thus to John the Patriarch: What wilt thou answer to Christ the Head of the Universal 
Lib. 4. Ep. 38.  Church in the day of Judgement, who dost endeavour to subject all his Members to thee, under the name of Universal Bishop?  
Again, doth he not arise to the height of Singularity, 
Ibid.  that he is Subject to none, but Rules over all? and can you have a more perfect description of the present Pope, than is here given? or is it the Title or the Power, that makes him. Subject to none, that Rules over all?  
Again, he imitates the pride of Lucifer, endeavouring 
Ibid.  to be Head (not sure, in Title, but Power) of the Church Triumphant; as the Pope of the Church Militant: Exalting his Throne, 
Ibid.  (not his Name) as Gregory adds, above the Stars of God, viz. the Bishops, and the height of the Clouds.  
Again, Saint Peter was the first Member of the Church: Paul, Andrew, and John, what are they else but Heads of particular Churches; and yet they are all Members of the Church under one Head, i. e. Christ; as before he had said: we see he allows not Peter himself to be Head of the Church. None that was truly Holy, was ever called by that name of Universal Bishop: which he makes to be the same with the head of the Church.  
But Lastly, suppose St. Gregory did mean, that this Title in its strict grammatical sense, was to be abhorred, and not as Metaphorically taken, What hath the Pope gained? who at this day bears that Title in the highest and strictest sense imaginable? as the Dr. proves; and indeed needs no proof, being evident of itself, and to the observation of the whole world. Thus all the hard words of St. Gregory uttered so long agone, against such as admitted or desired that Title, avoidable fall upon the Modern Roman Bishops, that take upon them to be the sole Pastors of the Church; and say that they are Ecumenical Bishops, and that all Jurisdiction is derived from them: They are Lucifers and Princes of Pride; using a vain, new, rash, foolish, proud, profane, erroneous, wicked, hypocritical, singular; presumptuous, blasphemous Name; as that holy Pope inveighed against it. Moreover, as he also adds, they transgress Gods Laws, violate the Canons, dishonour the Church, despise their Brethren, and cause Schism. Istud nomen facere 
L. 6. ep. 30, 31. Obj.  in dissessionem Ecclesiae.  
But it is said, that Pope Victor excommunicated the Asian Churches all at once: Therefore, saith A. C. the Pope had of right some Authority over the Asian Bishops; and by confequence over the whole Church: And this appears in that, Irenaus in the name of the Gallican Bishops, writes to Victor not to proceed so rashly in this Action: as appears in Eusebius.  
1. We answer, that those Bishops, among 
Sol.  whom Irenaeus was one, did severely rebuke that Pope for offering to excommunicate those Asian 
Vid. Eus. l. 5. c. 24.  Churches: Therefore they did not believe him to be the Supreme, Infallible Pastor of the whole Church.  
2. His Letters declaring that Excommunication, 
Ibid.  not pleasing all his own Bishops, they countermanded him: Surely not thinking him to be what Popes would now be esteemed.  
3. Hence Card. Perron is angry with Eusebius, and calls him an Arrian; and an enemy to the Church of Rome; for hinting, that though the Pope did declare them excommunicate, yet it took no effect, because other Bishops continued still in Communion with them.  
4 But the force of the whole Argument leans upon a plain mistake, of the Ancient Discipline, both in the Nature and the Root or Ground of it.  
For the nature of Ancient Excommunication, 
Mistake of the nature. Root of Discipline.  especially when practised by one Church against another, did not imply a Positive Act of Authority, but a Negative Act of Charity; or a declaring against the Communion of such with themselves: And therefore was done by Equals to Equals; and sometimes by Inferiors to Superiors. In Equals; thus Johannes Antiochenus in the Ephesine Council, excommunicated Cyril, Patriarch 
Vict. Tu. nu. cro. p. 10.  of Alexandria; and in Inferiors (in the sense of our Roman Adversaries) for the African Bishops excommunicated Pope Vigilius: Hence, also, Acacius the Patriarch of Const. expunged the Name of Foelix Bishop of Rome; out of the diptychs of the Church: And Hilary anethamatized Pope Liberius, therefore Victors declaring the Asian Churches to be excommunicate, is no argument of his power over them.  
2. The Root or Ground of the ancient Discipline, is also as plainly mistaken, which was not Authority always, but Care and Charity. Care, I say, not only of themselves who used it, but also of the Church that was censured, and indeed of the whole Church.  
'Tis here proper to consider, that though Bishops had their peculiar Seats, and Limits for their Jurisdictions; yet they had all a charitive inspection and care of that universal Church, and sometimes denominations accordingly.  
Hence we deny not that the ancient Bishops of Rome deservedly gained the Title of Ecumenical Bishops, a thing of so great moment in the Controversy, that if well considered, might advance very far towards the ending of it: For so the Title hath been given to others, as well as the Bishop of Rome; and therefore, it could not argue any Authority peculiar to him. Also the same universalcare of the Church (the occasion of the Title) hath been acknowledged in others as well as in him; and indeed the power; which is the Root of that Care, as the occasion of that Title, is founded in all Bishops.  
Here are three things noted, which may be 
3 Notes.  distinctly considered.  
1. Power is given to all Bishops with an immediate respect to the good of the whole Church▪ So that if it were possible, that every particular Bishop could take care of the whole Church, they have Authority enough in their Function to do it; though it be impossible, and indeed inconsistent with peace and order, that all should undertake it: And therefore they have their bounds and limits set them; hence their particular Dioceses: therefore, as St. Cyprian, there is but one Bishopric in the whole World; a part of which is held by every Bishop.  
2. Thus we find in the primitive Church, that every Bishop had his particular Charge, yet they still regarded the common good; extending their care (the second thing observed) sometimes beyond their own division, by their council and direction; yea and exercised their functions sometimes in other places: Of which Dr. Stillingfleet 
Rat. ac. p. 424, 425.  gives many instancesin Polycarp. Ignatius, Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Faustus.  
Yea upon this very ground, Nazianzen saith 
Or. 18. p. 281.  of St. Cyprian, that he not only governed the Churches of Carthage, but all the Western parts, and even almost all the Eastern, Southern, and Northern too, as far as he went.  
Arsenius speaks more home to Athanasius; 
Atha. ap. ad Imp. Const p. 786, etc.  We embrace (saith he) Peace and Unity with the Catholic Church, over which, Thou, through the Grace of God, dost preside. Whence Gregory 
Or. 21. p. 392.  Naz. saith of Athanasius, that he made Laws for the whole Earth: And St. Basil writes to him, 
Ep. 52.  that he had care of all the Churches as of his own; and calls him the Head and Chief of all.  
And St. Chrisostom in the praise of Eustathius, 
Tom. 5. p. 631. Savil.  the Patriarch of Antioch, saith, that he was instructed by the divine Spirit; that he was not only to have care of that Church over which he was set, but of the whole Church throughout the world.  
Now what is this but to say in effect, these great men were universal Bishops; though indeed, they, none of them, had power of Jurisdiction over any Church but their own; as, notwithstanding the general care of the ancient good Bishops of Rome, had of the good of the whole, (and their Influence and Reverence in order thereunto) the Bishops of Rome had not.  
3. Upon the former ground and occasion, some Bishops in the most famous Churches, had the honour of the Title of Ecumenical or Universal Bishops.  
But here we must confess, the Bishops of Rome had the advantage, being the most famous of all; both by reason of their own primitive merit, and the glory of the Empire, especially the latter.  
The Roman Empire was itself accounted universal; and the greatness of the Empire advanced the Church to the same Title; and consequently the Bishops of that Church, above others.  
1. That the Roman Empire was so, appears 
R. ac. p. 425, 426.  by a multitude of Testimonies making orbis Romanus & orbis humanus, Synonimous; collected by Dr. Still. Hence Am. Marcellinus. calls 
L. 14. c. 16.  Rome, Caput Mundi, the head of the World: And the Roman Senate, Asylum Mundi totius: And it was usual then to call, whatever was o● of the Roman Empire, Barbaria; as the same Dr. 
Ibid.  proves at large: Therefore that Empire was called in Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Act. 11. 28.  
2. Some Bishops in the great Churches in the Roman Empire, were called Ecumenical, as that relates to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, viz. the Roman Empire. This appears because the very ground of the advancement of the Patriarch of Constantinople, was the greatness of the City; as appears in the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon about it; and the privileges of old Rome gave the measure of the privileges of new Rome.  
And in probability, the ground of that Patriarch's usurping the Title of Ecumenical Patriarch, was but to correspond with the greatness 
P. 426.  of his City; which was then the Seat of the Empire, as Dr. Still. very reasonably Conjectures.  
Moreover, all the three Patriarches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, had expressions given them tantamount to that Title: The government of the whole World, the care of all 
R. ac. p. 426.  the Churches, the government as it were of the whole body of the Church: as Dr. Stillingfleet particularly shows. But most clear and full to that purpose, 
Theod. Haer. fab. l. 4. c. 14. p. 245. To. 4. oper.  as he observes, is the Testimony of Theodoret concerning Nestorius, being made Patriarch of Constantinople: He was entrusted with the Government of the Catholic Church of the Orthodox at Constantinople; and thereby, of the whole World.  
Where shall we find so illustrious a Testimony for the Bishop of Rome? or if we could, we see it would prove nothing peculiar to him.  
Therefore, if the Council of Chalcedon did offer the Title of universal Patriarch; or if they did not, but as the truth rather is, some Papers received in that Council, did give him that Title, it signifieth nothing to prove the Pope's universal Authority.  
Therefore, Sim. Vigorius ingeniously confesseth, 
Comento. ad Res. Syn. Conc. Bas. p. 36.  that when the Western Fathers call the Roman Bishops, Bishops of the universal Church, they do it from the custom of their Churches; not that they look on them as universal Bishops of the whole Church; but in the same sense, that the Patriarches of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, are called so; or as they are universal over the Churches, under their own Patriarchate; or that in Ecumenical Councils, they preside over the whole Church: and after acknowledgeth, that the Title of universal or ecumenical Bishop, makes nothing for the Pope's Monarchy.  
It is too evident, that that humble Pope Gregory seems to glorify himself, while he so often mentions that offer of the Title of Universal; and his refusing of it, and inveighing against it; and that these were Engines used by him to deprive others of the same Title, if not to advance his own See to the power signified by it; though if he did indeed design any such thing, it is an argument that he was ashamed openly to claim or own it, while he rails against the Title, in the effects of it, which depended upon the power itself, as such an abominable thing.  
However, if the Council of Chalcedon did indeed offer, (or only record) that Title to Gregory, it is more than manifest, it could not possibly be intended to carry in it the Authority of the whole Church; or any more than that qualified sense of Vigorius before mentioned; because other Patriarches had the same Title; and we see no reason to believe, that that Council intended to subject themselves, and all Patriarches to the Authority of the Western Pope; contrary to their great design of advancing the See of Constantinople to equal privileges with that of Rome, as appears by their 16 Sess. Can. 28. and their Synodical Epistle to Pope Leo.  
Thus the bare Title is no Argument; and by what hath been said touching the grandeur of the Roman Empire, and the answerable greatness and renown of the Roman Church, frequent recourse had unto it from other Churches, for counsel and assistance; is of no more force to conclude her Supremacy, nor any matter of wonder at all.  
Experience teacheth us that it is and will be so in all cases: not only a renowned Lawyer, Physician, but Divine, shall have great resort, and almost universal addresses. An honest and prudent Countryman shall be upon all Commissions: the Church of Rome was then famous both for Learning, Wisdom, Truth, Piety, and I may add Tradition itself as well as greatness both, in the eye of the world and all other Churches; and her Zeal and care for general good, keeping peace and spreading the grace of the Gospel, was sometimes admirable. And now no wonder that Applications in difficult cases were frequently and generally made hither, which at first were received and answered with Love and Charity, though soon after, the Ambition of Popes knew how to advance, and hence to assume Authority.  
From this, we see, it was no great venture, 
Iren. l. 3. c. 3.  how ever A. C. Term it, for Archbishop Laud to grapple with the Authority of Irenaeus: who saith, to this Church, meaning Rome, propter potentiorem Principalitatem, for the more powerful Principality of it, 'tis necessary that every Church, that is the faithful, undique, should have recourse, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est●ea quae est ab Apostolis traditio.  
His Lordship seems to grant the whole: Rome being then the Imperial City; and so a Church of more powerful Authority than any other▪ yet not the Head of the Church Universal; this may suffice without the pleasant criticising about undique, with which, if you have a mind to be merry, you may entertain yourself in Dr. Still. p. 441. etc.  
But, indeed A. C. is guilty of many Mistakes in reasoning, as well as criticising: he takes it for granted, that this Principality is attributed by Irenaeus here to Rome, as the Church, not as the City. 2. That the necessity, arising hence, was concerning the Faith, and not secular Affairs; neither of which, is certain, or in likelihood true, vid. Dr. Still. p. 444.  
Besides, if both were granted, the necessity is not such as supposeth Duty or Authority in the faithful, or in Rome; but as the sense makes evident, a necessity of expedience, Rome being most likely to give satisfaction touching that Tradition about which that dispute was.  
Lastly, the Principality here implies not proper Authority, or Power to decide the Controversy; one kind of Authority it doth imply, but not such as A. C. enquired for: not the Authority of a Governor, but of a Conservator; of a Conservator of that Truth, that being made known by her, might reasonably end the quarrel; not of an absolute Governor, that might command the Faith, or the Agreement of the Dissenters. This is evident: 1. Because the Dispute was about a matter of Fact, whether there was any such Tradition or not, as the Valentinians pretended. 2. Because Irenaeus refers them to Rome under this reason, conservata est, the Apostolical Traditions are kept there; being brought by the faithful undique thither: and therefore, brought thither, because of the more Principality of the City, all persons resorted thither.  
Lastly, It is acknowledged that Pope Gregory Obj. 
Eph. 65. ind. 2.  doth say; that, if there be any fault in Bishops, it is subject to the Apostolical See; but when their fault doth not exact it, that then, upon the account of Humility, all were his Equals.  
Indeed, this smells of his ambition and design 
Sol.  before spoken of; but if there be any truth in it, it must agree with the Canon Saint Gregory himself records; and suppose the faulty Bishop hath no proper Primate or Patriarch to judge him: also, with the proceeding then before him; and suppose Complaint to the Emperor; and the Emperor's subjecting the Cause to the Apostolical See; as that 'Cause was by Saint Gregory's own Confession.  
However, what he seems here to assume to his own See, he blows away with the same breath; denying any ordinary Jurisdiction and Authority to be in that See, over all Bishops, while he supposes a fault necessary to their subjection; and that, while there is no fault, all are equal: which is not true, where, by a lawful standing ordinary Government there is an eternal necessity of Superiority and Inferiority.  
But of this, I had spoken before, had I thought (as I yet do not) that there is any weight or consequence in the words.  
Further Evidence, that the Ancient Popes themselves, though they might thirst after it; did not believe, that they were Universal Bishops and Monarches over the whole Church; and that they did not pretend to it in any such manner, as to make the World believe it; I say, further evidence of this, ariseth from their acknowledged subjection to the Civil Magistrate in Ecclesiastical Affairs.  
Pope Leo begged the Emperor Theodosius with tears; that he, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that he would Command (not permit) a Council to be held in Italy: that sure was not to signify his Authoritative desires.  
That Instance of Pope Agatho, in his Epistle to the Emperor, is as pertinent as the former; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. with praise we admire your 
Conc. Tom. 5. p. 60. E. F.  purpose well pleasing to God (not to the Pope) and for these Commands of yours we are rejoiced, and with groans, give thanks to God; and many such, Doctor Hammond saith, might be afforded.  
Pope Gregory received the power of hearing and determining Causes several times, as he himself confesseth, from the Emperor; as we shown before.  
Hence Pope Eleutherius, to King Lucius: you are the Vicar of Christ: the same in effect which is contained in the Laws of Edward the Confessor.  
And Pope Vrban the Second, entertained our Archbishop Anselm in the Council of Bar, with the Title of the Pope of another World, or (as some relate it) the Apostle of another World, and a Patriarch worthy to be reverenced. Malm. pro. ad lib. de gest. pont. Angl.  
Now, when the Bishops of Rome did acknowledge that the Civil Magistrate had power to command the assembling of general Councils, and to command Popes themselves to hear and determine Ecclesiastical Causes: when they acknowledged the King of England to be the Vicar of Christ; and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Pope of another World: we may, I think, safely conclude, that whatever they thought of the Primacy of dignity, they did not believe themselves; or, give occasion to others, to believe; that they had then, the Jurisdiction of England; much less of the whole World.  
Indeed, the Powers of Emperors over Popes, 
Vid. King James' defence, p. 50.  was exercised severely; and continued long in practice, an. 654. Constantius bound and banished Pope Martin. an. 963. Otho rejected Pope John 13. and made Leo 8. Pope. and John 14. Gregory 5. and Sylvester 2. were made Popes by the Otho's an. 1007. Hen. 2. deposed three Popes: this practice is confessed till Gregory 7. and before An. 679. Pope's submitted to Emperors by purchasing their Investitures of them; by submissive terms, and bowing the knee before them, Platin. Baron. Segeb.   

SECT. VIII.  
Nor the Words of the Imperial Law.  
IF the Ancient Councils, or practice, or Popes themselves, offered nothing to persuade our Ancestors to a belief of the Pope's Universal Power or Possession of England; Certainly, we may despair of finding any such thing in the Ancient Laws of the Church; which are justly presumed to contain the Sense and Rule of all: were all other Records of Antiquity silent, saith our late Primate, the Civil Law is proof enough: for, that's a Monument of the Primitive Church: and not only so; it being the Imperial, as well as Canon Law, it gives us the reason and Law both of the Church and the whole World.  
Now, what saith the Law? it first forbids the Title, and then the Practice.  
Primae sedis Apostolus, the Patriarch or Bishop 
Cor. Jur. Can. de pa. 1. dist. 99 c. 3. Can. 4.  of the first See, is not to be called Prince of the Priests, or Supreme Priest; nor, as the African Canon adds, aliquid hujusmodi, any other thing of that kind.  
The practice of any such Power was expressly forbidden; and not the proud Title only: the very Text of the Law saith, à Patriarcha non datur Appellatio: from a Patriarch there lies no Appeal, Cod. lib. 1. Tit. 4. l. 29. Auth. Collat. 9 Tit. 15. c. 22.  
And this we have found agreeable to the Melivetane Council, where Saint Augustine was 
Can. 23.  present, forbidding under pain of Excommunication, any Appeal to any Foreign Councils or Judicatures: and this is again Consonant to the fifth Canon of Nice; as that was to the thirty fourth Apostolic, where the Primate in every Nation is to be accounted their Head.  
Now what do our Adversaries say to this? Indeed, they seem to be put to it; and though their Wits are very pregnant to deliver many Answers, such as they be, in most Cases, they all seem to join in one poor slight Evasion here; namely, that the Laws concerning Appeals, did only concern inferior Clergymen: but Bishops were allowed to appeal to Rome; even by the African Canon, and acknowledged in that Councils Epistle to Pope Boniface.  
Three bold Say: first, that the Law concerned not the Appeals of Bishops. 2. The Council of Africa decreed Bishops Appeals to Rome. 3. And acknowledged it in their Letter to Pope Boniface: but are these things, as truly, as boldly said? for the first which is their Comment, whereby they would restrain the sense of the Laws, to the exclusion of the Bishops, we shall consider their ground for it; and then propose our reason, and the Law expressly against it, and then their Reasons will need little answer.  
They say, the Law reacheth not the difference Object. between Patriarches themselves.  
But if there should happen a difference betwixt 
Sol.  a Patriarch and the Pope, who shall decide that? both these inconveniences are plainly solved by referring all such extraordinary difficulties to a General Council.  
But why should the Law allow Foreign Appeals to Bishops and not to Priests? Are all Bishop's Patriarches? is not a Patriarch over his Bishops, as well as a Bishop over his Priests? may not the Gravamen of a Priest be given by his Bishop? or the difference among Priests, be as 
Caelestus necessity of Grace. Milev. Con.  considerable to the Church, sometimes as among Bishops? or hath not the universal Pastor if the Pope be so, pour over and care of Priests, as well as Bishops? or can the Summum imperium receive limits from Canon or Law? to say, that Priests are forbidden to appeal, but the Pope is not forbidden to receive their Appeals, is plainly to cripple the Law, and to make it yield to all the inconveniences of foreign appeals against its true end.  
But what if this very Canon, they pretend to allow Appeals from Bishops to Rome, do expressly forbid that very thing it is brought to allow? 
Can. 28.  and it doth so undeniably, as appears in the Authentic Collection of the African Canons, non provocent ad transmarina Judicia, sed ad primates suarum Provinciarum, aut ad universale Concilium, sicut de Episcopis saepe constitutum est. The same thing had often been determined in the case of Bishops.  
Perron, and others say, this clause was not Obj. in the ancient Milevetan Canons.  
Have they nothing else but this groundless 
Sol.  conceit to support their universal Pastorship against express Law, for four hundred years after Christ? Sure it behoved highly to produce a true Authentic Copy of those Canons, wherein that clause is omitted; which because they do not, we conclude they cannot.  
However it is manifest, that the same thing against appeals of Bishops to Rome, had been often determined, by far greater Testimony than the bare assertion of Perron and his Partners, viz. that general Council of Carthage, An. D. 419. about three years after that Milevetan; at the end of the first Session, they reviewed the Canons of the seventeen lesser Councils, which Justellus mentions; and wherein, no doubt, that point had been often determined; and out of them all composed that C●dex canonum Ecclesia Africanae, with that clause inserted, as appears both in the Greek and many ancient latin Copies; and was so received and pleaded by the Council of Rheims, as Hincumarmus proves as well as others.  
Gratius confesseth it; but adds this Antidote; Nisi forte Romanam Sedem appellaverit. i e. None shall appeal to Rome (the main design of the Council) except they do appeal to Rome; not expounding the Canon, but exposing himself and that excellent Council.  
But A. C. urgeth the Epistle of that Council to Obj. Boniface, as was before noted; and thence proves that the Council acknowledged, that Bishops had power in their own cause to appeal to Rome.  
'Tis true, they do say, that in a Letter written 
Sol.  a year before to Zosimus, they had granted liberty to Bishops to appeal to Rome. This is true, but scarce honest; the next words in the Letter spoil the Argument and the sport too: for they further say, that because the Pope contended that the appeals of Bishops were contained in the Nicene Canons, they were contented to yield that it should be so, till the true Canons were produced.  
Now what can the Reader desire, to put an eternal end to this Controversy, and consequently to the claim of the universal Pastor in this Age; but an account of the Judgement of this Council, when they had received the Copy of the Nicene Canons (on which the point depended) out of the East.  
This you have in that excellent Epistle of theirs to Pope Celastine, who succeeded Boniface, and the elaborate Dr. Stillingfleet, who searcheth 
R. ac. p. 410, 411.  all things to the bottom, hath transcribed it at large, as a worthy Monument of Antiquity; and of very great light in the present Controversy: To him I shall refer the Reader for the whole; and only note some few expressions to the purpose.  
We (say they) humbly beseech you to admit no more into your Communion those whom we have cast out: For your Reverence will easily perceive that this is forbid in the Council of Nice. For if this be taken care for, as to the inferior Clergy and Laity, how much more would it have it to be observed in Bishops. The Decrees of Nice have subjected both the inferior Clergy and Bishops to their Metropolitans, for they have most wisely and justly provided, that every business be determined in the place where it begun. Especially seeing that it is lawful to every one if he be offended, to appeal to the Council of the Province, or even to an universal Council. Or how can a Judgement made beyond the Sea be valid, to which the Persons of necessary Witnesses cannot be brought by reason, etc. For this sending of men to us from your Holiness, we do not find it commanded by any Synod of the Fathers. And as for that Council of Nice, we cannot find it in the truest Copies, sent by holy Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, and the venerable Atticus Bishop of Constantinople; which also we sent to your Predecessor Boniface. Take heed also of sending any of your Clerks for Executors, to those who desire it; lest we seem to bring the swelling pride of the World into the Church of Christ; and concerning our brother Faustinus (Apiarius being cast out) we are confident that our brotherly Love continuing, Africa shall no more be troubled with him.  
This is the sum of that famous Epistle, the Pope and the African Fathers referred the point in difference to the true Canons of the Nicene Council: The Canons determine against the Pope, and from the whole story 'tis inferred evidently.  
1. That Pope Boniface himself implieth, his Jurisdiction was limited by the general Council of Nice, and that all the Laity and Clergy too, except Bishops, that lived beyond the Seas, and consequently in England, were exempted from his Jurisdiction by that Council.  
2. Pope Boniface even then, when he made his claim and stood upon his terms with the African Fathers, pleads nothing for the appeals of transmarine Bishops to Rome, but the allowance of the Council of Nice, no tu es Petrus then heard of.  
3. Then it seems the practices of Popes themselves were to be ruled and judged by the ancient Canons and Laws of the Church.  
4. The African Fathers declared the Pope fallible and actually mistaken, both to his own power and sense of the Council: Proving substantially that neither Authority from Councils, nor any foundation in Justice, Equity or order of Government or public Conveniency, will allow or suffer such Appeals to Rome; and that the Pope had no authority to send Legates to hear causes in such cases.  
All these things lie so obviously in prejudice both of the Pope's Possession and Title, as universal Pastor at that time, both in his own & the Church's sense, that to apply them further would be to insult; which I shall forbear, seeing Baronius is so ingenious as to confess, there are some hard things in this Epistle: And Perron hath hereupon exposed his Wit with so much sweat and so little purpose, but his own Correction and Reproach, as Dr. Still. notes.  
Yet we may modestly conclude from this one plain instance; that the sense of the Nicene Council was defined by the African Council, to be against the Pope's Supremacy, and consequently they did not submit to it nor believe it; and a further consequence to our purpose is, that then the Catholic Church did not universally own it: i. e. the Pope's Supremacy than had not Possession of the faith of the whole Church: For as A. C. p. 191. maintains, the Africans, notwithstanding the contest in the sixth Council of Carthage, were always in true Communion with the Roman Church, even during the term of this pretended Separation: And Celestine himself saith, that St. Augustine one of those Fathers, lived and died in the Communion of the Roman Church.   

SECT. IX.  
The Conclusion touching Possession Anciently.  
WE hope it is now apparent enough, that the Pope's Supremacy had no possession in England from the beginning, or for the first six hundred years; either de facto or in fide. Our Ancestors yielded not to it; they unanimously resisted it, and they had no reason to believe it, either from the Councils or practice of the Church; or from the Edicts and Rules of the imperial Law, or the very say of the Popes themselves.  
Thus Sampson's Hair, the strength and Pomp of their best Plea, is cut off: The foundation of the Pope's Supremacy is subverted, and all other pleas broken with it.  
If according to the Apostles Canons, every Nation had its proper Head in the beginning, to be ackonwledged by them under God: And according to a general Council, all such Heads should hold as from the beginning; there can be no ground afterwards, for a lawful possession to the contrary.  
If tu es Petrus, & pasce Oves, have any force to maintain the Pope's Supremacy, why did not the ancient Fathers, the Authors of those Canons, see it? Why was not it shown by the Popes concerned, in bar against them when nothing else could be pleaded? When both Possession and Tradition were to be begun, and had not yet laid their Foundation? Yea when actual opposition in England was made against it: when general Councils abroad, laid restraints upon it; and the Eastern Church would not acknowledge it.  
Indeed both Antiquity, Universality, and Tradition itself, and all colour of Right for ever, fails with possession.  
For Possession of Supremacy, afterwards, cannot possibly have either a divine or just T●●; but must lay its Foundation, contrary to God's Institution and Ecclesiastical Canon. And the Possessor is a Thief and a Robber, our Adversaries being Judges. He invades others Provinces; and is bound to Restore: And long Possession, is but a protracted Rebellion against God and his Church.  
However it be with the secular Powers, Christ's Vicar, must certainly derive from him; must hold the power he gave; must come in it at his door. And S. W. himself, P. 50 against Dr. Hammond, fiercely affirmeth, That Possession in this kind aught to begin ne● Christ's Time; and he that hath begun it later, unless he can Evidence that he was driven out from an Ancient Possession, is not to be styled a Possessor but an Usurper, an Intruder, an Invader, Disobedient, Rebellious, and Schismatical. Good Night, S. W.  
Quod ab initio fuit invalidum, tractu temporis non Convalescit, is a Rule in the Civil Law.  
Yea, whatever Possession the Pope got afterwards, was not only an illegal Usurpation, but a manifest Violation of the Canon of Ephesus; and thereby Condemned as Schismatical.    

CHAP. VII.  
The Pope had not full Possession here, before Hen. 8. 1. Not in Augustine's Time. II. Nor After.  
'TIs boldly pleaded; that the Pope had Possession of the Supremacy in England for nine hundred years together, from Augustine till Hen. 8. 〈◊〉 no King on Earth hath so long, and so clear prescription for his Crown.  
To which we answer: 1. That he had not such Possession. 2. If he had, 'tis no Argument of a just Title.  

SECT. I.  
Not in Austin's Time. State of Supremacy questioned.  
WE shall consider the Pope's Supremacy here, as it stood in and near St. Augustine's time, and in the Ages after him to Hen. 8.  
1. We have not found hitherto, that in or about the time of Augustine, Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope had any such power in England as is pretended.  
Indeed, he came from Rome; but he brought no Mandate with him; and when he was come, he did nothing without the King's licence: at his arrival, he petitions 〈◊〉 King; the King commands him to stay in the Isle Thanet, till his further pleasure was known: he obeyed; afterward, the King gave him licence to preach to 
Bed. l. 1. c. 25.  his Subjects; and, when he was himself converted, majorem praedicandi licentiam, he enlarged his licence so to do.  
'Tis true, Saint Gregory presumed largely, to subject all the Priests of Britain under Augustine; and to give him power to erect two Archbishoprics, and twelve Bishoprics under each of them; but 'tis one thing to claim, another thing to possess: for Ethelbert was then the only Christian King, who had not the twentieth part of Britain; and it appears, that after both Saint Gregory and Austin were dead, there were but one Arch▪ bishop, and two Bishops, throughout the British Islands, of the Roman Communion.  
Indeed, the British and Scotch Bishops were 
Bed. l. 2. c. 2 etc. 4.  many, but they renounced all Communion with Rome, as appeared before.  
We thankfully acknowledge the Pope's sending over Preachers; his commending, sometimes Arch-Bishops when desired, to us; his directions to fill up vacant Sees: all which, and such like, were Acts of Charity, becoming so eminent a Prelate in the Catholic Church: but sure these were not Marks of Supremacy.  
'Tis possible, Saint Milet, as is urged, might bring the Decrees of the Roman Synod hither to be observed; and that they were worthy of our acceptance, and were accepted accordingly; but 'tis certain, and will afterwards appear to be so, that such Decrees were never of force here, further that they were allowed by the King and Kingdom.  
'Tis not denied, but that sometimes we admitted the Pope's Legates, and Bulls too; yet the Legantine Courts were not Anciently heard of; neither were the Legates themselves, or those Bulls, of any Authority without the King's Consent.  
Some would argue from the great and flattering Titles that were anciently given to the Pope; but sure such Titles can never signify Possession or Power, which at the same time, and perhaps by the very same Persons that gave the Titles, was really and indeed denied him.  
But the great Service the Bishop of Calcedo● hath done his Cause by these little Instances before mentioned, will best appear, by a true state 
Vid. Bramh. p. 189. etc.  of the question touching the Supremacy betwixt the Pope and the King of England; in which, such things are not all concerned.  
The plain question is, who was then the Political Head of the Church of England? the King or the Pope? or more immediately, whether the Pope then had possession of the Supremacy here in such things, as was denied him by Hen. 8. at the beginning of our Reformation? and the Pope still challengeth? and they are such as these.  
1. A Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Causes.  
2. A Dispensative Power, above and against the Laws of the Church.  
3. A liberty to send Legates, and to hold Legantine Courts in England, without Licence.  
4. The Right of receiving the last Appeals of the King's Subjects.  
5. The Patronage of the English Church, and Investitures of Bishops; with power to impose Oaths upon them, contrary to their Oath of Allegiance.  
6. The First Fruits and Tenths of Ecclesiastical Live; and a power to impose upon them what Pensions, or other Burdens, he pleaseth.  
7. The Goods of Clergymen, dying Intestate.  
These are the Flowers of that Supremacy which the Pope claimeth in England, and our Kings, and Laws, and Customs deny him; as will appear afterwards in due place: for this place, 'tis enough to observe, that we find no footsteps of such possession of the Pope's Power in England, in or about Augustine's time.  
As for that one instance of Saint Wilfred's Appeals, it hath appeared before; that it being rejected by two Kings successively, by the other Archbishop, and by the whole Body of the English Clergy, sure, 'tis no full instance of the Pope's Possession of the Supremacy here at that time; and needs no further answer.   

SECT. II.  
No clear or full possession in the Ages after Austin, till Hen. 8. Eight Distinctions; the Question stated.  
IT may be thought that though the things mentioned were not in the Pope's possession so early; yet, for many Ages together they were found in his Possession, and so continued, without interruption, till Hen. 8. ejected the Pope, and possessed himself and his Successors, of them.  
Whether it were so or not, we are now to examine; and lest we should be deceived with Colours and generalities, we must distinguish carefully.  
1. Betwixt a Primacy of Order and Dignity and Unity; and Supremacy of Power, the only thing disputed.  
2. Betwixt a Judgement of direction resulting from the said Primacy; and a Judgement of Jurisdiction depending upon Supremacy.  
3. Betwixt things claimed; and things granted and possessed.  
4. Betwixt things possessed continually; or for some time only.  
5. Betwixt Possession partial, and of some lesser Branches; and plenary or of the main body of Jurisdiction.  
6. Betwixt things permitted of courtesy; and things granted out of duty.  
7. Betwixt encroachment through craft, or power or interest, or the temporary Ossitancy of the People; and Power, grounded in the Laws, enjoyed with the consent of the States of the Kingdom in times of peace.  
8. Lastly, betwixt quiet possession; and interrupted.  
These Distinctions, may receive a flout from some capricious Adversary; but, I find, there is need of them all, if we deal with a subtle one.  
For the Question is not, touching Primacy in the Bishop of Rome; or an acknowledged Judgement of direction flowing from it; or a claim of Jurisdiction, which is no Possession; or a partial possession of power in some lesser things; or a larger power in greater matters, yielded out of courtesy, ossitancy, or fear, or surprise; and held only for a time, while things were unsettled; or by power, craft or interest; but soon after disclaimed, and frequently interrupted: for, this is not such a Possession as our Adversaries plead for; or, indeed, will stand them in stead.  
But the Question in short, is this; whether the Pope had a quiet and uninterrupted possession of the Supreme Power over the Church of England in those great Branches of Supremacy denied him by Henry the Eighth, for nine hundred years together, or for many Ages together before that time?  
This, strictly, must be the Question: for the Complaint is; that Hen. 8. disposessed the Pope of the Supremacy which he had enjoyed for so many Ages; and made himself Head of the Church of England: therefore, those very things which that King then denied to the Pope, or took from him, must be those Flowers of the Supremacy, which the Papists pretend, the Pope had possession of, for so many Ages together before his time.  
Two things, therefore, and those only, are needful to be sought here: what those Branches of Power are, which Henry the Eighth denied to the Pope, and resumed to himself and his Successors? and whether the Pope and quietly, and without plain interruption, possessed the same for so many Ages before his time? and in order thereunto, when and how he got it?    

CHAP. VIII.  
What the Supremacy was, which Henry the Eighth took from the Pope: the Particulars of it, with Notes.  
'TIs true, Henry the Eighth resumed the Title of the only Supreme Head in Earth, of the Church of England; and denied this Title to the Pope: but 'tis plain, the Controversy was not so much about the Title as the Power; the Honours, Dignities, Jurisdictions, Authorities, Profits, etc. belonging or appertaining to the said Dignity of Supreme Head of the Church of England: as is evident by the Statute, Hen. 8. 26. c. 1.  
The Particulars of that Power were such as these.  
1. Henry the Eighth prohibited all Appeals to the Pope, An. 24. c. 12. and Legates from Rome.  
2. He also forbade all payments of money, upon any pretence, to the Pope, An. 25. c. 12.  
3. He denied the Pope the Nomination and Consecration of Arch-Bishops and Bishops, and Presentations, An. 25. 20.  
4. He prohibited all Suits for Bulls etc. to be made to the Pope, or the See of Rome, 25. c. 21.  
5. He prohibited any Canons to be executed here, without the King's Licence, An. 25. 19  
I have perused the Statutes of King Henry the Eighth; and I cannot find any thing which he took away from the Pope, but it is reducible to these five Heads: touching which, by the way, we note.  
1. The Controversy was not about a Primacy of Order, or the beginning of Unity; but a Supremacy of Power.  
2. All these things were then denied him, not by the King alone; but by all the States of the Kingdom, in many Statutes.  
3. The denial of all these Branches of Supremacy to the Pope, were grounded upon the Ancient Laws and Customs of the Realm, as is usually noted in the Preamble of the said Statutes: and if, that one thing shall be made to appear; we must conclude, that the Pope might be guilty of an Usurpation, but could never have a Legal Possession of that Supremacy, that is in the question.  
4. Note, that the States of the Kingdom in the Reign of Queen Mary, (when by means of Cardinal Pool, they recognized the Pope's Supremacy) 
An. 1. 11. Mar. c. 8.  it was with this careful and express Limitation; that nothing therein should be understood to diminish any the Liberties of the Imperial Crown of this Realm; which did belong unto it in the Twentieth year of Hen. 8.— without diminution or enlargement of the Pope's Supremacy in England as it was in the Twentieth year of Hen. 8. So that Queen Mary, and her Parliament, added nothing to the Pope, but only restored what he had before; and when and how that was obtained, is next to be examined.   

CHAP. IX.  
Whether the Pope's Supremacy here, was in quiet Possession till Henry the Eighth?  
WE have found, what Branches of the Pope's Power, were cut off by Hen. 8.  
The Question is, whether the Pope had Possession of them, without interruption, before that time? and, that we may proceed dictinctly, and clearly; we shall consider each of the former Branches by themselves: and first we begin with the Pope's Power of receiving Appeals from hence; which carries a very considerable part of his pretended Jurisdiction.  

SECT. I.  
Of Appeals to Rome. Three Notions of Appeal. Appeals to Rome Locally, or by Legates. Wilfrid. Anselm.  
Appeals to Rome, we have found among these things which were prohibited by Henry the Eighth: Therefore no doubt the Pope claimed, and in some sort possessed the power of receiving such Appeals before. But what kind of Possession, how free, and how long, is worthy to be enquired.  
Appeal, is a word taken several ways: Sometimes it is only to accuse; so we find it in the 
3 Senses of Appeal.  Statutes of the 11 and 21 Rich. 2. Sometimes to refer ourselves for judgement, to some worthy person; so Francfort, etc. appealed to John Calvin. 3. But now it is chief used for a removing a cause from an inferior to a Superior Court, that hath power of disannulling what the other did.  
In this last sense, Historians tell us, that Appeals to Rome were not in use with us, till about five hundred years agone, or a little more, viz. the year 1140.  
These Appeals to Rome were received and judged either in the Pope's Court at Rome; or by his Legates in England. A word or two of each.  
For Appeals to the Pope at Rome, the two famous instances of Wilfred and Anselm, take up much 
●. Locally.  of our History.  
But they both seem, at least at first, to have 
Wilfred.  appealed to the Pope, under the second notion 
Anselm.  of appeal: Not to him as a proper or legal Judge; but as a great and venerable Prelate.  
But not to stick there; 'tis well known what effect they obtained: As for Wilfred, his account was of elder date; and hath appeared before, to the great prejudice of the Pope's Possession in England at that time.  
But Anselm is the great monument of Papal Obedience; 
Anselm.  and, as a learned man observes, the first promoter of Papal Authority in England. He began his Enterprise with a pretence, that he ought not to be barred of visiting the Vicar of St. Peter, causâ Regiminis Ecclesiae; but he was not suffered to do that: So far was the Pope then, from having the power of receiving appeals, that he might not receive the visit of a person of Anselm's quality, without the King's leave.  
First, he was told by the Bishops, as well as Lay-Lords, that it was a thing unheard of, and altogether against the use of the Realm, for any of the great men, especially himself to presume any such thing, without the King's Licence.  
Notwithstanding, he would, and did go; but what followed? His Bishopric was seized into the King's hand: And the Pope durst not, or thought not good, to give him either Consilium or Auxilium, as Sir Rog. Twisd. p. 11. & 12. makes appear out Eadmer, p. 20, 26, 38, 39, 53.  
In the dispute, the King told Anselm, the Pope had not to do with his Rights; and wrote that free Letter, we find in Jorvalensis Col. 999, 30. and upon the ambiguous answer of the Pope, the King sent another letter by Anselm himself to Rome, who spoke plainly, his Master, nec amissione 
Eadem. 73. 13.  Regni, etc. for the loss of his Kingdom, he would not lose the investiture of his Churches.  
But Anselm, as Archbishop, took the Oath, Obj. that was appointed by the Pope to be taken at the receiving of the Pall, which allowed his Power to receive Appeals.  
'Tis true; but Pope Paschalis himself, who Ans devised that Oath, acknowledgeth, that it was as Anselm signified to him, not admitted; but wondered at; and looked on as a strange innovation both by the King and the great men of the Kingdom. 
Baron. an. 1102. nu. 8.  The King pleaded the Fundamental Laws and customs of the Land against it; it is a custom of my Kingdom instituted by my Father, that no Pope may be appealed unto, without the King's licence. He that takes away the customs of the Kingdom, doth violate the Power and Crown of the King. And 'tis well noted by Archbishop Bramhall, 
Malms. l. 1. digest. Pont. Ang.  that the Laws established by his Father, viz. William the Conqueror, were no other than the Laws of Edward the Confessor; that is to say, the old Saxon Laws, who had before yielded to the 
●● Hen. 2.  request of his Barons (as Hoveden notes) to confirm those Laws.  
But, though Anselm had obliged himself by the said Oath to the Pope, yet the rest of the Bishops refused the Yoke; and thereupon, Malms●, tells us, in his etc. that, in the execution of these 
Malm. ibid.  things, all the Bishops of England did deny their Suffrage to their Primate.  
Consequently, the Unanimity of the whole Realm, appeared in the same Point, in the Reign of this King's Grandchild, in the Statute of Clarendon; confirming the former British, 
Math. Par. 1164. Hoved. in Hen. 2.  English custom, not only by their consents, but their Oaths: wherein generally every man is interdicted to appeal to Rome.  
This Statute of Clarendon was made, when Popery seemed to be at the height in England: It was made to confirm the Customs and Liberties of Henry the Seconds Predecessors; that is to say, as the words of the Statute are, his Grandfather Henry the first, Son of the Conqveror, and other Kings. Now the Customs of England are our common Laws, and the customs of his Predecessors were the Saxon, Danish, and Norman Laws; 
P. 73.  and therefore aught to be observed of all, as my Lord Bramhall reasons.  
What these customs were, I may show more largely hereafter; at present this one is pertinent. All appeals in England must proceed regularly, from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, from the Bishop to the Arch▪ Bishop; and if the Archbishop fail to do his duty, the last must be to the King, to give order for redress, that is, by fit delegates.  
In Ed. the Thirds time, we have a plain Law to 
27 Ed. 3. c. 1.  the same purpose in these words; Whosoever should draw any of the King's Subjects out of the Realm in plea about any caufe, whereof the Cognizance belongeth to the King's Court, or should sue in any foreign Court to defeat any Judgement given in the King's Court, (viz. by appealing to Rome) they should incur the same penalties; and upon the same ground, the body of the Kingdom would not suffer Edward the First, to to be cited before the Pope.  
'Tis confessed, that in the Laws of Hen. 1. 'tis granted, that in case a Bishop erring in Faith; and Obj. on Admonition, appearing incorrigible, ad summos Pontifices (the Arch-Bishops) vel sedem Apostolicam, accusetur: which passage, as Sir Ro▪ Twisden guesses, was inserted afterwards; or the grant gotten by the importunity of the then Pope.  
But the same learned Man's Note upon it, is, Ans. 
P. 32.  that, this is the only Cause wherein I find any English Law approve a foreign Judicature.  
'Tis plain, Anselm's Appeal (now on foot) was disapproved by the whole Kingdom: 'tis evident, that this Clause was directly repugnant to the Liberties and Customs of the Realm; upon which Anselm's Appeal was so ill resented.  
'Tis manifest in those days, and after, appeals to Rome were not common: yea this very Pope Paschalis complains to this King, Vos oppressis Apostolicae sedis appellationem substrahitis, 
Eadm. p. 113 3.  which was an. 1115. and that they were held, a cruel intrusion on the Church's Liberty; so as at the Assize at Clarendon, 1164. this Law, if it were so, was annulled and declared to be contrary to the liberties and customs of the Realm; the eighth Chapter whereof, is wholly spent in showing the Right of the Kingdom in this point, quod non appellaretur, for any Cause, ad sedem Apostolicam, without leave had first, from the King and his Officials, as Joh. Sarisb. interprets, Ep. 159. p. 254.  
Indeed, the King did personally yield afterwards, an. 1172. not to hinder such appeals in Obj. Ecclesiastical Causes.  
But the whole Kingdom four years after, would Ans. not quit their interest; but did again renew the assize of Clarendon, 1176. using this close expression. Justitiae faciant quaerere per consuetudinem 
Hoved. f. 314. b. 3.  terrae illos qui a regno recesserunt, & nisi redire voluerint, & stare in curia domini Regis, ● legentur, etc. as Gervase also notes. au. 1176. Col. 1433. 19  
Accordingly, was the practice, during K. Rich. the seconds time: Geffrey Archbishop of York, was complained of; that he did not only refuse Appeals to Rome, but imprisoned those that made them: and though upon that complaint, a time was assigned to make his defence to the Pope, yet he refused to go; because of the King's Prohibition and the indisposition of the Air.  
After this, upon a difference with the King, the Archbishop went to Rome; and made his peace with the Pope, and returns; but the King offended with it, committed the care even of the spirituals of his Archbishopric to others, till he had reconciled himself to the Crown, which was ne'er two years after, about 1198.  
After this, again, he received complaint from Innocentius III. non excusare te potes, etc. Thou canst not excuse thyself as thou oughtest, that 
Hou. an. 1201.  thou art ignorant of the privilege of Appeals to us; seeing thou thyself has sometimes done the same.  
And near about the same time (as Twisden observes) Robert Abbot of Thorney, deposed by Hubert Archbishop, was kept in Prison a year and an half, without any regard had to his appeal 
Hou. f. 430. b. 37.  made to the Pope.  
Indeed, that Pope Innocent the Third and his Obj. Clergy, great instruments in obtaining Magna Charta from that Prince, had got that clause inserted, liceat unicuique, it is lawful for any one to go out of our Kingdom, and to return, nisi in tempore Guerrae, per aliquod breve tempus. After which, saith Twisden, it is scarce imaginable how every petty cause was by appeals removed to Rome; which did not only cause Jealousy at Rome, that the grievance would not long be born; and put the Pope, in prudence to study and effect a mitigation, by some favourable privileges, granted to the Archbishopric: but it did also awaken the King and Kingdom, to stand upon, and recover their ancient liberty in that point.  
Hereupon, the Body of the Kingdom, in their 
Matth. Par. p. 668. 3.  querelous Letter to Innocent the fourth, 1245. or rather to the Council at Lions, claim, that no Legate ought to come here, but on the King's desire, & ne quis extra Regnum trahatur in Causam: which Math. Par. left out; but is found in Mr. Roper's M. S. and Mr. Dugdale's; as Sir Roger Twisden observes; agreeable to one of the Gravamina Angliae, sent to the same Pope 1246. viz. quod Anglici extra Regnum in Causis, Apostolica Authoritate trahuntur.  
Therefore, it is most remarkable, that at the revising of Magna Charta by Edw. 1. the former clause, liceat unicuique etc. was left out. Since which time, none of the Clergy might 
Reg. 193. Coke Inst. 3. p. 179. 12 R. 2. c. 15.  go beyond Seas, but with the King's leave; as the Writs in the Register, and the Acts of Parliament assure us; and which is more, if any were in the Court of Rome, the King called them home.  
The Rich Cardinal, and Bishop of Winchester, knew the Law in this case; and that no man was so great, but he might need pardon for the offence: and therefore, about 1429. caused a Petition to be exhibited in Parliament, that neither himself, nor any other, should be troubled by the King etc. for cause of any provision or offence done by the said Cardinal against 
Rot. Parl. 10 Hen. 6. n. 16.  any Statute of Provisions etc. this was in the Eighth of Henry the Sixth, and we have a plain Statute making such Appeals a praemunire in Edward 
9 Ed. 4. 3.  the Fourth. Sir Roger Twisden observes, the truth of this barring Appeals, is so constantly 
P. 37.  averred, by all the Ancient Monuments of this Nation, as Philip Scot, not finding how to deny it, falls upon another way; that, if the Right of Appeals were abrogated, it concludes not the See of Rome had no Jurisdiction over this Church: the Concession gives countenance to our present enquiry; the consequence shall be considered in its proper place.  
What can be further said, in pretence of a quiet possession of Appeals, for nine hundred years together? since it hath been found to be interrupted all along, till within one hundred years before Hen. 8.  
Especially seeing my Lord Bramhall hath made it evident by clear Instances, that it is the unanimous Judgement of all Christendom, that, not the Pope, but their own Sovereigns in their Councils, are the last Judges of their National Liberties, vid Bramh. p. 106. to 118.   

SECT. II.  
Of the Pope's Possession here by his Legates; Occasion of them; Entertainment of them.  
IT is acknowledged by some, that citing Englishmen to appear at Rome, was very inconvenient; therefore the Pope had his Legates here, to execute his Power without that inconvenience to us.  
How the Pope had possession of this Legantine Power, is now to be enquired.  
The Correspondence betwixt us and Rome, at first, gave rise to this Power; the Messengers from Rome, were sometimes called Legati; though at other times Nuncii.  
After the Erection of Canterbury into an Archbishopric: the Archbishop, was held, quasi Alterius Orbis Papa, as, urban. 2. styled him: he exercising Vices Apostolicas in Anglia; 
Malms. f. 127. 15.  that is, used the same Power, within this Island, the Pope did in other Parts.  
Consequently, if any question did arise, the determination was in Council; as the deposing 
Wigorn. An. 1070.  Stygand, and the settling the precedency betwixt Canterbury and York. The Instructions mentioned of Henry the First, say, the Right of the Realm is, that none should be drawn out of it, Authoritate Apostolicâ, and do assure us, that our Ancient Applications to the Pope were Acts of Brotherly Confidence in the Wisdom, Piety and Kindness of that Church; that it was able and willing to advise and assist us in any difficulty; and not of obedience, or acknowledgement of Jurisdiction; as appear, by that Letter of Kenulphus etc. to Pope Leo the Third, An. ●797. 
Malms. de Reg. l. 1. f. 16.  quibus Sapientiae Clavis, the Key of Wisdom, not Authority, was acknowledged therein.  
Much less can we imagine, that the Pope's Messengers, brought hither any other Power, than that of Direction and Counsel at first, either to the King or Archbishop; the Archbishop was, nullius unquam Legati ditioni addictus: Therefore, none were suffered to wear a Mitre, within his Province; or had the Crecier carried; nor laid any Excommunication, upon this ground; in Diaecesi Archiepiscopi Apostolicam non tenere Sententiam, Gervas'. Col. 1663. 55. & An. 1187. Col. 1531. 38. The Church of Cant. being then esteemed, omnium nostrum Mater Communis sub sponsi Jesu Christi dispositione, ibid.  
True, the Pope did praecipere; but, that did not argue the acknowledgement of his Power; so John Calvin commanded Knox: the question 
Knox Hist. Scot 93.  is, how he was obeyed? 'tis certain, his Precepts, if disliked, were questioned, Eadm. p. 92. 40. opposed Gervas'. Col. 1315. 66. and those he sent not permitted, to meddle with those things they came about, ibid. Col. 1558. 54.  
But Historians observe, that we might be 
Occasion of Legates.  wrought to better temper, some Persons were admitted into the Kingdom, that might by degrees, raise the Papacy to its designed height: these were called Legates; but we find not any Courts kept by them, or any Power exercised with effect, beyond what the King and Kingdom pleased, which indeed was very little.  
The Pope's Legate was at the Council touching the precedence of the Arch-Bishops; but he subscribed the sixteenth, after all the English Bishops, and not like the Pope's Person, or Proctor; as Sir Roger Twisden proves, p. 20.  
The first Council, wherein the Pope's Legate preceded Arch-Bishops, was that of Vienna, a little more than three hundred years agone, viz. 1311. as the same Author observes; wherein he looked like the Legate of his Holiness indeed.  
But let us examine what entertainment the Power of a Legate found here: the Archbishop 
Math. Par. p. 440. 17. An. 1237.  was jealous that a Legate residing here, would prove in suae dignitatis praejudicium: and the King himself, was not without suspicions; and therefore, would suffer none, so much as to be taken for Pope, but whom he approved; nor any to receive so much as a Letter from Rome, without acquainting him with it; and held it an undoubted Right of the Crown, that, ut neminem 
Eadm. p. 125. 53. p. 6. 25. p. 113. 1.  etc. none should be admitted to do the office of a Legate here, if he himself did not desire it.  
Things standing thus in 1100. the Archbishop of Vienna, coming over, reported himself that he had the Legantine Power of all Britain committed not him; but, finding no encouragement 
Eadm. p. 58. 41.  to use his Commission, departed, (à nemine etc.) by none received as Legate, nor doing any part of that office.  
Fourteen years after, Paschalis the Second, by Letters, expostulates, with the King about 
Eadm. p. 113. p. 116.  several things; in particular, his non-admitting either Messenger or Letter▪ without his leave.  
A year after, addressed Anselm, Nephew to the late Archbishop; showing his Commission Vices gerere Apostolicas in Angliâ: this made known; the Clergy and Nobility, in Council at London, sent the Archbishop to the King in Normandy, to make known unto him, the Ancient Custom of 
Eadm. p. 118. 120.  the Realm; and, by his advice to Rome, ut haec nova annihilaret.  
After this, An. 1119. the King sent his Bishops to a Council held by Calixtus the Eleventh, at Rheims, with Instructions, among other things, that they should humbly hear the Pope's Precepts, but bring no superfluas adinventiones into his Kingdom.  
In November following, the Pope and King had a meeting at guysor's in Normandy; where Calixtus confirmed unto him his Father's Usages; in special, that of sending no Legate hither, but on the King's desire: and when the same Pope, not full two years after his Grant to the contrary, addressed another Legate to these parts; 
Eadm. p. 137, 46. p. 138. 21.  the King's wisdom so ordered it, that (qui Legati etc.) he which came to do the office of a Legate in all Britain, was sent as he came, without doing any part of that Office.  
But it is said that Calixtus confirmed unto the Obj. King, his Father's usages: Therefore, it was in the Pope's power originally and by delegation, and not in the King. Accordingly in our best Authors, and in particular, Eadmer, we find these words; Collata, Concessa, Impetrata, Permissa; as is urged in answer to my Lord Cook.  
These words indeed intimate the Pope's kindness Ans. and peaceable disposition at present, viz. that he will not disturb, but allow our enjoyment of our ancient privileges: Concessa, fungi permissa; the same Eadm. calls Antiqua Angliae consuetudo, libertas Regni p. 118. 33, 40.  
2. The words do seem also to intimate, the Pope's claim at that time; but the true question is, about his Possession; which in placing Legates there, was ever denied him not as a thing granted formerly by the Pope, but as one of the dignitates, usus, & consuetudines, as Hen. 1. claimed and defended.  
3. Lastly, they rather intimated the Pope's want of power, than proved his Authority here: and what our Princes did in their own right, he would continue to them as a Privilege: for no other reason but because he could not take it from them; or durst not deny it to them; so he dealt with Edw. the Confessor. Vobis Regibus Angliae committimus advocationem ejusdem loci; but long before that, our Kings looked upon it as their Office, regere populum Domini & Ecclesiam 
Baron. an. 1059. n. 23.  ejus; which the Pope knew well enough▪ Therefore, a Legate landing in England in Ed. 4. time, was obliged to take Oath, that he would attempt nothing to the derogation of the Rights of the King or Crown.  
In Hen. 4's Nonage, his Uncle was sent Legate 
Edw. 4. 16.  by Martin. 5. Rich. Cawdry the King's Attorney, made protestation; that None was to come as Legate from the Pope, or enter the Kingdom without the King's appointment: a Right enjoyed from all memory.  
In the Reign of Hen. 5. the design of sending a Legate from Rome, though it were the Kings own Brother, was opposed; the enterprise took no effect during that King's Reign: Vit. Arch. chic. p. 78, 80. And in the eleventh of the same King, the Judges unanimously pronounce, that the Statutes mentioned were only declaratory of the common custom of England. fol. 69, 76.  
It was in the Year 1242. when the whole 
Matth. par. 1245, 1246.  State of England complained of the Pope's infamous Messenger, (non obstante) by which Oaths, Customs etc. were not only weakened but made void: And unless the grievances were removed, Opportebit nos ponere Murum pro domo Domini, & libertate Regni.  
Yea long after this, in the year 1343. Edw. 3. made his Addresses likewise to Rome, which the Pope branded with the Title of Rebellion: But to requite him, that wise and stout Prince, made the Statutes of Provisoes and Praemunire, directly opposed to the Encroachments and Usurpations 
Walsing. p. 161.  of the Court of Rome; whereby he so abated their power in England for sundry Ages following, that a Dean and Chapter was able to deal 
Bramhall p. 99  with the Pope in England, and to foil him too. an. 1420.  
The Sum is, during the Reigns of all the British and Saxon Kings, until the Norman Conquest, Legations from Rome were seldom, and but Messengers: A Legantine or Nuncio's Court we find not. Gregory, Bishop of Ostium, the Popes 
Spel. conc. an. 784.  own Legate, did confess, that he was the first Roman Priest that was sent into those parts of Britain, from the time of St. Austin.  
When these Legates multiplied, and usurped Authority over us, the Kingdom would not bear it; as appears by the Statute of Clarendon, confirming the ancient British English Custom, with the consent and Oaths of all the Prelates and Peers of the Realm: and upon this custom was the Law grounded, Si quis inventus, etc. If any one be found bringing in the Pope's Letter or Mandate, let him be apprehended, let justice pass upon him without delay, as a Traitor to the King and Kingdom. Math. Par. an. 1164. Hoved. in Hen. 2.  
And all along afterwards we have found, that still as occasion required, the same custom was maintained and vindicated both by the Church and State of the Realm till within an hundred years before Hen. 8.  
So that the rejection of the Pope's Legate is founded in the ancient Right, the common and Statute Laws of the Realm; and the Legantine power is a plain Usurpation contrary thereunto; and was ever looked upon as such, it never having any real possession among us by Law, or quiet possession in Fact, for any considerable time together; but was still interrupted by the whole Kingdom, by new declaratory Laws against it.  
Thus, we have seen how the Pope's Possession of the formal branch of Jurisdiction, by Appeals and Legates, stood here, from St. Austin to Hen. 8. and that it was quiet and uninterrupted for nine hundred together, passeth away as a Vapour. The Contrary being evident by as Authentic Testimonies as can be desired: and now what can he imagined to enervate them?  
If it be urged that it was once in the body of Obj. our Laws, viz. In Magna Charta; liceat unicuique de caetero exire de Regno nostro, & redire salvo & securè per terram & per aquam, salva fide nostra, nisi in tempore Guerrae per aliquod breve Tempus; 'tis confessed.  
But here is no expression, that plainly and in Ans. terms, gives licence of Appeals to Rome: 'Tis indeed said, that it is lawful for any to go out of the Kingdom and to return safe: But mark the Conditions following, Nisi in etc. 'Tis likely, these words were inserted in favour of Appeals, but it may be the Authors were timorous to word it in a more plain contradiction to our ancient Liberties.  
2. The very form of words as they are, would seem to intimate that the Custom of England was otherwise.  
3. Lastly, If it be considered, how soon after, and with what unanimity and courage our ancient Liberty to the contrary, was redeemed and vindicated; and that clause left out of Magna Charta ever since, though revised and confirmed by so many Kings and Parliaments successively, it is only an argument of a sudden and violent torrent of Papal Power in King John's time, etc. not of any grounded or well settled Authority in the English Laws, as our English Liberties have. I Conclude, with those weighty words of the Statute of Ed. 3. an. 27. c. 1. Having regard to the said Statute made in the time of his said Grandfathers, which Statute holdeth always in force, which was never annulled or defeated in any point: And for as much as he is bound by his Oath to do the same, to be kept as the Law of the Realm, though, that by sufferance and negligence it hath been since attempted to the contrary. Vid. Preamble of the Statute.  
Whereupon, it is well observed, that Queen 
Acts & Mon.  Mary herself denied Cardinal Pelow to appear as the Pope's Legate in England, in her time: And caused all the Seaports to be stopped, and all Letters, Briefs, and Bulls to be intercepted and brought to her.    

CHAP. X.  
The Pope's Legislative Power in England before Hen. 8. No Canons of the Pope oblige us without our Consent; our Kings, Saxons, Danes, Normans, made Laws Ecclesiastical.  
WE have found possession of the Executive Power otherwise than was pretended; we now come to consider how it stood with the Legislative: the Pope, indeed claimed a Power of making and imposing Canons upon this Church: but Henry the Eighth denied him any such Power; and prohibited any Canons whatsoever to be executed here, without the King's Licence, An. 25. 19  
The question now is, whether the Pope enjoyed that Power of making and imposing Canons effectually and quietly here, from the time of Saint Augustine to Henry the Eighth, or indeed any considerable time together? and this would invite us to a greater Debate, who was Supreme in the English Church (the Pope or the King) during that time; or rather who had the exercise of the Supremacy: for the Power of making Laws, is the chief Flower or Branch of the Supremacy; and he that freely, and without interruption, enjoyed this Power, was doubtless, in the Possession of the Supremacy.  
That the Pope had it not, so long and so quietly, as is pleaded by some; and that our Kings have generally enjoyed it, will both together appear with evidence enough by the Particulars following.  
1. If none were to be taken for Pope but by the King's Appointment: Sure his Laws were not to be received, but with the King's Allowance.  
2. If not so much as a Letter could be received from the Pope without the King's Knowledge, who caused words prejudicial to the Crown to be renounced: Sure, neither his Laws.  
Both the Antecedents we find in E●dm. p. 626. p. 131. 1.  
3. If no Canons could be made here without the King's Authority; or being made, could have any force, but by the King's Allowance and Confirmation, where was the Pope's Supremacy? that Canons could not be made here without 
Convocations by Kings.  the King's Authority, is evident; because the Convocations themselves, always were, and aught to be Assembled by the King's Writ, Eadm. p. 24. 5. 11. Besides, the King caused some to sit therein, to Supervise the Actions: & Legato ex parte Regis & Regni inhiberent, ne ibi contra Regiam Coronam & dignitates aliquid statuere attentaret; and when any did otherwise, he was forced to retract what he had done; as did Peckham: or were, in paucis Servatae; as those of Boniface, Math. Par. An. 1237. p. 447. 51. Lindwood. c. 1. Glos. 1.  
If Canons were made, though the Pope's Legate, and consequently all his power, was at 
Can. confir. by Kings.  the making of them; yet had they no force at all, as Laws over us, without the King's allowance and confirmation: The King having first heard what was decreed, Consensum praebuit authoritate Regiâ & potestate confirmavit Statuta concilii, by his Kingly power he confirmed the Statutes of the Council of William Archbishop of Cant. and the Legate of the holy Church, celebrated at Westminster— by the Assent of the King, and primorum omnium Regni: the Chapters subscribed were promulged. Eadm. p. 6. 29. Flor. Wigorn. an. 1127. p. 505. Gervase an. 1175. Col. 1429. 18.  
Twisden Concludes, as for Councils, it is certain, none were here called from Rome, till 1127. 
P. 19, 20.  If they did come to any, as to Calcuith, the King, upon the advice of the Archbishop, Statuit diem appointed the day of the Council: So when William the first, held one at Winchester, 1070. for deposing Stygand; though there came to it three sent from Alexan. 2. Yet it was held, Jubente & present Rege; who was Precedent of it; wherein, as before was noted, the Pope's Legate subscribed the sixteenth after all the English Bishops. Vita Lanfranci. c. 7. p. 7. Col. 1. d.  
All our Canons are therefore (as they are justly) 
Canon's Kings Laws.  called, the King's Ecclesiastical Laws, because no Canons have the power of Laws, but such as he allows and confirms: and whatsoever Canons he confirmed of old, that had their original from a foreign power, he allowed for the sake of their Piety or Equity, or as a means of Communion with the Church from whence they came, but his allowance or eonfirmation gave them all the Authority they had in England.  
'Tis a point so plain in History, that it is beyond 
Before Conquest.  question, that during all the time from St. Gregory to the Conquest, the British, Saxon, and Danish Kings (without any dependence on the Pope) did usually make Ecclesiastical Laws. Witness, the laws of Excombert, Ina, Withered, Alfrede, Edward Athelstan, Edmond Edgar, Athelred, Canutus, and Edward the Confessor; among which Laws, one makes it the Office of a King, to Govern the Church as the Vicar of God.  
Indeed, at last the Pope was officiously kind, and did bestow after a very formal way, upon the last of those Kings, Edward the Confessor, a Privilege, which all his Predecessors had enjoyed as their own undoubted Right before, viz. the Protection of all the Churches of England, and power to him and his Successors the Kings of England for ever; in his stead, to make just Ecclesiastical Constitutions, with the advice of their Bishops and Abbots. But with thanks to his Holiness, our Kings still continued their ancient custom which they had enjoyed from the beginning, in the right of the Crown, without respect to his courtesy in that matter.  
After the Conquest, our Norman Kings did 
After Conquest.  also exercise the same Legislative power in Ecclesiastical Causes over Ecclesiastical Persons from time to time, with the consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal. Hence all those Statutes concerning Benefices, Tithes, Advowsons', Lands given in Mortmain, Prohibitions, Consultations, Praemunires, quare impedits, Privilege of the Clergy, Extortions of Ecclesiastical Courts or Officers, Regulation of Fees, Wages of Priests, Mortuaries, Sanctuaries, Appropriations; and in sum, as Bishop Bramhall adds, All things which did belong to the external subsistence, Regiment, and regulating of the Church; and this in the Reigns of our best Norman Kings before the Reformation. Arch Bishop Bramh. p. 73.  
But what Laws do we find of the Pope's making in England? or what English Law hath he ever effectually abrogated? 'Tis true many of the Canons of the Church of Rome were here observed; but before they became obliging, or had the force of Laws, the King had power in his great Council to receive them, if they were judged convenient, or if otherwise to reject them.  
'Tis a notable instance that we have of this, 
20 Ed. 3. c. 9  in Ed. 3. time: When some Bishops proposed in Parliament, the reception of the Ecclesiastical Canon, for the legitimation of Children, born before Marriage; all the Peers of the Realm stood up, and cried out with one voice, Nolumus leges Angliae mutari; we will not have the Laws of England to be changed: A clear evidence, that the Pope's Canons were not English Laws, and that the Popish Bishops knew they could not be so, without the Parliament.  
Likewise, the King and Parliament made a legislative exposition, of the Canon of the Council of Lions, concerning Bigamy, which they would 
4 Ed. 1. c. 5.  not have done had they not thought they had power according to the fundamental Laws of England, either to receive it or reject it.  
These are plain and undeniable evidences, that when Popery was at highest, the Pope's Supremacy in making Laws for the English Church was very ineffectual, without the countenance of a greater and more powerful, viz. the Supremacy of our own Kings.  
Now, admit that during some little space, Obj. the Pope did impose, and England did consent to the authority of his Canons; as indeed the very 
Consent admitted.  rejecting of that authority, intimates: yet that is very short of the Possession of it, without interruption, for nine hundred years together; the contrary being more than evident.  
However, this Consent was given either by 
By Permission.  Permission or Grant: If only by Permission, whether through Fear or Reverence, or Convenience, it signifies nothing, when the King and Kingdom see cause to vindicate our ancient Liberties, and resolve to endure it no longer.  
If a Grant be pretended, 'twas either from 
Or by Grant.  the King alone; or joined with his Parliament. If from the King alone, he could grant it for his time only, and the power of resuming any part of the prerogative granted away by the Predecessors, accompanies the Crown of the Successor; and fidelity to his Office and Kingdom, obligeth him in Justice to retrieve and recover it  
I believe none will undertake to affirm, that the Grant was made by the Law; or the King, with his Parliament: Yet if this should be said and proved too; it would argue very little to the purpose; for this is to establish Iniquity by a Law: The King's Prerogative, as Head of this Church, lieth too deep in the very constitution of the Kingdom, the foundation of our common Law, and in the very Law of Nature; and is no more at the will of the Parliament, than the fundamental liberties of the Subject.  
Lastly, the same Power that makes, can repeal a Law: if the Authority of Papal Canons had been acknowledged; and ratified by Parliament, which cannot be said; 'tis most certain, it was revoked, and renounced, by an equal Power, viz. of Henry the Eighth, and the whole Body of the Kingdom, both Civil and Ecclesiastical.  
It is the Resolution both of Reason and Law, that no Prescription of time can be a bar to the Supreme Power; but, that, for the Public good it may revoke, any Concessions, Permissions or Privileges: thus it was declared in Parliament in Edward the Third his Reign, when reciting the Statute of Edward the First; they say, the Statute holdeth always his force; and that the King is bound by Oath, to cause the same to be kept, (and consequently, if taken away, to be restored to its Observation) as the Law of the Land: that is, the Common, Fundamental, unalterable, Law of the Land.  
Besides, the Case is most clear, that when Henry the Eighth began his Reign, the Laws asserting the Supreme Authority in Causes, and over Persons Ecclesiastical, were not altered or repealed; and Henry the Eight used his Authority against Papal Encroachments, and not against, but according to the Statute; as well as the Common Law of the Land: witness all those Noble Laws of Provisors and praemunire, which, as my Lord Bramhall saith, we may truly call, 
25 Ed. 1. 27 Ed. 3. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3, 4. 7 Hen. 4. c. 6.  the Palladium which preserved it from being swallowed up in that vast gulf of the Roman Court made by Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4.   

CHAP. XI.  
Of the Power of Licences etc. here; in Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. Hen. 5. Hen. 6. Hen. 7.  
THough, the Pope be denied the Legislative and Judiciary or Executive Power in England; yet, if he be allowed his Dispensatory Power, that will have the effect of Laws; and fully supersede or impede the Execution of Laws, in Ecclesiastical Causes, and upon Ecclesiastical Persons.  
'Tis confessed, the Pope did usurp and exercise this strange Power, after a wonderful manner in England before Henry the Eighth; by his Licences, Dispensations, Impositions, Faculties, Grants, Rescripts, Delegacies, and other such kind of Instruments, as the Statute 25 Hen. 8. 21. mentions; and that this Power was denied or taken from him by the same Statute; as also by another, 28 Hen. 8. 16. and placed in, or rather, reduced to the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, saving the Rights of the See of York, in all Causes convenient and necessary for the Honour and Safety of the King; the Wealth and Profit of the Realm; and not repugnant to the Laws of Almighty God.  
The Grounds of removing this Power from the Pope, as they are expressed in that excellent Preamble to the said Statute, 25 Hen. 8. are worthy our Reflection: they are.  
1. The Pope's Usurpation in the Premises.  
2. His having obtained an Opinion in many of the people, that he had full Power to dispense with all humane Laws, Uses, and Customs, in all Causes Spiritual.  
3. He had practised this strange Usurpation for many years.  
4. This his practice was in great derogation of the Imperial Crown of this Realm.  
5. England recognizeth no Superior, under God, but the King only; and is free from Subjection to any Laws, but such as are ordained within this Realm; or admitted Customs by our own Consent and Usage, and not as Laws of any Foreign Power.  
6. And lastly, that according to Natural Equity, the whole State of our Realm in Parliament, hath this Power in it, and peculiar to it; to dispense with, alter, Abrogate etc. our own Laws and Customs, for Public good; which Power appears by wholesome Acts of Parliament, made before the Reign of Henry the Eighth, in the time of his Progenitors.  
For these Reasons, it was Enacted in those Statutes of Henry the Eighth. That no Subject of England should sue for Licences etc. henceforth to the Pope, but to the Archbishop of Canterbury.  
Now, 'tis confessed before, and in the Preamble to the Statute, that the Pope had used this Power for many years: but this is noted as an Aggravation of the Grievance, and one Reason for Redress; but whether he enjoyed it from the time of Saint Austin, or how long quietly is the proper question; especially seeing the Laws of the Land, made by King Henry's Predecessors, are pleaded by him in contradiction to it.  
Yea, who will come forth, and show us one Instance 
No Instance 1110 years after Christ.  of a Papal Dispensation in England for the first eleven hundred years after Christ? if not, five hundred, of the nine hundred years' Prescription, and the first five hundred too, as well as the first eleven hundred of the fifteen, are lost, to the Popes, and gained to the Prescription of the Church of England: But,  
Did not the Church of England, without any reference to the Court of Rome, use this Power during the first eleven hundred years; what man is so hardy as to deny it, against the multitude of plain Instances in History?  
Did not our Bishops relax the Rigour of Ecclesiastical Canons? did not all Bishops, all over the Christian World, do the like before the Monopoly was usurped?  
In the Laws of Alured alone, and in the conjoynt 
Gervis Dorober. p. 1648.  Laws of Alured and Gunthrun, how many sorts of Ecclesiastical Crimes were dispensed with, by the Sole Authority of the King and Church of England, and the like we find in the Laws of 
Spel. Conc. p. 364. etc.  some other Saxon Kings.  
Dunstan the Arch Bishop, had Excommunicated a great Count; he made his peace at Rome; the Pope commands his Restitution: Dunstan answered, I will obey the Pope willingly, when I 
Ibid. p. 481.  see him penitent; but it is not God's will that he should lie in his sin, free from Ecclesiastical Discipline, to insult over us. God forbidden that I should relinquish the Law of Christ for the Cause of any Mortal man: this great Instance doth two things at once; justifieth the Arch-Bishops, and destroyeth the Pope's Authority in the Point.  
The Church of England dispensed with those irreligious Nuns, in the days of Lanfrank with the Council of the King; and with Queen Maud; the Wife of Henry the First, in the like Case, in the days of Anselm, without any Suit to Rome, or Foreign Dispensation, Lanfr. Ep. 32. Eadm. l. 3. p. 57 These are great and notorious and certain Instances; and when the Pope had usurped this Power afterwards.  
As the Selected Cardinals Style the avaricious Dispensations of the Pope, Sacrilegious & Vulnera Legum; so our Statutes of Provisors expressly 
27 Ed. 3.  say, they are the undoing and Destruction of the Common Law of the Land: accordingly.  
The King, Lords and Commons, complained of this abuse, as a Mighty Grievance; of the frequent coming among them, of this Infamous 
Math. Par. Au. 1245.  Messenger the Pope's nonobstante, that is, his Dispensations; by which, Oaths, Customs, Writings, Grants, Statutes, Rights, Privileges, were not only weakened, but made void.  
Sometimes these dispensative Bulls came to legal Trials: Boniface the Eighth dispensed with the law where the Archbishop of Canterbury was Visitor of the University of Oxford; and by his Bull exempted the University from his Jurisdiction, and that Bull was decreed void in Parliament by two Successive Kings; as being obtained to the prejudice of the Crown, the weakening of the Laws and Customs of the Kingdom, and the probable Ruin of the said University, Ex Arch. Tur. Londini. Ex Antiq. Acad. Cantab. p. 91.  
In interruption of this Papal Usurpation, were those many Laws made in 25 Edw. 1. and 35 
Et 12 Rich. 2.  Edw. 1. 25 Edw. 3. and 27 and 28 Edw. 3. and afterwards more expressly in the sixteenth of Richard the Second, where complaining of Processes and Censures upon Bishops of England, because they executed the King's Comandments, in his Courts; they express the mischiefs to be the Disinherison of the Crown; the Destruction of the King, Laws, and Realm: that the Crown of England is subject to none under God; and both the Clergy and Laity severally and severely protest to defend it, against the Pope; and the same King contested the Point himself with him, and would not yield it.  
An Excommunication by the Archbishop, albeit 
Lord Coke. cawdry's Case.  it be disannulled by the Pope, is to be allowed by the Judges against the Sentence of the Pope, according to the 16 Edw. 3. Titl. Excom. 4.  
For the Pope's Bulls in special, our Laws have abundantly provided against them; as well in case of Excommunication, as Exemption. vid. 30 Edw. 3. lib. Ass. pl. 19 and the abundant, as is evidenced by my Lord Coke out of our English Laws, in Cawd. Case p. 15. he mentions a particular Case, wherein the Bull was pleaded for Evidence, that a Person stood Excommunicate by the Pope; but it was not allowed; because no Certificate appeared from any Bishop of England, 31 Edw. 3. Title Excom. 6. The same again, 8 Hen. 6. fol. 3. & 12 Edw. 4. fol. 16. & R. 3. & 1 Hen. 7. fol. 20.  
So late as Henry the Fourth, if any Person of 
Stat. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3.  Religion, obtain of the Bishop of Rome to be Exempt from Obedience, Regular or Ordinary, he is in case of a praemunire; which is an offence contra Regem, Coronam & dignitatem suam.  
Again, more plain to our purpose, in Henry 
Hen. 5.  the Fifth's time, after great Complaint in Parliament, the Grievances, by reason of the Pope's licences to the contrary, it was enacted that the King, willing to avoid such Mischiefs, hath ordained and established, that all Incumbents by the Patronage of Spiritual Persons, might quietly 
3 Hen. 5. c. 4.  enjoy their Benefices without being inquieted, by any colour of Provisions, Licences and Acceptations by the Pope: and that all such Licenses and Pardons upon, and by such Provisions made in any manner, should be void and of no valour; aod that the Malefactors by virtue thereof incur the punishments contained in the Statutes of Provisors before that time made.  
The King only may grant or licence, to found a 
9 Hen. 6. fol. 16.  Spiritual Corporation as it is concluded by our Law, even in Henry the Sixth's time.  
Further, in Edward the Fourth's Reign, the Pope granted to the Prior of Saint john's to have 
1 Hen. 7. fol. 20.  a Sanctuary within his Priory; and this was pleaded and claimed by the Prior; but it was resolved by the Judges, that the Pope had no power to grant any Sanctuary within this Realm; and by Judgement of the Law it was disallowed.  
We have thus, fully I hope, justified the words of the Statute of Henry the Eighth; that the Laws made in the times of his Predecessors, did in effect the same things: Especially those of Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. which that Parliament, 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. refer us to, expressly and particularly; and how small time is left, for the Pope's Prescription (if any at all for his quiet possession) of the power of licences in England. Yet it is confessed, he had usurped, and by several instances been heedlessly, or timerously permitted, to exercise such a Power, for many years together, as the Parliament acknowledgeth; though, contrary to the Ancient Liberty, the Common Law; and so many plain Decrees of our Judges, and Statutes of the Land from Age to Age, as have appeared.   

CHAP. XII.  
Of the Patronage of the English Church, in our Kings, by History. Law.  
THis Flower of the Crown was derived from our ancient English and British Kings to William the Conqueror, William Rufus, and Hen. 1. who enjoyed the Right of placing in vacant Sees, by the Tradition of a Ring and a Crocier Staff, without further Approbation, Ordination, or Confirmation from Rome; for the first eleven hundred years. Indeed, then Hildebrand, and after Calixtus did condemn and prohibit all Investitures taken from a Lay-hand.  
That, before Hildebrand, this was the undoubted right of the Crown, is evident both by History and Law.  
For History, we find Malms. notes, that King Edgar did grant to the Monks of Glastenbury the free Election of their Abbot for ever: But he reserved to himself and his Heirs, the power to invest the Brother elected by the Tradition of a Pastoral Staff. Malms. de gest. R. l. 2. c. 8.  
Therefore Ingulf the Abbot of Crowland, in the time of the Conqueror, saith, for many years, 
Ibid.  (he might have said Ages) past, there hath been no free Election of Prelates; but the King's Court did confer all dignities, by a Ring and a Crocier Staff.  
Lanfrank desired of William the Conqueror, the Patronage of the Abbey of St. Austin; but the King answered, se velle, etc. that he would keep all the Crociers Staffs (i e. Investitures) in his own hand. The same is testified of Anselm himself by Eadm. He after the manner and example of his Predecessor, was instructed according to the custom of the Land; and did homage to the King; as Lanfrank his Predecessor, in the See of Canterbury, in his time had done; and William the Agent of Hen. 1. protested openly to Pope Paschal,— I would have all men here to know, that my Lord the King of England will not suffer the loss of his Investitures, for the loss of his Kingdom. Indeed Pope Paschal was as resolute, though it be said, not so just in his answer. I speak it before God, 
Eadm. l. 3. p. 73.  Paschal the Pope will not suffer him to keep them without punishment; no not for the Redemption of his Head.  
Here was indeed a demand made, with confidence and courage; but, had that Pope no better Title than that of Possession to claim by, he had certainly none at all: For, as Eadm. concludes, the case seemed a new thing (or Innovation) to this our Age; and unheard of, to the English, from the time that the Normans began to Reign, (that, I say not sooner) for from the time that William the Norman conquered the Land, no Bishop or Abbot was made, (before Anselm) who 
Eadm. ●er. in Praef. p. 2.  did not first do homage to the King; and from his hand by the gift of a Crocier Staff, receive the investiture to his Bishopric or Abbacy, except two Bishops of Rochester, who were Surrogates to the Archbishop; and inducted by him by the King's leave.  
Indeed, now the Pope began to take upon him in earnest; and to require an Oath of Fidelity of the Archbishop when he gave him the Pall; and to deny that Pall if he would not take it. A new Oath never before heard of, or practised: An Oath of Obedience to himself; as it it is expressly called, in the Edition of Gregory 13. An Oath not established by any Council; but only by Papal Authority, by Paschalis himself, as Gregory the Ninth recordeth.  
This Oath, at first, though new, was modest; bounding the Obedience of the Arch-Bishops only by the Rules of the holy Fathers; as we find in the old Roman Pontifical; But it was quickly changed from Regulas Sanctorum Patrum, to Regalia Sancti Pet●i: The change, as my Lord Bramhall observes, not great in words, but in Sense, abominable. 
P. 320. Twisd. p. 47:   
Bellarmine would persuade us, that the like Oath was given, in Gregory the firsts time; but that was nothing like an Oath of Obedience, and was only an Oath of Abjuration of Heresy; not imposed but taken freely, no common Oath of Bishops, nor any thing touching the Royalties of St. Peter, as may be seen Greg. Epist. 1. 10. Ep. 30. Indic. 5.  
About an hundred years after, in the time of Gregory the Ninth, they extended the subjects of the Oath, as well as the matter; enlarging it from Arch-Bishops to all Prelates, Bishops, Abbots, Priors, and now they cry up the Canons above all Imperial Laws.  
But to decide this point of swearing Allegiance to the Pope; which could not be done without going in person to Rome; it is sufficient that by all our Laws, no Clergyman could go to Rome without the King's Licence; and that by an ancient Britannic Law; if any subject enter into League with another (Prince) professing Fidelity 
Hect. Bottle. Hist.  and obedience to any one (besides the King) let him lose his head.  
But, let us admit, that the Pope eleven hundred years after Christ, got possession of the English Church, and the Conscience of the Bishops by Investiture and Oaths; who will show us that he had it sooner? who will maintain that he kept it quietly till Hen. 8?  
This last point will be clear, by examining 
2. Law.  our Laws, the second Topick propounded at the beginning of this discourse: For if his Possession were good, it was settled in Law; and if quiet, the Laws were not made to oppose it, by the great States of the Kingdom.  
My Lord Bramhall hath produced three great Laws, as sufficient to determine this Controversy; 
1. Clarendon.  whether the King or the Pope be Patron of the English Church; the Assize of Clarendon, Statute of Carlisle, and of Provisors. The first tells us plainly, that the Election of an Archbishop, Bishop, Abbot and Prior was to be made by the respective dignitaries upon the Kings calling them together to that purpose; and with the King's consent. And then the Person elected, was presently to do homage to the King as his Liege Lord.  
And that this method was exclusive of the 
In Ed. 1.  Pope, that of Carlisle is very distinct: The King is the founder of all Bishoprics, and aught to 
2. Carlisle.  have the custody of them in the Vacances, and the Right of Patronage to present to them; and that the Bishop of Rome usurping the right of Patronage, giveth them to Aliens. That this tendeth to Annullation of the State of holy Church; to the disinheriting of Kings; and the destruction of the Realm. This is an Oppression, and shall not be Suffered.  
The Statute of Provisors. 15. Ed- 3. affirms, that Elections were first granted by King's Progenitors, 
Provisors.  upon Condition to demand Licence of the King to Choose, and, after the Election, to have the Royal Assent. Which Conditions not being kept; the thing ought by reason to return to its first Nature. And therefore they conclude, that in Case, Reservation, Collation or Provision be made by the Court of Rome, of any Archbishopric etc. The King and his Heirs shall have the Collations for the same time, such as his Progenitors had before the free Elections were granted.  
And they tell the King plainly, that the Right of the Crown is such, and the Law of the Land too, that the King is bound to make Remidies and Laws, against such Mischiefs. And acknowledge that he is Advower Paramont, immediate of all Churches, prebend's, and other Benefices, which are of the Advowrie of holy Church. i e. Sovereign patron of it.  
My Lord Coke, more abundantly, adds, the 
Wil 1.  Resolutions and Decrees of the Law, to confirm 
7. Ed. 3. tit. qu. i. e. p. 19  us in the Point. In the time of William the first, it is agreed that no man only can make any Appropriation of any Church having cure of Souls, but he that hath Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: but William the first did make such Appropriations, of himself without any other.  
Edward the first presented his Clerk; who was refused by the Archbishop; for that the 
Ed. 1.  Pope by way of Provision, had conferred it on another. The King brought his quare non admisit, the Archbishop pleaded the Supremacy of the Pope; and that he durst not, nor had power to put him out, which was by the Pope's Bull in Possession, for which— by judgement of the Common Law, the Lands of his whole Bishopric were seized into the King's hands, and lost during his life: And my Lord Coke's Note upon it is, that this Judgement was before any Statute was made in that Case.  
In the Reign of Edw. 3. it is often resolved, 
Ed. 3.  that all the Bishoprics within England, were founded by the King's Progenitors; and therefore, the Advowsons' of them all belong to the King; and at the first they were Donative: And that if any Incumbent dye, the Lapse comes to the Bishop▪ then to the Archbishop; and lastly, by the common Law to the King, as to the Supreme within his own Kingdom, and not to the Bishop of Rome.  
This King presented to a Benefice, his Presentee 
21 Ed. 3. 40. s. 40.  was disturbed by one that had obtained Bulls from Rome; for which offence he was condemned to perpetual Imprisonment.  
It is no small spice of the King's Ecclesiastical Patronage, that we find, the King made Canons secular to be Regular; and that he made the Prior and Covent of Westminster, a distinct Corporation from the Abbot. 38. li. Ass. pl. 22. 49. Ed. 3. l. Ass. pl. 8.  
But more full is the case of Abbot Moris, who sent to Rome to be confirmed by the Pope; who 
46 Ed. 3. Tit. praem. 6.  by his Bull slighted the Election of Moris; but gave him the Abbey, of his spiritual Grace, and at the request (as he feigned) of the King of England. This Bull was read and considered of in Council, that is, before all the Judges of England; and it was resolved by them all; that this Bull was against the Laws of England; and that the Abbot for obtaining the same, was fallen into the King's mercy: whereupon all his Possessions were seized into the King's hands.  
In the Reign of Richard the Second; one sued 
12 Rich. 2. Tit. Juris. 18.  a provision in the Court of Rome, against an Incumbent, recovered the Church; brought an action of account for Oblations, etc. but the whole Court was of opinion against the Plaintiff; and thereupon he was nonsuit. Vid. Stat. 16. Rich. 2. c. 5. against all Papal Usurpations; and this in particular; the pain is a praemunire.  
In Hen. 4s Reign, the Judges say that the Statutes 
11 H. 4. f. 69, 76.  which restrain the Pope's Provisions to the Benefices of the Advowsons' of spiritual men, were made; for that the spiritualty durst not in their just cause say against the Pope's Provisions; so as those Statutes were made but in affirmance of the common Laws.  
Now what remains to be pleaded in behalf of the Pope's Patronage of our Church, at least as to his possession of it, against so many plain and great Evidences both of Law and Deed?  
All pretences touching the Pope's giving the Pall are more than anticipated: For it is not to be denied, but that was not held necessary, either to the consecration, confirmation, or investiture of the very Archbishop before Anselm's time: Yea 'tis manifest that Lanfrank, Anselm, and Raulf did dedicated Churches, consecrate Bishops and Abbots, and were called Arch-Bishops, while they had no Pall, as Twisden proves out of Eadmer. 
P. 47.   
We never read, that either Laurentius or Milletus received the Pall from Rome, who, no doubt, were as lawful Arch-Bishops as Austin. Girald and Hoveden both give us an account, that Samson of St. David's had a Pall, but do not say from Rome; and, though in the time of infection, he carried it away with him. After Paulinus, there are five in the Catalogue of York, expressly said to have wanted it (and Wilfred was one of them) yet are reputed both 
Vid. Twisd. ibid.  Arch-Bishops and Saints; and of others in that series, it is not easy to prove they ever used it; nor Adilbaldus, till the fourth year after his Investiture. And Gregory the Great saith, that it ought not to be given, nisi fortiter Postulanti. What this Honorary was anciently, seems uncertain; but 'tis most certain, it could evacuate the King's Legal and natural Patronage of our Church; or discharge the Bishops from their dependence on, and Allegiance to his Crown.  
'Tis true indeed, when Pope Nicolaus could not deny it, he was graciously pleased to grant this Patronage to Edward the Confessor: Vobis & posteris, etc. committimus advocationem, etc. We 
Baron. an. 1059. n. 23.  commit the Advowson of all the Churches of England to you and your Successors, Kings of England: It might have been replied, Nicolaus Papa hoc domino meo privilegium, quod ex Paterno jure susceperat praebuit, as the Emperor's Advocate said.  
This is too mean as well as too remote a spring of our Kingly power in the Church of England, though it might, ad hominem, sufficiently supersede (one would think) all Papal practices against so plain and full a grant: if any thing passed by it, certainly it must be that very power of Advowson, that the Popes afterwards so much pretended, and our Laws (mentioned) were made on purpose to oppose them in.  
We see no reason therefore, against the Statute of Hen. 8. so agreeable to the ancient Rights and Laws of this Realm: Be it enacted, that no person shall be Presented, Nominated, or Commended to the Pope, to or for the dignity of an Archbishop or Bishop within this Realm, nor shall send or procure thence for any manner of Bulls, Briefs, Palls, or other things requisite for an Archbishop or Bishop.— all such, viz. Applications and Instruments, shall utterly cease and no longer be used within this Realm; and such as do contrary to this Act, shall run in danger of the Statutes of Provision and Praemunire. 
H. 8. 25, 20.    

CHAP. XIII.  
Of Peter- Pence, and other Moneys formerly paid to the Pope.  
UPon Complaint, by Parliament in 
25 Hen. 8. 21.  Henry the Eighth's Reign, of intolerable exactions of great Sums of money by the Pope; as well in Pensions, Censes, Peter-pences, Procurations, etc. and for infinite sorts of Bulls, etc. otherwise than by the Laws and Customs of the Realm should be permitted; It was enacted, that no Person should thenceforth pay any such Pensions, Peter- pence, etc. but that all such payments should thenceforth clearly surcease, and never more be levied, taken, or paid; and all Annates, or First-Fruits and Tenths of 
25 Hen. 8. 20.  Arch-Bishops and Bishops were taken away, and forbidden to be paid to the Pope, the year before.  
Our Payments to the Court of Rome, seem to have been of four sorts; Peter-pences, First-Fruits and Tenths; Casual, for Palls, Bulls, etc. and extraordinary Taxations: briefly, of each.  
1. For Peter-pences; (the only Ancient payment) 
Peter-pences.  it was, at first, given and received as an Alms; Eleemosina Beati Petri, saith Paschalis, 2. Ep. Hen. 1. apud Eadm. p. 113. 27. Perhaps, rendered out of Gratitude and Reverence to the See of Rome; to which England was, no doubt, frequently obliged, for their care and Council, and other assistances; and by continuance, this Alms and gratitude, obtained the name of Rent: and was Metaphorically called, sometimes, Tributum, but never anciently understood 
Vid. Twisd. p. 75.  to acknowledge the Pope as Superior Lord of a Layfee.  
But, when the Pope changed Advice into Precept, and Counsel into Law and Empire; and required Additions, with other grievous Exactions, unto his Peter-pences; it was a proper time to be better advised of ourselves, and not to encourage such a wild Usurpation with the continuance of our Alms or gratitude.  
This Alms was first given by a Saxon King; but by whom, it is not agreed; but that there was no other payment besides this, made to Rome before the year 1246. appears: for that, though there was much complaint and controversy about our payments, we find the omission of no payment instanced in, but of that duty only; neither do the Body of our Kingdom in their Remonstrance to Innocent the Fourth 1246. mention any other, as claimed from hence to Rome.  
Yet this payment, as it was not from the beginning, and as it was, at first, but an Alms; so it was not continued without some interruptions, when Rome had given Arguments of sufficient provocation, both in the times of William the First, and Henry his Son, and Henry the Second▪ this latter, during the Dispute with Becket and Alex. 3. commanded the Sheriffs through England, that Peter-pences should be gathered and kept, quousque inde Dominus Rex voluntatem suam praeceperit.  
Historians observe that Edward the Third, during the French war gave command, that no Peter-pences should be gathered or paid to Rome; 
Stow An. 1365.  and the Restraint continued all that Prince's time, for his Successor Richard the Second, at the beginning of his Reign, caused John Wickliff to consider the Point, who concludes, those payments being no other than Alms, the Kingdom was not obliged to continue them longer, 
Vid. Twisden. p. 76.  than it stood with its Convenience, and not to its detriment or Ruin, according to the Rule in Divinity, extra Casus Necessitatis & Superfluitatis Eleemosyna non est in praecepto.  
Indeed, in the Parliament, held the same year, the question was made, and a Petition preferred (which surely was some kind of disturbance of the payment) against them, with no effect: the King restored them, and the payment of them continued till Hen. 8.  
So much for Peter-pences; for the other payments, 
2. First-Fruits.  viz. First-Fruits aend Tenths, and the Casual payments, for Bulls, etc. they so evidently depend on the Pope's Supremacy for Legislation, Jurisdiction, and Dispensation, that they are justly denied with it; however, we shall briefly examine the Rise and the Possession of them.  
For the Annates and Tenths, which the Pope 
Clemang. Platina. Pol. Virg.  received from our Arch-Bishops and Bishops, the Historians agree, that England, of all Nations, never submitted to the full extent of the Papal Commands or Expectations; which no doubt, was occasioned by the good Laws made here against them.  
There is difference amongst Writers, in 
De Scysm. 6. lib. 2. c. 9  whose time the First-Fruits began to be taken Theodoricus a Niem saith, Boniface 9 about the Tenth year of his Government was the first that reserved them; with whom Platina agrees, 
In vit. Bon. 9 de inven. Rer. l. 8. c. 2.  and Polid. Virgil, and many others, as Twisden notes; and Walsingham reduces them but to 1316. Hist. An. 1316. p. 84, 85.  
But the question is, how long the Pope quietly enjoyed them? the Kingdom was so intolerably burdened with Papal Taxes, before (of which we shall speak hereafter) and these, First-Fruits and Tenths, being a Remembrance of those extraordinary Taxes, and a way devised to settle and continue them upon us, they were presently felt and complained of. The Parliament complained in general of such oppressions, 25 Edw. 3. An. 1351. and again more particularly, among other things of First-Fruits in the fiftieth of Edward the Third, and desire 
Rot. Parl. n. 105, 106.  his Majesty, no Collector of the Pope may reside in England.  
The King not complying, they, again, instance the year following, that the Pope's Collector 
Rot. Parl. 51 Edw. 3. n. 78, 79.  was as very an enemy to this State as the French themselves: that he Annually sent away 20000 Marks; and sometimes 20000 Pounds; and that, he now raised for the Pope, the First-Fruits of all Dignities, which, in the very beginning, aught to be crushed.  
Yet they prevailed not to their minds; and in the next Parliaement, the Commons preferred three Petitions: First, touching the payment of 
Rot. Parl. 1 R. 2. n. 66, 67, 68:  First-Fruits, not used in the Realm before these times. Secondly, Reservation of Benefices. Thirdly, Bestowing them on Aliens, etc. praying Remedy; as also, that the Petitions of the two last Parliaments, might be considered, and convenient Remedies ordained: the King hereupon, refers the matters for Remedy to his grand or Privy-Council.  
But neither yet was full satisfaction obtained as appears; for that the Commons renewed 
Rot. Parl. Rich. 2. n. 37.  in effect the same Suits in the third and fifth of Rich. 2. the inconveniences still continuing: after which the next Parliament obtained the Statute 
13 Ri. 2. c. 2.  of Praemunire; which, as Pol. Virgil observes, was a Confining the Papal Authority within the Ocean. To which Law three years after, some 
16 R. 2. c. 5.  Additions were made, and none of these Laws were repealed by Queen Mary.  
To say, the Bishops were pressed by the Laity to pass that last Act, is so much otherwise, as that it is enroled, as Twisden observes, on the desire of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Rot. Parli. 16. Rich. 2. n. 20. in fine. Neither would 
Answer to Sir Edward Cook.  the Pope tolerate (as one insinuates) any thing so exceedingly prejudicial to him, upon any reasonable pretence whatsoever.  
In the same Parliament, the Commons Petition that the Pope's Collector may have forty days for his Removal out of the Kingdom; the King considers.  
But in the Sixth of Hen. 4. upon grievous 
6 Hen. c. 1.  complaints made by the Commons to the King; of the horrible mischiefs and damnable Customs which are introduced of new by the Church of Rome, that none could have provision for an Archbishopric or Bishopric, until he had compounded with the Pope's Chamber, to pay great excessive Sums of Money, as well for the first fruits as other lesser fees— it was Enacted, that whosoever shall pay such Sums shall forfeit all they had. This Statute was made about an hundred years before Hen. 8. an inconsiderable time for so considerable a Prescription.  
3. We have noted, that the Clergy of England were not free from Roman Taxations before 
Payments extraordinary.  the payment of Annates and Tenths, as they were afterwards stated: For there were occasional charges exacted from us by the Pope, which afterwards terminated in those constant payments, as before was intimated.  
The first extraordinary contribution raised by allowance for the Pope's use in this Kingdom, Twisden observes to have been an. 1183. far enough 
Hoved. an. 1183. f. 354. b. 43.  off from the time of St. Austin. When Lucius the third (at odds with the Citizens of Rome) sent to Hen. 2. Postulans auxilium of him and his Clergy, whereupon two things considerable are observed. 1. The King in this point concerning the Pope, consulted his own Clergy, and followed their advice. 2. The great care the Clergy took to avoid ill precedents, for they advised the King, that he would receive the moneys as given by them to him, and not to the Pope, leaving the King to dispose it as he thought fit.  
This wariness being perceived, the Pope did not suddenly attempt the like again: We do not find any considerable sum raised from the Body of the Clergy for the support of the Papal designs, till Gregory 9 demanded a Tenth of all the moveables both of them and the Laity, an. 1229. The Temporal Lords refused; and the Clergy unwillingly were induced to the Contribution, for it was no other.  
The Pope ventured no more upon the Laity, but eleven years after, he demanded of the Clergy a fifth part of their goods: And after many 
Math. par. an. 1240. p. 526. 20. p. 534. 8. 39  Contests and struggle, and notwithstanding all the arguments of the poor Clergy, by the Kings and Arch-Bishops means, they were forced to pay it.  
But neither that Reluctancy, nor the Remonstrance of the Kingdom at the Council of Lions, 1245. nor that to the Pope himself the year following, could prevail then to change the Shoulder or the method of Oppression: For Innocent 4. 1246. invents a new way, by charging every Religious house with finding of Soldiers for his Service, for one year, etc. which amounted to eleven thousand Marks for that year; with many devices for his advantage: but did he 
Rot. Parl. 50. Ed. 3. n. 107.  go on more quietly than he began? No certainly. See the Petition of the Commons in Parliament, 1376.  
The two Cardinals Priests Agents, were not suffered to provide for them a thousand marks a year apiece: But the State chased them out of the Kingdom; and the King sent through every County, that none henceforth should be admitted per Bullam, without the special Licence of the King.  
And a while after, the Parliament held the 20 Ed. 3. 1346. Petition more plainly; and mention the matter of the two Cardinals, as an intolerable 
Ro. Par. n. 33, 35.  grievance, in which the King gave them satisfaction.  
However, the Usurpation grows against all opposition, and 'tis no longer a Tax for one year only as at first; but for six years successively, pretending war with Infidels, so dealt John 21. an. 1277. and Clement 5. in the Council of Vienna 1311.  
Exactions of this kind were so abominable, that Martin 5 at the Council of Constance, 1417. 
Sess. 43.  was constrained to make that Remedy; Nullatenus imponantur, etc. upon which decree a supply of the Tenth being twice demanded, viz. 1515, and 1518. by Leo 10. against the Turk, the English Clergy denied them both times.  
Thus the Papacy by little and little, and through great opposition, at length brought the Taxes to that we now call Tenths: and Annates proceeded gradually, but by milder measures, to a like Settlement; yet neither continued without the disturbances before mentioned.  
4. There is nothing remains under the head of Money, but the casual and accidental profits, accrueing by Bulls and Licenses and lesser ways 
Casual Payments.  and conditions of Advantage, which did much help the rest to drain us of our wealth: but these obtained upon private persons, and many times in methods not cognizable by Law; neither were the people so apt to complain in such cases, because they had something (which they unaccountably valued) for their money: and the possession of a false opinion in the Vulgar, as Jugglers and Cheats may equally glory in, can never be soberly interpreted to be a good and sufficient Title to the Supremacy of the Church of England: Yet it is not amiss to remember, that the Pope's Messenger, Jo. Opizanus, for acting against the King's Laws in getting money for his Master, was cast into Prison as we find it, Vit. Hen. Chich. p. 86.  
Neither can we reasonably imagine, but that much of that vast Sum was gathered by those ways, which in the Reign of Hen. 3. the Lords and Commons complain of, viz. that above four hundred thousand pounds yearly was carried hence into Italy.  
It was some disturbance of such kind of Receipts, 
Stat. de 7. H. 1. c. 6.  that the Law forbids any such Bulls to be purchased for the time to come upon pain of praemunire: And that 'twas decreed, that the Pope's Collector, though he have a Bull for the purpose, 
Hen. 4. fol. 9  hath no Jurisdiction within this Realm.  
And if the ancient Law of the Realm saith, that the Pope cannot alter the Laws of England, that Law condemns his raising money upon the people in any kind, without special Law to that purpose; a Prerogative the Kings of England themselves do not claim. Therefore, that standing Fundamental Law of England, always lay in bar against, and was a continual, real, and legal disturbance of the Pope's possession of power to impose Taxes; or by any devices to collect money from the English, either Laity or Clergy.   

CHAP. XIV.  
The Conclusion of the Argument from Prescription. 'Tis on our side: No force for the Pope.  
WE have seen what the Argument from Prescription is come to; how far short of Nine Hundred years, and how unsettled, both in Law and Practice it ever was; both as to Jurisdiction in the Pope's Court at Rome, and by his Legates here; and as to Legislation by the force of his Canons, and his dispensation by Faculties, Licenses, and any sort of Bulls, etc. and as to his Patronage of, or Profits from the English Church.  
If a just Computation were made, I believe the Argument from Possession would really appear to be on our side: Our Kings having enjoyed and flourished in the exercise of Supremacy over us, ever since the Act of Hen. 8. extinguishing the Pope's Usurpation here, with far more quiet and less interruption, than ever the Pope did for so long a time.  
Besides, other qualifications of our King's possession, do mightily strengthen the Plea above any thing that can be alleged on the Pope's behalf.  
1. Our Kings had possession from the beginning 
Nice. Ephe.  according to the Canon; and therefore could never be lawfully divested: Ancient Histories are evident for us; and Baronius determines well, what is said by a Modern concerning ancient 
Tom. 1. an. 1. n. 12.  affairs, without the Authority of any more ancient, is contemned.  
This ancient Possession of our Kings, hath ever been continued and declared and confirmed by our Laws; and the consent of the whole Kingdom signified thereby: And these Laws have still been insisted on, and repeated when there hath been any great occasion, and fit opportunity to vindicate our ancient Liberties. But the Pope could never obtain any legal settlement of his Power here, before Queen Mary's Reign; nor by Her neither in the main branches of it, though indeed she courted him with the dignity of a great name and a verbal Title.  
Indeed, the subject of the Question being a spiritual Right, our Adversaries themselves agree, that Possession sufficient to prove it, aught to begin near Christ's time: And he that hath begun it later (as certainly the Pope did) unless he can evidence that he was driven out from an ancienter Possession (as the Pope can never do) is not to be styled a Possessor, but an Usurper, an Intruder, an Invader, Disobedient, Rebellious, and Schismatical; as, no doubt, by S. W's Logic, the Pope is as before was noted.  
I shall conclude, with the grave and considerate Concession of Father Barnes (noted by Dr. Stillingfleet) who after his thorough study of the point, upon clear Conviction determined it positively for us in these words.  
The Britannic Church may plead the Cyprian 
Dr. Still. p. 398.  Privilege, that it was subject to no Patriarch, and although this privilege was taken away by Force and Tumult, yet being restored, in Henry the Eighth's time, and quietly enjoyed since, it ought to be retained for peace sake, without prejudice of Catholicism, and the brand of Schism; by which he grants all that is pertinent to our Cause, that the Pope had not possession here, from the beginning, nor aught to have had. 2. That he took advantage, bellorum tumultibus & vi, for his Usurpation. 3. That our Ancient Cyprian privilege was restored by Henry the Eighth, totius Regni Consensu, with the Consent of the whole Kingdom. 4. That never since it hath been peaceably prescribed (pacifice praescriptum) or quietly enjoyed. 5. And that therefore, it still ought to be retained, sine Schismatis ullius Notâ, without the brand or charge of Schism, which is the only thing contended for.   

CHAP. XV.  
The Argument from Infallibility, Considered; in its Consequence, retorted.  
THe two last Arguments, for proof of the Pope's Authority, are general, and not limited to the Church of England, as the three former were; and are his Infallibility and his Universal Pastorship, which remain to be examined.  
From his Infallibility it may be argued thus: Arg. Whether the Pope were the means of our Conversion, or have a Patriarchal Right over us, or have had possession of the Government of the English Church heretofore or not; if he be really and absolutely Infallible, he hath thereby a right to govern us; and we are bound to be ruled and directed by him; but the Pope is really and absolutely Infallible: Ergo.  
The Consequence would tempt a denial: indeed, 
Consequence.  Infallibility is an excellent qualification for an Universal Rector; but are not, qualification and Commission two things? hath God given Authority to every man, equal to his Parts? to his Natural, acquired, or infused abilities? if not; what necessity is there, that he hath, to the Pope? if all Power, as well as all Wisdom is from God; the prime fountain of them both; and if we pretend to both, need we evidence only one?  
Indeed, we ought to be guided by one that is Infallible (if such a one there be) but the Necessity ariseth from Prudence, not immediately from Conscience; Unless by some other way of Authority, God hath given him power to govern us, as well as ability; otherwise, we ought to submit ourselves to the guidance of the Pope, as a good and wise man, or as a Friend, as our Ancestors did, and not as our Lord.  
The true Question is, whether God hath given the power of Government to the Pope; and directly appointed him to be the Universal Pastor of his Church on Earth? so that the Controversy will bear us down to the last Chapter, what ever can be said here; and Infallibility is such a Medium, as infallibly runs upon that Solicism of Argument, obscurum per obscurius: and indeed, if there be any inseparable Connexion, betwixt Infallibility and the Universal Pastorship, as is pretended, the contrary is a lawfuller way of concluding: viz. if there be no one man appointed to govern the Church as Supreme Pastor under Christ, then there is no necessity that any one man should be qualified for it, with this wonderful grace of Infallibility. But it doth not appear, that God hath invested any one man with that Power; therefore, not with that Grace.  
But least this Great Roman Argument should suffer too much; let us at present, allow the Consequence; but then we must expect very fair Evidence of the Assumption; viz. that the Pope is indeed, Infallible.  
I am ware that there are some vexing Questions about the Manner and Subject of this Infallibility; but if we will put them out of the way, than the Evidence of the Pope's or Church of Rome's Infallibility breaks out from three of the greatest Topics we can desire: Scripture, Tradition, and Reason; let them be heard in their Order.  

SECT. I.  
Argument from Scripture for Infallibility, viz. Example. High Priest of the Jews. Apostles.  
Whether it be an excess or defect of Charity in me, I know not; but I cannot bring myself to believe, that the fiercest Bigot of Popery alive, can seriously think the Pope Infallible, in the Popish Sense of the Word; especially that the holy Scriptures prove it.  
I know, that some fly the Absurdity, by hiding the Pope, in the Church: but, if the Church be Infallible; 'tis so, as it is Representative in General Councils; or diffusive, in the whole Body of Christians: and than what is Infallibility to the Church of Rome, more than to any other? and how shall that which is Common to all, give power to one over all? or what is it to the Pope, above another Bishop or Patriarch?  
But the Pope is the Head and Universal Bishop, as he is Bishop of Rome: that is begging a great question indeed; for the proof of the Pope's Infallibility, which his Infallibility ought to prove; and to prove the Medium by the thing in question, after a new Logic.  
Besides, if the proper Seat of Infallibility be the Church, in either of the Senses, it concerns our Adversaries to solve Divine Providence; who use to argue for this wonderful gift in the Church: if there be no Infallibility, God hath not sufficiently provided for the safety of Souls, and the Government of his Church; for seeing the Church diffusive, cannot be imagined to govern itself, but as Collected; and seeing, as the Christian World is now circumstantiated, it is next to impossible, we should have a General and free Council; how shall this so necessary Infallible Grace in the Church be exerted, upon all occasions, for the Ends aforesaid?  
It is therefore most Consonant to the Papal Interest and Reason, to lodge this Infallible gift in the Pope, or Court of Rome: however, let us attend their Arguments for the evidence of it, either in the Pope, or Court, or Church of Rome, in any acception: which is first drawn from Scripture; both Examples and Promises.  
1. From Scripture- Examples they reason, Arg. thus: the High Priest with his Clergy, in the time of the Low, were Infallible; therefore the Pope and his Clergy, are so now: the High Priest with his Clergy, in the time of the Law were so; as appears Deut. 17. 8. where, in doubts, the people were bound to submit and stand to their Judgement; which supposeth them Infallible in it; as A. C. argues with Archbishop Lawd. p. 97. n. 1.  
Dr. Stillingfleet with others, hath exposed this Ans. Argument beyond all reply. In short, the Consequence of it supposeth what is to be proved for the proof of Infallibility, viz. That the Pope is Highpriest of the Christian Church: and we must still expect an Argument for the Pope's Headship, if this must be granted, that we may prove him Infallible, to the end we may prove his Headship. Were it said to the Christian Church, when any Controversy of Faith ariseth, go to Rome, and there inquire the judgement of the Bishop, and believe his determinations to be Infallible, there had been no need of this consequence, but seeing we read no such thing, the consequence is worth nothing.  
Besides, the minor affirming the Infallibility 
Minor.  of the Highpriest from that Law of Appeal in Deut. 17. 8. is justly questioned. There was indeed an obligation on the Jews to submit and stand to the judgement of that high Court; but no obligation nor ground to believe the judgement Infallible: The same obligation lies upon Christians, in all judiciary Causes, especially upon the last Appeal to submit in our practices, though not in our judgement or Conscience, to believe that what is determined to be Infallibly true: A violence that neither the whole world nor a man's self, can sometimes do to the Reason of a man.  
The Text is so plain, not to concern matters of Doctrine, to be decided whether true or false; but matters of Justice to be determined, whether right or wrong; that one would think the very reading of it, should put an end for ever to this debate about it. The words are, viz. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement, between Blood and Blood, between Plea and Plea, and between Stroke and Stroke, being matters of Controversy within thy Gates; Then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the Place which the Lord thy God shall choose, etc. Thus God established a Court of Appeals, a Supreme Court of Judicature, to which the last application was to be made, both in case of Injury and in case of Difficulty, called the great Sanhedrin: But note, here is no direction for address to this Court, but when the case had been first heard in the lower Courts, held in the Gates of the Cities: Therefore the Law concerned not the momentous Controversies in Religion, which never came under the Cognizance of those inferior Courts.  
Therefore it is not said, whosoever doth not 
Deut. 17. ●2.  believe the Judgement given, to be true; but whosoever acts contumaciously in opposition to it: And the man that will not hearken— but do presumptuously, even that man shall die.  
Besides, God still supposeth, a possibility of Error in the whole Congregation of Israel, Leu. 4. 15. and chargeth the Priests with Ignorance, and forsaking his way, frequently by the Prophets.  
But alas! where was the Infallibility of the Highpriest, etc. when our blessed Saviour was condemned by him, and by this very Court of the Sanhedrin: And when Israel had been for a long season, without the true God, without a 
2 Cr. 15. 3.  Teaching Priest, and without Law. Vid. Dr. Still. p. 239, etc.  
2. It is also argued, from that Example of 
Ar. 2. Example N. T.  the Apostles under the New Testament; that they were assisted with an Infallible Spirit, and there is the same reason for the Pope. But this Ans. is to dispose God's Gifts and Wisdom by our own Reason: The Apostles Infallibility attested with Miracles, was necessary to the first Plantation and State of the Church; and it no more followeth, that therefore the succeeding Bishops must be infallible, because they were so; than that because Moses wrought miracles for the confirmation of the Law, therefore the Sanhedrin should work Miracles for the ordinary Government of Israel, according to the Law.  
Besides, what reason can be given, why this privilege of Infallibility should be entailed upon the Bishops of Rome more than other Bishops, who succeeded the Infallible Apostles, as well as the Pope? What ground hath he to claim it more than they? Or if they have all an interest in it, what becomes of the Argument that the Pope is the universal Head and Governor of the Church, because he is Infallible?   

SECT. TWO  
Arg. 2. From the Promises of Infallibility.  
GOd hath promised that his Church shall be preserved; which Promise engageth his Infallible 
Ar. 2.  Assistance. Therefore the Church by that assistance is always Infallible: To this mighty purpose A. C. reasons with A. B. Laud.  
God will certainly and Infallibly have a Church, therefore that Church shall not only Ans. be, but be Infallible in all her decrees de fide: Is not this strong Reason? God is Infallible, therefore his Church is so; a Church shall continue, therefore it shall not Err?  
Pray what Security doth the promise of the Church's Perpetuity, or Infallibility as to Fundamentals, give to any single Person or particular Church, that they shall continue in the Christian Faith, more than it did to seven Churches in Asia? And where are they now?  
The Argument will conclude as well: God hath promised his Church shall ever exist upon Earth; therefore Christians, of which the Church consists, shall never die, as well as never fall away: For if the Promise be made to the Present Church in the Romanists sense, it is made to the Individuals, that make the Church. 2. And that every particular Christian, as well as every particular Church, having an equal & common interest in the promise of assistance, is infallible.  
If we should grant the Universal Church to be Infallible; not only as to her Perpetuity but her Testimony, which the Argument reacheth not; yet it rests to be proved, that the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church; and than that the Pope is the Church of Rome in the same sense that the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, and that in the same consideration, as the Catholic Church is Infallible.  
But if we consider the particular Promises, the Argument thence is so wide and inconclusive, that one would think no considerate man could be abused by it.  
These promises are such as concern the Apostles and Church in general; or such as are pretended 
General to Apostles.  to dignify St. Peter in special, and above the rest.  
Such as concern the Apostles and the Church 
Luc. 10. 16. Math. 28. 20.  in general are these three. He that heareth you heareth me, &c: True; while you teach me, that is my Doctrine. I am with you always to the end of the world: True; while you are faithful, and teach whatsoever I command. The Comforter, 
Joh. 14. 16.  the Holy Ghost, shall abide with you for ever: True also, while you love me, and keep my Commandments. As the Condition is just before the Promise.  
Now what are these Texts to the Pope or the Church of Rome in special? They certainly that plead the Promise, should not neglect the duty; it were well if that was thought on.  
The Pope's special Friends insist on other promises more peculiarly designed; as they would have them for St. Peter's Prerogative: They are 
St. Peter.  these.  
1. The First is Math. 16. 18. Thou art Peter, 
Text.  and upon this Rock will I build my Church; and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.  
But what is this to St. Peter's Infallibility? 
An.  The Church shall not be overthrown, therefore St. Peter is Infallible: What's this to the Pope's Infallibility? The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, therefore the Pope is Infallible? Can God find no other way to preserve the Church, but St. Peter's Infallibility, and the Pope's Infallibility?  
Is this promise made to secure the Church under St. Peter and his Successors, absolutely from all error? How came St. Peter himself to 
Act. 1. 6.  fall then, by denying his Master; and to err about the Temporal Kingdom of Christ? And Popes to be Blasphemers, Heretical, Atheistical? How came so many particular Churches, that were under the Apostolic Chair (if all were so at first) to miscarry, as those first Churches in Asia did?  
But whatever is here promised to St. Peter, is nothing to the Pope; unless the Pope be indeed St. Peter's Successor, and sit in his Chair; the great point reserved for the last Refuge, and shall there at large be examined.  
The next Promise is, Joh. 21. Peter, feed my 
Text. 2.  Sheep; therefore the Pope is Infallible: But must not others feed Christ's Sheep; and are they Infallible too? 'Tis acutely said, that Peter was to feed the Sheep as ordinary Pastor, the rest of the Apostles as extraordinary Ambassadors. But doth this Text say so, or any other Text? How came it to pass, that the ordinary Pastor should be greater than the extraordinary Ambassadors? How is it proved, that this power of Feeding is Infallible, only as in St. Peter? or as such, is transmitted to St. Peter's Successor in a more peculiar manner, than to the Successors of other Apostles? And that the Pope is this Successor? this must be considered hereafter, their proof is not yet ready.  
Another is Luke 22. 31. Simon, Simon, Satan 
Text. 3.  hath desired to winnow thee, but I have prayed that thy Faith fail not: (Viz. that thou perish not in Apostasy) not that thou be absolutely secured from error, nor thy pretended Successors: And had not others the Prayer of Christ also? Joh. 17. even all that should believe on him? In a word, what is this to the Pope, that Peter should not utterly miscarry in the High-Priests Hall? Unless it fignifie that the Pope may err grievously as St. Peter did, though he hath no more the security of not failing in the Faith, than every ordinary Christian hath.  
But this trifling with holy Scripture provokes Rebuke; and deserves no answer.  
If any desire further satisfaction, either upon these, or other like Scriptures urged for the 
P. 254. etc.  Popes or the Church's Infallibility; let them peruse Dr. Stillingfleet in defence of my Lord of Canterbury, and Mr. Pool's Treatise written on purpose upon this Subject.    

CHAP. XVI.  
II. Arg. For Infallibility, viz. Tradition. Concessions 4. Propositions 3. Arguments. Objections Answered.  
THat the difference may not seem wider than indeed it is, we shall make way for our discussion of this Argument by a few, but considerable Concessions.  
1. We yield that Tradition truly Catholic is Apostolical. Truly Catholic, that is in all the three known Conditions, ab omnibus, semper, & ubique: For we cannot imagine that any thing should be believed or practised by all Learned Christians at all times and in all places, as a point of Christian Religion, that was not received as such either from Christ himself or his Apostles.  
2. We grant, that Tradition hath been and ever will be both useful and necessary for the delivering down to the Faith of the Church, in all succeeding Ages, both the Canon of the Scripture and the Fundamentals of the Christian Religion: The necessity hereof ariseth from the distance of Time and Place; and must be supposed, upon the Succession of Generations in the Church, after the removal of the first Preachers and Writers, and consequently the first deliverers thereof.  
3. We need not stick to agree, that Tradition is Infallible, (if we abuse not the term too rigidly) in conveying and preserving the substance of Religion, which I was much inclined to believe before; and am now much encouraged to express, after I had read the learned and ingenious book of the Several ways of resolving Faith; (he concludes p. 129.) the Necessaries to Salvation should ever fail to be practically transmitted from Generation to Generation, is alike impossible; as that multitudes of People should not in every Age be truly desirous of their own, and their Posterities everlasting happiness; seeing it is a thing both so easy to be done, and so necessary to Salvation. By the substance of Christian Religion, I mean the Credenda and the Agenda, or as he doth, the Creed, the Lords Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Two Sacraments.  
4. We may, for aught I see to the contrary, Gratify the Author of Rushworth's Dialogues, and the Abettors of that late new found Tradition of the present Church of Rome: For every Church of Christ, as such, hath possession of the substance of Christian Religion, and without it cannot be a Church: And I am sure by this Concession, the great Argument for Tradition is allowed; and we are so far agreed in a main point.  
I am troubled we must now differ; but our Propositions shall be such, as none that have weighed Antiquity can well doubt of them.  
We affirm, that whatsoever matter of Faith 
1 Prop.  or Practice, is not derived from the first hands by Tradition Catholic, as explained in the first Concession, is not necessary to Salvation: For 'tis agreed, if it were, it would have been preserved by Tradition.  
But, it is against all Sense, to believe, that 
2 Prop.  Tradition is sufficient to secure us from all Additions to the first Faith; or Additions and Alterations, in Ceremonies and Worship, or any thing that is not necessary to Salvation: and herein, indeed, lies the Controversy: for if Midwives, Nurses, Parents and Tutors have, as it is said, Tradition in their hands; and hold themselves obliged not to poison little Babes as soon as they can receive Instructions accordingly; and Tradition could not possibly admit or deliver any thing but what is necessary to salvation; it were not possible for any Error to obtain in the Church, or with any one Party, or even Member of it; but truth would be equally Catholic with Tradition: and then, Charity will not suffer us to believe, that the Jews, that kept the Law, should be guilty of any vain Traditions, contrary to our Saviour's Reproofs; or that there should be any such Parties as Hugonites and Protestants in the World; or such various Sects in the Church of Rome itself; or so many Successive Additions to the Faith and Worship of that Church, as none may have the confidence to deny, have happened.  
Vincentius speaks very truly (saith Rigaltius) 
Observe. in Cyp. p. 147.  and prudently, if nothing were delivered by our Ancestors, but what they had from the Apostles; but under the pretence of our Ancestors, silly or counterfeit things may by Fools or Knaves be delivered us, for Apostolical Traditions: and we add, by zealously superstitious men; or by men tempted (as is evident they were about the time of Easter and Rebaptisation in the beginning) to pretend Tradition to defend their Opinions when put to it in Controversy.  
It further follows, that the Infallibility of 
3 Prop.  the Pope, or Court of Rome, or Church, in Matters of Faith, is no necessary Point of Faith; because it is not delivered down to us, as such, by lawful, i. e. Catholic Tradition: this is the Point.  
Now here we justly except against the Testimony of the present Oral Tradition of the Roman Church, or Tradition reversed; because it cannot secure us against additions to the Faith: It is no evidence that Tradition was always the same in that point; it cannot bear against all Authentic History to the contrary.  
That Popes, and Councils, and Fathers, and the Church too, have erred in their belief and practice, is past all doubt, by that one instance of the Communion of Infants for some hundred of Years together; which is otherwise determined by the Council of Trent.  
Yea, that there was no such Tradition of the Pope's, or the Church of Rome's Infallibility in ancient times, is as manifest, by the oppositions betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches; which could not consist with such Tradition or belief of it.  
And for the Church of England; had she owned such Tradition, her ancient Bishops would not have contended with and rejected his Messenger, St. Austin and his Propositions together.  
Neither can any considering man imagine, that the Tradition of the Pope's Infallibility is Catholic, or generally received and believed in the Church of Rome at this day: 'Tis well known, many of their eminent men renounce it; and indeed the Pope himself doth not believe it, or he does not believe that all his Doctors believe it: For if he does believe both, why does he not make use of his Talon, and put an end to all the scandalous broils and Ruptures occasioned by the Doctrinal differences and Disputes, among the several factions of his Church; and have peace within his own Borders? But this admits no Answer.  
'Tis said by the Romanist, that Universal Traditions are recorded in the Fathers of every succeeding Age; and 'tis reasonably spoken. It behoves him as to the present point, to show us in some good Authors, in every age since the Apostles, this Tradition for Infallibility; then indeed he hath done something which ought to be done: But till that be done, we must adhere; that there is no such ground of the Pope's Authority over us as his Infallibility, proved by Scripture or Tradition.  
This proof, I think was never yet so much as undertaken, and may be expected: Hoc opus est. 'Tis observed by Dr. Stillingfleet, that there is but one eminent place in Antiquity produced on their side in the behalf of Traditions; and that is out of St. Basil de sp. sanc. ad Amphilo: But the Book, with just reason, is suspected. Three of the Traditions mentioned in the place, are the Consecration of the Person to be Baptised, the standing at the Prayers until Pentecost; and above all, the Trine Immersion in Baptism. The two first of these, are not acknowledged by the present Church of Rome; and the last, by the very Council of Trent, is pronounced not to be of Apostolical Tradition.  
Here is not one word touching any Tradition for the Infallibility of the Church; but indeed much reason against it: For either the present Church at that time, was actually deceived, and took that to be Apostolical which was not so; or the present Church in the Council of Trent, took that not to be Apostolical which indeed was so, and was actually deceived in her Judgement and determination to the contrary: For those words of that Author, (parem vim habent ad pietatem) unwritten Traditions have equal force to stir up Piety with the written word, put the dilemma beyond exception, as those known words of 
Hom. 29. de tri. To. 1.  the true Basil. [That it is a manifest falling from the Faith, and an Argument of Arrogancy, either to reject any point of those things which are written, or to bring in any of those things which are not written] make it justly suspicious, that the Book extolling unwritten Traditions was none of his.  
Bellarmine's three Arguments. [1. The Fathers say the sentence of general Councils admits of no Appeal. 2. Such as submit not to them are Heretics. 3. Such Sentence is Divine.] prove their Authority but not their Infallibility; and the force of such Sentence is from Scripture, 
Syst. fid. 1. c. 26. Nu. 2.  or Reason, or Miracles, or approbation of the whole Church; as Occam, and Santa Clara after St. Augustine affirm. Therefore the Fathers generally allow us liberty of examination; and derogate Faith from all men beside the Apostles.   

CHAP. XVII.  
Arg. III For Infallibility from Reason. 3 Reasons answered. Point Argued. Retorted.  
'TIs Confessed, that though Scripture and Tradition prove it not; yet if there be indeed any sound Reason (which is a kind of divine Law) for the Pope's Infallibility, that will go a great way. But it doubtless aught to be very clear and strong reason, that is able to carry it in so great a point, without either Scripture or Tradition: Let us hearken.  
Perhaps we have Tradition offering its Service 
R. 1.  to Reason in another form; and the Argument may stand thus: Tradition is Infallible, but the Pope in the Church of Rome is the Keeper of Tradition; therefore thereby the Pope is Infallible.  
This Argument indeed, hath countenance Ans. from Antiquity: For Iraeneus adviseth his Adversaries, who pretended Tradition, to go to Rome; and there they might know what was true and Apostolical Tradition, for there it was preserved.  
But how could that father assure us, that Rome would always be a faithful preserver of true Apostolical Tradition?  
What security could he give to after Ages, against innovations and additions to Tradition itself in the Church of Rome?  
Remember what hath been said, that Tradition can be thought infallible, only in the substantials of Religion; and consequently cannot protect, either it self or the Church, from additional errors in other things.  
Besides, in the Substantials of Religion, the Protestant Churches have the benefit of Tradition as well as the Church of Rome; and if that carry Infallibility with it, our Church is infallible as well as the Church of Rome; and consequently thereby hath a Right to govern its self.  
But the great Reason always gloried in, is Reas. 2 from the Wisdom and Prudence of our blessed Saviour; who had he not intended to afford the assistance of Infallibility to the succeeding Pastors of his Church, to lead them when assembled in a general Council, he had built his Church upon the S●nd; as A. C. argues with his Grace of Canterbury.  
Admit the necessity of this Assistance to the Ans. Pastors of the Church; what is this to prove the government of the Church in the Pope, because of his Infallibility?  
But if our Saviour should not have assured us that he will thus assist his Church in all Ages, as you cannot show; how do you know he hath intended it? and how unchristian is your Reason, to impeach your Saviour with the inference of Folly; and, as at other times, with Ignorance and imposture, if he hath not?  
Take heed, hath not our Saviour built his Church upon the Foundation of the Prophets and Apostles? and is this Sand in the Roman Sense? Is not Christ himself the chief Cornerstone? Is he Sand too? Doth not he that keepeth his Say build upon a Rock, as firm as the decrees of a general Council?  
Where hath our Saviour given us the least intimation, that inherent Infallibility is the only Rock to secure the Church from Error? Is there not sufficient ground to rely on the Doctrine of Christ, had there never been a general Council? What? was the Church built upon the Sand only, before the Council of Nice? why did it not then fall in the Storms of Persecution?  
Did not the Apostles commit the doctrine of Christ to writing? Is not Tradition the great mean of delivering the Scriptures, and all things needful to Salvation, by your own Arguments? may not the latter be done by Nurses and Tutors, etc. without a general Council? and if there be lesser differences in the Church, is the Foundation subverted presently? and may not those lesser differences among Christians be healed with Argument, or at least quieted; and the peace of the Church preserved by the decrees of Councils, without Infallibility? how unreasonable is it, to deny it?  
We grant, saith Doctor Stillingfleet, Infallibility 
P. 259.  in the Foundation of Faith: we declare the owning of that Infallibility is that, which makes men Christians, (the body of whom we call the Church) we further grant, that Christ hath left in that Church sufficient means for the preservation of it in Truth and Unity: but we cannot discern, either in Scripture, Antiquity or Reason, that such Infallibility, is necessary for the Church's preservation, by the Councils of succeeding Pastors; much less, a living and standing Infallible Judge, as the Head of the Church.  
But they say, the Infinite Dissensions and Divisions Object. 
R. 3.  amongst those that deny it, make this necessary.  
How is it in the Roman Church? are there Answ. no Divisions there? or is the sole Remedy Ineffectual? yea, are there no differences there, about Infallibility itself? the Manner and Subject of it? are not many of yourselves, ashamed, and weary of it? do not some of you deny it, and set up Tradition, in stead of it? was not the Apostle too blame, to say, there must be Heresies or Divisions among you, and not to tell them, there must be an Infallible Judge among you, and no Heresies? but now men are wiser, and of another mind.  
To conclude; whether we regard the Truth or Unity of the Church; both Reason and Sense assures us that this Infallibility signifies nothing: for, as to Truth, 'tis impossible men should give up their Faith and Conscience, and inward apprehension of things, to the Sentence of any one man, or all the men in the World, against their own Reason; and for Unity, there is no colour or shadow of pretence against it; but that the Authority of Ecclesiastical Government, can preserve it, as well without, as with Infallibility.  
But if there be any Sense in the Argument, methinks, 'tis better thus: the Head and Governor of the Christian Church, must of necessity be Infallible: but the Pope is not Infallible, either by Scripture, Tradition, or Reason; therefore the Pope is not the Head and Governor of the Christian Church.   

CHAP. XVIII.  
Of the Pope's Universal Pastorship; its Right; divine or humane; this Civil, or Ecclesiastical; all examined; Constantine; King John; Justinian; Phocas, &c.  
WE have found some flaws in the pretended Title of the Pope; as our Converter, Patriarch, Possessor; and as the Subject of Infallibility: his last and greatest Argument is his Universal Pastorship: and indeed, if it be proved that he is the Pastor of the whole Church of Christ on Earth; he is ours also: and we cannot withdraw our obedience from him, without the guilt of that which is charged upon us, viz. Schism; (if his Commands be justifiable) but if the proof of this fail also, we are acquitted.  
This Right of the Pope's Universal Pastorship, is divine or humane, (if at all;) both are pretended, and are to be examined.  
The Bishop of Chalcedon is very indifferent and reasonable as to the Original: if the Right be granted, 'tis not the fide, to believe whether it come from God or no.  
If the Pope be Universal Pastor Jure humano only; his Title is, either from Civil or from Ecclesiastical Power; and lest we should err Fundamentally we shall consider the pretences from both.  
If it be said, that the Civil Power hath conferred this honour upon the Pope: may it not be questioned, whether the Civil Powers of the World extend so far, as either, to dispose of the Government of the Church; or to subject all the Churches under one Pastor.  
However, de facto, when was this done? when did the Kings of England, in Conjunction with the Rulers of the whole World, make such a Grant to the Pope?  
I think the World hath been ashamed of the 
Const. donat.  Donation of Constantine long agone; yet, that no shadow may remain unscattered, we shall briefly take an account of it.  
They say Constantine, the third day after he was baptised, left all the West part of the Empire to Pope Sylvester; and went himself to dwell at Constantinople; and gave the whole Imperial and Civil Dominion of Rome, and all the Western Kingdoms, to the Pope and his Successors for ever.  
A large Boon indeed: this looks, as if it was intended that the Pope should be an Emperor; but who makes him Universal Pastor? and who ever since hath bequeathed the Eastern World to him, either as Pastor or Emperor? for, it should seem, that part, Constantine then kept for himself.  
But Mr. Harding throws off all these little Cavils; and with sufficient Evidence out of Math. Hieromonachus, a Greek Author, shows the very Words of the Decree, which carry it for the Pope, as well in Ecclesiastical as Civil Advantages: they are these: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. We decree, and give in charge to all Lords, and to the Senate of our Empire, that the Bishop of Rome, and Successor of Saint Peter, chief of the Apostles, have Authority and Power in all the World; greater than that of the Empire; that he have more honour than the Emperor; and that he be Head of the four Patriarchal Seats; and that matters of Faith be by him determined: this is the Charter, whereby some think the Pope hath Power (saith 
De potest. Pap. c. 19  Harveus) as Lord of the whole World, to set up and pull down Kings.  
'Tis confessed, this Grant is not pleaded, lately, with any Confidence. Indeed Bishop Jewel did check it early, when he shown Harding; the wisest and best among the Papists have openly disproved it: such as Platina, Cusanus, Petavius, Laurent. Valla, Antoninus Florentinus, and a great many more.  
Cardinal Cusanus hath these words: Donationem Constantini dilligenter expendens, etc. Carefully weighing this Grant of Constantine even 
Conc. Cath. lib. 3. c. 2.  in the very penning thereof, I find manifest Arguments of Forgery and Falsehood.  
'Tis not found in the Register of Gratian; that is, in the allowed Original Text; though, it be indeed in the Palea of some Books; yet that Palea is not read in the Schools: and of it Pope Pius himself said, dicta Palea [Constantinus] 
Pius. 2. dial.  falsa est; and inveighs against the Canonists that dispute an valuerit id, quod nunquam fuit: and those that speak most favourably of it, confess, that it is as true, that [Vox Angelorum Audita est,] that, at the same time, the voice of Angels was heard in the Air, saying, hodie venenum effusum est in Ecclesiam.  
Much more to the discountenance of this 
P. 537, 538. 539.  vain Story you have in Bishop Jewel's Defence; which to my observation was never since answered; to him therefore I refer my Reader.  
But, alas, if Constantine had made such a Grant; Pope Pipus, tells us it was a question among the very Canonists an valuerit? and the whole World, besides, must judge the Grant void in itself, especially after Constantine's time.  
Had Satan's Grant been good to our Saviour, if he had fallen down and worshipped him? no more had Constantine's; pardon the comparison: for in other things, he shown great and worthy zeal, for the flourishing Grandeur of the Church of Christ; though, by this he had, as was said, given nothing but poison to it: for the Empire of the World and the Universal Pastorship of the Church, was not Constantine's to give to the Pope and his Successors for ever. Arg. 2 
King John.   
But it is urged, nearer home, that King John delivered up his Crown to the Pope; and received it again, as his Gift.  
'Tis true; but this Act of present fear, could not be construed a Grant of Right to the Pope; if King John gave away any thing, it was neither the Power of making Laws for England; nor the exercise of any Jurisdiction in England, that he had not before; for he only acknowledged (unworthily) the Pope's Power; but pretended not to give him such Power, to confer the Crown for ever; much less to make him Supreme Disposer of our English Church.  
But if our Constitution be considered, how inconsiderable an Argument is this? our Kings cannot give away the Power of the Crown during their own times, without an Act of Parliament: the King and Parliament together, cannot dispose of any thing inherent to the Crown of England, without a Power of Resumption; or to the prejudice of Succeeding Kings: besides, no King of England ever did, (not King John himself) either with, or without his Parliament, by any Solemn Public Act transfer the Government of this Church to the Bishop of Rome; or so much as Recognize it to be in Him before Henry the Eighth; and what John did, 
Harpf. ad 5. Re. 14. c. 5.  was protested against by the Three States, then in Parliament.  
And although Queen Mary, since, made a higher acknowledgement of his Holiness, than ever we read was done here before; yet 'tis evident, she gave him rather the Compliment of the Title of that uncertain Word (Supreme Head) than any real Power; as we observed before; and yet her New Act to that purpose, was endured to remain in force, but a very short time, about four or five years.  
But although neither Constantine, for the 
Justinian.  whole World; nor King John for England, did or could devise the Supremacy to the Pope; 'tis confessed, the Emperor Justinian endeavoured somewhat that looked like it.  
Justinian was a great friend of the Roman Bishop: 
Cod. inter Claras.  he saith, Properamus honorem & authoritatem crescere sedis vestrae, we labour to subject and unite all the Eastern Priests to the See of your Holiness.  
But this is a plain demonstration that the See of Rome did not extend to the East, near six hundred years after Christ; otherwise that would have been no addition of honour or Authority to it; neither would Justinian have endeavoured what was done before; as it doth not appear that he afterwards effected it.  
Therefore the Title that he then gave the Pope [of the Chief and Head of all the Churches] must carry a qualified sense; and was only a Title of honour befitting the Bishop of the Chief and most eminent Church, as the Roman Church then was: (and indeed Justinian was a Courtier; and styles the Bishop of Contantinople universal Patriarch too) or at most can only signify, that his intentions were to raise the Pope to the chief Power over the whole Church; which, as was said before, he had not yet obtained.  
This is all that can be inferred, if these Epistles betwixt the Emperor and the Pope be not forged; as Learned Papists suspect, because in 
Greg. Holiand. & Azo.  the eldest and allowed Books, they are not to be found.  
However, if Justinian did design any thing in favour of the Pope, it was only the subjecting of the Clergy to him as an Ecclesiastical Ruler; and yet that no farther, than might well enough consist with the Supremacy of the Empire, in causes Ecclesiastical as well as Civil; which memento spoils all the argument.  
For we find the same Justinian under this imperial stile, We command the most holy Arch-Bishops and Patriarches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Authent. Colla. 1.  
We find him making Laws upon Monks, Priests, Bishops, and all kind of Churchmen, to enforce them to their duty.  
We find him putting forth his Power and Authority for the sanction of the Canons of Councils; and making them to have the force of Laws.  
We find him punishing the Clergy, and the Popes themselves; yea 'tis well known and confessed by Romanists, that he deprived two Popes, Sylverius and Vigilius: Indeed Mr. Harding saith, that was done by Theodora the Empress; but it is otherwise recorded in their own Pontifical; the Emperor demanded of Belsarius what he had done with the Romans, and how he had deposed Sylverius, and placed Vigilius in his stead? Upon 
Conc. To. 2. in v. Vigil.  his answer, both the Emperor and Empress gave him thanks: Now it is a Rule in Law, Rati habito retrotrabitur, & mandato comparatur.  
Zaberel declares it to be Law, that the Pope, 
De Schis. & Conci.  in any notorious crime, may be accused before the Emperor; and the Emperor may require of the Pope an account of his Faith: And the Emperor ought to proceed, saith Harvy, against 
De Potes. Pap. c. 13.  the Pope, upon the request of the Cardinals.  
And it was the judgement of the same Justinian himself, that there is no kind of thing but 
Con. Const. 5. Act. 1.  it may be thoroughly examined by the Emperor: For he hath a principality from God over all men; the Clergy as well as Laity.  
But his erecting of Justiniana prima, and giving the Bishop, Locum Apostolicae sedis; to which all the Provinces should make their last Appeal, 
Gothop. Nou. 13. c. 3. Nou. 11.  whereby, as Nicephorus affirms, the Emperor made it a free City, a Head to itself; with full power independent from all others: And as it is in the imperial constitutions; the Primate thereof should have all power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, the Supreme Priesthood, Supreme Honour and Dignity. This is such an instance, both of Justinian's Judgement and Power, contrary to the Pope's pretensions of Supremacy, (as granted or acknowledged by the Emperor Justinian) that all other Arguments of it are ex abundanti; and there is no great need of subjoyning that other great and like instance of his restoring Carthage to its primacy after the Vandals were driven out; and annexing two new Provinces, that were not so before, to its jurisdiction, without the proviso of submitting itself to Rome; though before Carthage had ever refused to do it.  
Phocas the Emperor and Pope Boniface, no doubt, understood one another; and were well enough agreed upon the point: But we shall never yield that these two did legally represent the Church and the World; or that the grant of the one, and the greedy acceptance on the other part, could bind all Christians and all mankind, in subjection to his Holiness' Chair for ever.  
Valentinian said, all Antiquity hath given the principality of Priesthood to the Bishop of Rome: But no Antiquity ever gave him a principality of Power; no doubt he, as well as the other Emperors, kept the Political Supremacy in his own hands.  
Charles the Great might compliment Adrian, and call him universal Pope; and say he gave St. Wilehade a Bishopric at his command: But he kept the power of convocating Synods every year, and sat in them as a Judge himself. Auditor & arbiter adfui: he made Ecclesiastical Decrees in his own Name, to whom this very Pope— acquitted all claim in the Election of succeeding Popes for ever. A great deal more in answer to both these, you have in Archbishop Bramhall. p. 235, 236. and King James' defence. p. 50. etc.   

CHAP. XIX.  
The Popes pretended Ecclesiastical Right. Not by General Councils. 8 First. To which Sworn. Justi. Sanction. Can. Apost. allowed by C. Nice and Ephesus.  
THough it seem below his Holiness' present grandeur to ground his Right upon the Civil Power, especially when that fails him; yet methinks the jus Ecclesiasticum, is not at all unbecoming his pretences, who is sworn to govern the Church according to the Canons, as they say the Pope is.  
If it be pleaded, that the Canons of the Fathers do invest the Pope with plenary Power over all Churches: And if it could be proved too; yet one thing more remains to be proved, to subject the Church of England to that his power, viz. that the Canon Law is binding and of force in England as such, or without our own consent or allowance: And 'tis impossible this should be proved, while our Kings are Supreme; and the constitution of the Kingdom stands as it hath always stood.  
However, we decline not the examination of the plea, viz. that the Pope's Supremacy over the whole Church is granted by the Canons of Councils, viz. general: But when this is said, it is but reasonable to demand which? or in what Canons?  
It is said, the Pope receives his Office with an Oath, to observe the Canons of the eight first general Councils; in which of these is the grant to be found? Sure so great a conveyance should be very legible and Intelligible.  
We find it very plain, that in some of those Councils, and those the most ancient; this Power is expressly denied him, and that upon such reason, as is eternal: and might justly and effectually prevent any such grant or usurpation of such power for ever; if future Grants were to be just and reasonable, or future Popes were to be governed by Right or Equity; by the Canons of the Fathers, or fidelity to the Church, to God or their own solemn Oaths at their Inaugurations.  
But we are prepared for the examination of the Councils in this matter, by a very strong presumption: That seeing Justinian made the Canons to have the force of Laws, and he had ever showed himself so careful to maintain the Rights of the Empire in all causes, as well as over all persons, Ecclesiastical; & even Popes themselves; 'tis not credible that he would suffer any thing in those Canons to pass into the body of the Laws, that should be agreeable to the pretended donation of Constantine; or to the prejudice of the Emperor's said Supremacy; and consequently, not much in favour of the Supremacy claimed by later Popes.  
Justinian's Sanction extended to the four 
Justin. Sanction of four first.  great Councils, Nic. Constant. Ephes. 1. and Chalcedon; in these Words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Sancimus Vicem Legum obtinere Sanctos Ecclesiasticos Canon's, qui à Sanctis quatuor Conciliis constituti sunt & confirmati; hoc est Niceno, etc.— praedictorum enim Consiliorum dogmata, sicut divinas Scripturas, accipimus, & Canon's sicut Leges observamus.  
Perhaps, it may be doubted, why he did not 
Apostles▪ Canons not mention. reason.  confirm those Canons which were then well known by the Title of the Canons of the Apostles: whether, because their Authority was suspected, especially many of them; or, because 
Vid. Bin. To. 1. p. 17. a.  they were not made by a truly General Council; or, because they were Confirmed in and with the Council of Nice and Ephesus, etc. or lastly, whether, because the first fifty had before, a greater Sanction from the general Reception of the whole 
Ibid.  Church; or the greater Authority of the Sacred Names of the Authors, the Apostles, or Apostolical men; I venture not to declare my opinion.  
But truly, there seems something considerable for the later; for that the Council of Nice do not pretend to confirm the Apostles Canons, but their own, by the Quotation of them; taking Authority from them, as Laws, founded in the Church before to build their own and all future Canons and Decrees of Councils upon, in such matters as were found there determined.  
A great Instance of the probability of this Conjecture we have, full to our present purpose given us by Binius, Nicena Synodus Can. 6. 
Bin. To. 1. p. 20.  etc. the Nicene and Ephesine Synods followed these Canons of the Apostles, appointing that every Bishop acknowledge suum primum their Chief and Metropolitan, 
Can. Ap. allowed by C. Nice and Ephesus.  and do nothing without their own Diocese: but rather, the Bishop of Alexandria; according to the Canons (understand saith Binius those 35, 36 of the Apostles) must govern the Churches of Egypt; the Bishop of the East, the Eastern Churches: the Ephesine Synod, also saith, it is besides the Canons of the Apostles, that the Bishop of Antioch should ordain in the Provinces of Cyprus, etc.  
Hence, it is plain, that according to Apostles Canons, interpreted and allowed as Authentic, so far at least, by the Synods of Nice and Ephesus, the Metropolitan was Primate or Chief oyer the Churches within his Provinces; and, that he, as such (exclusive of all Foreign Superior Power) was to govern and ordain, within his own Provinces; not consonant to, but directly against the pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.  
But let us consult the Canons to which Binius refers, and the matter is plainer.  

SECT. I.  
Can. Apostol.  
THere is nothing in the Canons of the Apostles to our purpose, but what we find in Can. 35, 36. or in the Reddition, as Binius gives it, Can. 33 and 34.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. let the Bishops of 
35, 33.  every Nation know, or they ought to know, who among them is accounted (or is) chief; and esteem him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut caput; and do nothing difficult (aut magni momenti) praeter ejus Conscientiam, vel Sententiam: but, what if the matter were too hard for the Primate; is no direction given to go to the Infallible Chair at Rome? here, was indeed a proper place for it, but not a word of that.  
In the 36 alias 34. it is added, that a Bishop should not dare to ordain any, beyond the bounds of his own Jurisdiction: but neither of these Canons concern the Pope; unless they signify, that the Pope is not Head of all Churches, and hath not power in any place, but within the Diocese of Rome: or, that Binius was not faithful in leaving out the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or Head, in his Note upon these Canons.   

SECT. II.  
Concil. Nicen. Gen. 1. Bellar. Evasion.  
WE find nothing in the true Canons of the Nicene Synod, that looks our way, except Can. 6. and 7. They are thus; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Let ancient Custom be kept, through 
Can. 6.  Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis; so, as the Bishop of Alexandria may have power over all these, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because also the like Custom is for the Bishop of the City of Rome: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ as likewise at Antioch and other Provinces, let the Privileges be kept in their own Churches: but suppose differences arise; is no Liberty or Remedy provided, by going to Rome? no more, than if differences arise in the Roman Church, they may have Remedy from any other; a Remedy is indeed provided by the Canon; Sin duo aut tres, & c. ●f two or three do contradict, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. not go to Rome; but obtineat Sententia plurimorum, let the major Vote carry it.  
In the seventh Canon, Custom and Tradition 
Can. 7.  both, are the Grounds upon which the Council confirmed the like privilege of the Church of Jerusalem; because Custom and Ancient Tradition, ut Aeliae Episcopus honoretur, let him have have the consequence of Honour, with a Salvo, for the proper Dignity of the Metropolis; but not a word of Rome.  
Note, that in Can. 6. the Power of the Alexandrian Bishop is grounded upon Ancient Custom (Antiqua consuetudo servetur) and not upon the Concession of the Roman Bishop; as Berlarmine would force it; and that the like manner or Custom of Rome, is but another Example of the same thing, as Antioch was and the rest of the Provinces; but this ungrammatical and illogical Evasion was put off before.   

SECT. III.  
Concil. Constantinop. Gen. 2. An. 381.  
THe next Council, admired by Justinian, as one of the Gospels, is that Famous Council of Constantinople adorned with 150 Fathers. Hath this made any better provision for the Pope's Supremacy? certainly no: for the very 
Can. 1. Bin. p. 660. Alter. Editio. Bin. p. 664. Can. 2.  first Canon, chargeth us not to despise the Faith of the 318 Fathers in the Synod of Nice; which ought to be held firm and Inviolate.  
The Second Canon forbids the confusion of Dioceses; and therefore enjoins (Secundum Regulas constitutas, i. e.) the Rules of the Apostles, and Nicene Fathers to be kept: the Bishop of Alexandria must govern them in Egypt only; and so the rest, as are there mentioned more particularly, than in Nicene Canons.  
In the Third, is reinforced the Canon of the 
Can. 3.  former Council against Ordinations by Bishops out of their own Jurisdictions; and adds this Reason, that casts no countenance upon any Foreign Jurisdiction; 'tis manifest that the proper Provincial Synod ought to administer and govern all things, per quasque singulas Provincias, within their peculiar Provinces; secundum ea quae sunt in Nicaea definita.  
This third Canon honours the Bishop of Constantinople, next after the Bishop of Rome; as Binius renders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But Binius is very angry that such a Canon is found there, and urgeth many reasons against it; and therefore 
Bin. To. 1. 672.  we shall conclude, that as none of the rest, so neither doth this Canon, confer the universal government of the Church upon the Bishop of Rome.   

SECT. iv  
Concil. Ephesin. Gen. 3. An. Christi 431.  
THe third general Council, whose Canons Justinian passed into Laws, is that of Ephesus, and this so far abhors from the grant, that it is a plain and zealous contradicter of the Pope's pretensions.  
In Act the seventh, 'tis agreed against the invasion of the Bishop of Antioch, that the Cyprian Prelates shall hold their Rights untouched and unviolated, according to the Canons of the holy Fathers (before mentioned) and the ancient custom, ordaining their own Bishops; and let the same be observed in other Dioceses, and in all Provinces, that no Bishop occupy another Province, (or subject it by force) which formerly and from the beginning, was not under his power or his Predecessors: Or if he have done so let him restore it, that the Canons of the Fathers be not slighted, nor Pride creep into the Church— nor Christian Liberty be lost. Therefore it hath pleased the holy Synod, that every Province enjoy its Rights and Customs unviolated, which it had from the beginning, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, twice repeated, whereby we are to learn a very great Rule; that the bounds of primacies were settled very early, before this Council or any other general Council, before this even at the beginning: and that those bounds ought to be observed to the end, according to the Canons of the Fathers and ancient custom: and consequently, that such as are invaders of others Rights, are bound to make restitution. Now 'tis evident, we were a free Province in England in the beginning, and when St. Augustine came from Rome to invade our Liberties; 'tis evident this Council gave the Pope no power or privilege to invade us: Yea, that what power the Pope got over us in after times, was a manifest violation of the Rights we had from the beginning; as also of the Canons of the ancient Fathers, in the three mentioned sacred and General Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus; all grounded upon the ancienter Canons called the Apostles.  
Lastly, such Usurpers were always under the obligation of the Canon to restore and quit their encroachments; and consequently the Brittanick Churches were always free to vindicate and reassume their Rights and Liberties, as they worthily did in Hen. 8.   

SECT. V  
Concil. Chalcedon, Gen. 4. a, 451. S. W's Gloss.  
THere is little hope that this Council should afford the Pope any advantage, seeing it gins (Canon's &c.) with the confirmation of all the Canons made by the Fathers in every Synod before that time; and consequently of those that we have found in prejudice to his pretensions among the rest.  
The Ninth Canon enjoins upon differences 
Can. 9  betwixt Clerks, that the Cause be heard before the proper Bishop; betwixt a Bishop and a Clerk, before the Provincial Synod; betwixt a Bishop or Clerk and the Metropolitan, before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the See of the Royal City of Constantinople. To the same effect we read Can. 17. 
Can. 17.  Si quis a suo, etc. If any one be injured by his Bishop or Metropolitan, apud Exarchum seu Primatem Dioceseos, vel Constantinopolitam sedem litiget. But  
Where is any provision made for Remedy at Rome? Indeed that could not consist with the sense of this Synod, who would not endure the Supremacy, or so much as the Superiority of Rome above Constantinople.  
This is evident in Can. 28 the Fathers gave 
Can. 28.  privilege to the See of old Rome; Quod Vrbs illa imperaret, & eadem consideratione, saith the Canon, and for the same reason an hundred and fifty Bishops gave 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, equal Privileges to the Seat of new Rome; recte judicantes, rightly judging that that City that hath the Empire and the Senate, should enjoy equal Privileges with old Royal Rome, etiam in rebus Ecclesiasticis non secus ac illa extolli ac magnifieri, secundam post illam existentem.  
Now to what purpose doth S. W. (to Dr. 
S. W.'s Gloss.  Hammond) trifle on the Canon, and tell us that these Privileges were only Honorary Pomps; when the Canon adds in Ecclesiastical matters, and names one, the Ordination of Bishops and Metropolitans within themselves; as before was declared by the divine Canons. We conclude that this Bar against the Pope's universal Pastorship, will never be removed.  
These are the four first general Councils, honoured by Justinian as the four Gospels; to which he gave the Title and force of Laws. By which all Popes are bound (by solemn Oath) to Rule the Church: Yet we find not one word in any of them, for the Popes pretended universal Pastorship: Yea in every one of them we have found so much and so directly against it; that as they give him no power to govern the whole Church; so by swearing to observe them in such government as the Canons deny him; he swears to a contradiction as well as to the ruin of his own pretensions.  
We conclude from the premises, that now, Argument. seeing all future Councils seem to build upon the Nicene Canons; as that, upon the Apostles; if the Canons of Nice do indeed limit the power of the Bishop of Rome, or suppose it to have limits; if his cause be tried by the Councils, it must needs he desperate.  
Now if those Canons suppose bounds to belong 
Minor.  to every Patriarchate, they suppose the like to Rome: But 'tis plain, that the bounds are given by those Canons to the Bishop of Alexandria; and the reason is, because this is also customary to the Bishop of Rome. Now 'tis not reasonable to say, Alexandria must have limits because Rome hath, if Rome have no limits.  
Pope Nicolas himself so understood it, whatever 
I. E. Pis. 8.  S. W. did: Nicena, etc. the Nicene Synod, saith he, conferred no increase on Rome, but rather took from Rome an example, particularly, what to give to the Church of Alexandria.  
Whence Dr. Hammond strongly concludes, that if at the making of the Nicene Canons Rome had bounds; it must needs follow by the Ephesine Canon, that those bounds must be at all times observed in contradiction to the universal Pastorship of that See.  
The matter is ended, if we compare the other Latin Version of the Nicene Canon, with the Canon as before noted.  
Antiqui moris est ut Vrbis Romae Episcopus habeat principatum, ut suburbicana loca, & omnem provinciam suâ sollicitudine gubernet; q●e vero apud Aegyptum sunt, Alexandrinae Episcopus omnem habeat sollicitudinem: Similiter autem & circa Antiochiam & in caeteris Provinciis privilegia propria serventur Metropolitanis Ecclesiis.  
Whence it is evident, that the Bishop of Rome then had a distinct Patriarchate as the rest had; and that whatever Primacy might be allowed him beyond his Province, it could not have any real power over the other Provinces of Alexandria, etc. And 'tis against the plain sense of the Rule, that the Antiquus mos should signify the custom of the Bishop of Rome's permission of Government to the other Patriarches, as Bellarmine feigneth. This Edition we have in Christopher Justellus' Library; the Canon is in Voel. Biblioth. Jur. Cano. Tom. 1. p. 284.   

SECT. VI  
Concil. Constant. 2. The Fifth General Conc. of 165 Bishops. An. 553.  
BAronius and Binius both affirm, that this was 
Bar. an. 553. nu. 224. Bin. To. 2. Not. in con. Const. 5.  a general Council; and so approved by all Popes, Predecessors and Successors of St. Gregory, and St. Gregory himself.  
The cause was; Pope Agapetus had condemned Anthinius; the matter was afterwards ventilated in the Council: Now where was the Pope's Supremacy? we shall see immediately.  
After Agapetus, succeeded Vigilius: When the Council condemned the Tria Capitula, Pope Vigilius would defend them; but how did he carry it in Faith or Fact? Did the Council submit to his Judgement or Authority? No such thing: But quite contrary, the Council condemned the tria capitula and ended: The Pope for not consenting, but opposing the Council, is banished by the Emperor Justinian. Then Vigilius submits, and confirms the Sentence of the Council; and so is released from Banishment. This is enough, out of both 
* Ibid. N▪ 223.  Baronius and Binius.  
The Sum is, we condemn (say they as is expressed in the very Text) all that have defended the Tria Capitula; but Vigilius, say the Historians, defended the Tria Capitula; therefore was Vigilius the Pope condemned by this Council: such Authority they gave him.   

SECT. VII.  
Concil. Constant. of 289 Bishops. 6 General. An. 681 vel 685. Concil. Nic. 7 General. of 350 Bishops. An. 781.  
BEllarmine acknowledgeth these to be sixth and seventh general Councils; and both these he acknowledgeth did condemn Pope Honorius for an Heretic. lib. 4. de Pont. C. 11.  
For Bellarmine to urge that these Councils were deceived in their Judgement touching his opinion, is not to the point; we are not disputing now, whether a Pope may be a Heretic in a private or public Capacity, in which the Councils now condemned him; though he seems to be a bold man, to prefer his own bare conjecture a thousand years after about a matter of Fact, before the judgement of two general Councils, consisting of 659 Bishops; when the cause was fresh, Witnesses living, and all circumstances visibly before their eyes: But our question is whether these Councils did either give to the Pope as such, or acknowledged in him an  Authority over the whole Church? The Answer is short, they took that power to themselves; and condemned the Pope for Heresy as they also did Sergins of Constantinople.   

SECT. VIII.  
Concil. Gen. 8. Constant. 383 Bishops. An. 870. Conclusions from them all.  
HOw did this eighth general Council recognize 
Tom. 3. p. 149.  the Pope's Supremacy? Binius himself tells us; this Council condemned a custom of the Sabbath-Fast in Lent; and the practice of it in the Church of Rome; and the word is, We will that the Canon be observed in the Church of Rome, inconfuse vires habet.  
'Tis boldly determined against the Mother Church; Rome concerned, reproved, commanded? Where is the Authority of the Bishop of Rome?  
Rome would be even with this Council, and therefore, saith Surius, she receives not this 55 Canon. (Tom. 2. in conc. Const. 6. p. 1048. ad Can. 65 in Not. Bin.  
But why must this Canon only be rejected? Oh! 'tis not to be endured, that's all the reason we can have. But was not this a general Council? Is it not one of the eight sworn to by every Pope? Is not this Canon of the same Authority (as of the Council) with all the rest? Or is it tolerable to say, 'tis not Authentic because the Pope doth not receive it; and he doth not receive it because it is against himself? Quia Matrem Ecclesiarum omnium Rom. Ecclesiam reprehendit, non recipitur. saith Surius, ibid.  
These are the eight first general Councils, allowed by the Roman Church at this day: What little exceptions they would defend their Supremacy with, against all that hath appeared; are answered in the Post script at the latter end of the book, whither I refer my Readers for fuller satisfaction.  
In the mean time we cannot but conclude, 
Conclus. 7 Infer.  1. That the Fathers during eight hundred and seventy years after Christ, knew no such thing as the Pope's Supremacy by divine Right or any right at all, seeing they opposed it.  
2. That they did not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome.  
3. That they had no Tradition of either that Supremacy or Infallibility.  
4. That 'tis vain to plead Antiquity in the Fathers or Councils or Primitive Church for either.  
5. That the Judgement of those 8 general Councils was at least the Judgement and Faith, not only during their own times, but till the contrary should be decreed by a following Council of as great Authority; and how long that was after, I leave to themselves to answer.  
6. That the Canons of those 8 first general Councils, being the sense both of the ancient and the professed Faith of the present Church of Rome; the Pope's Authority stands condemned by the Catholic Church at this day; by the ancient Church and the present Church of Rome herself, as she holds Communion, at least in profession, with the Ancient.  
7. That this was the Faith of the Catholic Church, in opposition to the pretended Supremacy of the Pope, long after the eight first General Councils, is evident, by the plain Sense of it, in the said Point, declared by several Councils in the Ages following; as appears both in the Greek and Latin Church: a word of both.   

SECT. IX.  
The Latin Church. Constance. Basil. Councils, etc.  
THe Council of Constance in Germany, long after; of almost a thousand Fathers, An. 1415, Say, they were inspired by the Holy Ghost; and a General Council, representing the whole Church, and having immediate power from Christ; whereunto, obedience is due from all Persons, both for Faith and Reformation, whether in the Head or Members: this was expressly confirmed by Pope Martin, to be held inviolable in Matters of Faith, vid. Surium. Concil. Const 99 4. Tom. 3. Conc. Their great Reason was, the Pope is not Head of the Church by Divine Ordinance; as the Council of Chalcedon said, a thousand years before.  
Now, where was necessary Union and Subjection to the Pope? where was his Supremacy Jure divino? where was Tradition, Infallibility, or the Faith of the present Church, for the Pope's Authority? Concil. Basil. Bin. To. 4. in Conc. Basil. initio.  
The Council of Basil. An. 1431. decreed, as the Council of Constance; Pope Eugenius, would dissolve them; the Council commands the contrary, and suspend the Pope: concluding, that who ever shall question their power therein, is an Heretic: the Pope pronounceth them Schismatics; in the end, the Pope did yield, and not dissolve the Council: this was the Judgement of the Latin Church above 1400 years after Christ; and indeed to this day, of the true Church of France; and in Henry the Eighth's time of England; as Gardner said; the Pope is not a Head by Dominion, but Order: his Authority, is none, with us; we ought not to have to do with Rome; the Common Sense of all in England.  
Bellarmine saith, that the Pope's Subjection to 
De Conc. li. 2. c. 14.  General Councils is inconsistent with the Supreme Pastorship: 'tis Repugnant to the Primacy of Saint Peter, saith Gregory de Valentiâ: yet nothing 
Anal. fid. l. 8. c. 14.  is more evident, than that General Councils did exercise Authority over Popes; deposing them; and disposing of their Sees, as the Council of Constance did, three together; and always made Canons in opposition to their Pretensions.  
Yea, 'tis certain, that a very great Number, if not the greater, of the Roman Church itself, were ever of this Faith; that General 
Vid. Dr. Hammond's dispute. p. 102.  Councils are Superior; have Authority over; give Laws unto; and may justly censure the Bishop of Rome.  
Pope Adrian the Sixth, and very many other Learned Romanists, declared this to be their Judgement, just before, or near upon the time, that Henry the Eighth was declared Supreme in England: So much for the Latin Church.   

SECT. X.  
The Greek Church. African Can. Synod. Carth. Cancil. Antiochen. The Faith of the Greek Church since.  
THat the Greek Church understood the first General Councils, directly contrary to the Pope's Supremacy, is written with a Sunbeam; in several other Councils.  

1. By the Canons of the African Church.  
The 27th Canon forbids all Transmarine Appeals; 
Can. 27.  threatens such as make them with Excommunication; makes order that the last Appeal be to the proper Primate, or a General Council; to the same effect, is the 137 Canon; and the Notes of Voel, upon these Canons, put it beyond question, that in the Transmarine Appeals, 
Tom. 1. p. 425.  they meant those to Rome; as it is expressed, the Church of Rome, and the Priests of the Roman Church.   

2. Const. Concil. Antiochen.  
This Council is more plain: it saith, if any Bishop, in any Crime, be judged by all the Bishops in the Province, he shall be judged in no wise by any Other: the Sentence given by the Provincial Bishops, shall remain firm. Thus the Pope is excluded, even in the case of Bishops, out of his own Province; contrary to the great pretence of Bellarmine, ibid.   

3. Syn. Carthag.  
This Synod confirmed the twenty Canons of Nice; and the Canons of the African Councils: and then, in particular, they decreed, ab Vniversis 
Can. 4. — Si Criminosus est non admittatur: again, 
8.  if any one, whether Bishop or Presbyter, that is driven from the Church, be received into Communion (by another) even he that receives him is held guilty of the like Crime: Refugientes sui Episcopi regulare Judicium.  
Again, if a Bishop be guilty, when there is no Synod, let him be judged by twelve Bishops; Secundum Statuta Veterum Conciliorum, the Statutes of the Ancients knew no reserve for the Pope in that Case.  
Further; no Clergyman might go beyond the Seas, viz. to Rome, without the Advice of his Metropolitan; and taking his Formatam, vel Commendationem.  
The 28 Canon is positive, that Priests and Deacons shall not Appeal, ad Transmarina Judicia, viz. to Rome; but to the Primates of their own Provinces: and they add, Sicut & de Episcopis saepê constitutum est: and if any shall do so, none in Africa shall receive them; and Can. 125. 'tis renewed; adding, the African Councils, to which Appeals are allowed, as well as to the Primates; but still Rome is Barred.  
The Sense of the Greek Church, since.  
Now when did that Church subject itself to Rome in any Case? our Adversaries acknowledge the early contests betwixt the Eastern and Western Churches, in the point of Supremacy; where, then, is the Consent of Fathers; or Universality of time and place, they use to boast of?  
Bellarmine confesseth, that An. 381. to the time of the Council of Florence, viz. 1140 years, the Greek Church disclaimed subjection to the Pope, and Church of Rome; and he confesseth, they did so, in several general Councils.  
And he doth but pretend, that this Church submitted itself to Rome, in the Council of Florence, An. 1549. for the contrary is evident, in that they would not yield, that the Pope should choose them a Patriarch; as Surius himself observes, Tom. 4. p. 489.  
So true is it, that Maldonate and Prateolus 
Mald. in Math. 10. 2. Prate. in Haer. Tit. Grae. Vid. St. Aug. To. 2. Epist. 162.  acknowledge and Record; the Greek Church always disliked the Supreme Dignity of the Pope; and would never obey his Decrees.  
To conclude, the Law of the Greeks hath always been against the Pope's Supremacy; the Fundamental Law was, a prohibition of Appeals to Rome: therefore, that Church acknowledged no absolute Subjection to Rome. 2. They excommunicate all African Priests Appealing to Rome; therefore, they held no necessity of Union with Rome. 3. They excommunicate all such (qui putaverint) as should but think it lawful to Appeal to Rome; therefore, they had no Faith of the necessity of either Union or Subjection to the Church of Rome.  
Enough, to the Pope's prejudice, from the Councils of all sorts: we must, in the foot of the account, mind our Adversaries, that we have found no colour for the pretence of a Grant, from any one General Council, of the Pope's Authority; much less over the Church of England: which, their Plea from the Canons, expressly requires at their hand.  
For, my Lord Bramhall, with invincible Reason, affirms: We were once a free Patriarchate, Independent on any other: and, according to the Council of Ephesus, every Province should enjoy its Ancient Rights, pure and inviolate: and that, no Bishop should occupy any Province, which did not belong to him, from the beginning; and, if no true General Council, hath ever since, Subjected Britain, under the Roman Court; then, saith he, the case is clear, that Rome can pretend no Right over Britain, without their own consent; nor, any further; nor, for any longer time; then, they are pleased to oblige themselves.  
We must expect, therefore, some better Evidence, of such Grant to the Pope; and such Obligation upon England, by the Canons of some truly General Council; and we may still expect it; notwithstanding the Canons of Sardice: which, yet shall be considered; for it is their (faint) colour of Antiquity.    

SECT. XI.  
The Sardican Canons. NO Grant from the Matter, manner or Authority. No Appendix to Council of Nice. Zozimus his Forgery never Ratified; nor thought Universal; after contradicted, by Councils.  
THe Pope at length usurped the Title, and pretended the Power of Supreme; and the Canons, in time obtained the Name of the Pope's Decrees; but the question is, what General Council gave him either?  
Doctor Stillingfleet observes, that nothing is more apparent, than, that when Popes began to pirk up, they pleaded nothing but some Canons of the Church for what they did; then their best and only Plea, when nothing of Divine Right was heard of; as Julius, to the oriental Bishops; Zozimus to the African; and so others: but still what Canons?  
The Romanist, against Archbishop Laud, argues Arg. 
p. 193.  thus: it was ever held lawful to Appeal to Rome from all Parts; therefore the Pope must be Supreme Judge: this, saith he, is evidenced by the Sardican Canons; accounted anciently, an Appendix to the Council of Nice; this he calls an unanswerable Argument.  
But it is more than answered; if we consider, Answ. either, the Matter, or the Manner, or the Authority of these Canons.  
1. The Matter, said to be granted, appears 
1. For the matter of these Canons.  in the words themselves, Can. 3. it is said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. if it seem good to you, let us honour the Memory of Saint Peter, and by those Bishops that are Judges, Scribatur Julio, Romanorum Episcopo; and by the next Bishops of the Province, if need be, let the Judgement be revoked; & cognitores ipse praebeat.  
But 1. here is no Grant, so much as of Appeal, only of a Review. 2 'Tis not pretended to be according to any former Canons. 3. The Judgement is to be revoked by a Council of Bishops chosen for the purpose. 4. The request seems to terminate in the Person of Julius, and not to extend to his Successors; for else, why should it be said to Julius Bishop of Rome, and not to the Bishop of Rome absolutely?  
2. The Manner of the Motion spoils all: if 
Manner.  it please you; did the Universal Pastorship then lie at the feet, or depend upon the pleasure of this Council? did no Canons evidence the Pope's Power, and Right till then? eleven years after the death of Constantine? besides, how unworthily was is said, let us honour the Memory of Saint Peter; did the Pope's Succession of Saint Peter depend upon their pleasure too?  
3. But lastly, the main exception, is against the Authority of this Council; or, at least, of 
Authority.  this Canon; as Cusanus questions, Concord. Cathol. lib. 2. c. 15.  
1. 'Tis certain, they are no Appendix to the 
No Appendix to Nice Can.  Council of Nice; wherein their strength is pretended to consist; though, Zozimus fraudulently sent them, under that Name to the African Bishops; which can never be excused; for they are now know to have been made twenty two years, after that Council.  
Upon that pretence of Zozimus indeed, a 
Zozimus' Forgery.  Temporary Order was made in the Council of afric; that Appeals might be made to the Pope, till the true Canons of Nice were produced; which afterwards being done, the Argument was spoiled; and that Pope, if possible, was put to shame: hereupon, that excellent Epistle was written to Pope Celestine, of which you had account before.  
2. This Council was never ratified by the Reception 
Not received.  of the Catholic Church; for the Canons of it were not known by the African Bishops, when Zozimus sent them, and Saint Augustine discredits them; saying, they were made by a Synod of Arrians.  
3. It is evident, that this Council was never 
Or thought Universal▪  accounted truly Universal; though Constance and Constantius intended it should be so: for, but seventy of Eastern Bishops appeared, to three hundred of the Western; and those Eastern Bishops, soon withdrew from the other, and decreed things directly contrary to them: So that Balsomon and Zonarus, as well as the Elder Greeks, say, it can only bind the Western Churches: and indeed, it was a long time before the Canons of it were received in the Western Church; which is the supposed reason, why Zozimus sent them, as the Nicen, and not as the Sardican Canons.  
4. After the Eastern Bishops were departed, there were not Patriarches enough, to make a General Council; according to Bellermine's 
De Conc. L. ●. c. 17.  own Rule. Consequently, Venerable Bede leaves it out of the Number: the Eastern Churches do not reckon it among their Seven, nor the Western among their Eight first General Councils. The English Church, in their Synod at He difield, An. 680. left it out of their Number, and embrace only the Council of Nice, the first of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, the first and second of Chalcedon to this day.  
Therefore Archbishop Bramhall, had reason to say, that this Council was never incorporated into the English Laws, and consequently, hath no force in England: especially, being urged in a matter contrary to the Famous Memorial of Clarendon; a Fundamental Law of this Land: all Appeals in England must proceed regularly, from the Bishop to the Archbishop, and from him to the King to give order for Redress.  
But to wipe away all colour of Argument; what ever Authority these Canons may be thought to have in other matters, 'tis certain they have none in this matter of Appeals; for, as to this Point the undoubted General Councils, afterward decreed quite otherwise; reducing and limiting Appeals ultimately to the Primate of the Province, or a Council; as hath been made to appear.  
When, I hear any thing of moment urged, from any other Council, as a Grant of the pretended Supremacy to the Pope, I shall consider what may be answered; till then, I think there is an end of his Claim, Jure humano; either, by a Civil or Canonical Grant; by Emperors or General Councils. So much hath been said against, and so little to purpose, for the Council of Trent, that I shall excuse myself and my Reader from any trouble about it.  
But I must conclude that the Canons of the Council of Trent were never acknowledged or received 
Epist. Synod▪ Conc. Basil.  by the Kingdom of England as the Council of Basil was, which confirmed the Acts of the Council of Constance; which Council of Constance without the presence or concurrence of the Pope, did decree themselves to be a lawful complete general Council Superior to the Pope; and that he was subject to their censures; and deposed three Popes at a time. The words of the Council are remarkable, The Pope is subject to a general Council, as well in matters of Faith as of manners; so as he may not only be corrected, but if he be incorrigible, be deposed.  
To say, this Decree was not conciliarly made; and consequently not confirmed by Pope Martin the fifth signifies nothing; if that Martin were Pope; because his Title to the Papacy depended merely upon the Authority of that Decree. But indeed, the word Conciliariter was spoken by the Pope upon a particular occasion, after the Council was ended and the Fathers were dismissed; as appears in the History.    

CHAP. XX.  
Of the Pope's Title by Divine Right. The Question. Why not sooner? 'Tis last Refuge.  
THe modern Champions of the Church of Rome, slight all that hath been said; and judge it beneath their Master and his Cause to plead any thing but a Jus divinum for his pretended Supremacy; and indeed will hardly endure and tolerate the question, Whether the Pope be universal Monarch; or Bishop of the whole Church as Saint Peter's Successor, Jure divino?  
But if this point be so very plain; may I have leave to ask, why was it not urged sooner? why were lesser inconsistent Pleas, so long insisted on? why do not many of their own great men discern it to this day?  
The truth is, if the managery of the Combat all along be seriously reflected on, this Plea of divine Right seems to be the last Refuge; when they have been driven by Dint of Argument out of all other Holds, as no longer to be defended. And yet give me leave to observe, that this last ground of theirs, seems to me to be the weakest, and the least able to secure them; which looks like an Argument of a sinking cause.  
However, they mightily labour to support it, by these two Pillars. 1. That the government of the whole Church is Monarchical. 2. That the Pope is the Monarch; and both these are Jure divino: But these Pillars also must be supported, and how that is performed we shall examine.  

SECT. I.  
Whether the Government of the whole Church be Monarchical, by Divine Right? Bellar. Reason. Scripture.  
BEllarmine hath flourished with this argument through no less than eight whole Chapters, and indeed hath industriously and learnedly beaten it as far as it would go; and no wonder if he have left it thin.  
What solidity is in it, we are to weigh both from Reason and Scripture.  
Not from Reason in 3 Arg.  
From Reason they argue thus: God hath appointed Arg. 1 the best and most profitable Government: (for he is most wise and good) but Monarchical Government is the best and most profitable.  
'Tis plainly answered that to know which is Ans. the best Government, the state of that which is to be governed must be considered; the end of Government being the profit and good of the State governed; so that unless it appear that this kind of Government be the most convenient for the State of the Church, nothing is concluded.  
2. We believe that God hath the care of the World, and not only of the Church; therefore in his wise and good Providence, he ought to have settled the World under the best and most profitable Government, viz. under one universal Monarch.  
3. Bellarmine himself grants, that if particular Churches should not be gathered, inter se, so as to make one, (visible, Political Body) their own proper Rector would suffice for every one, and there should be no need of one Monarch.  
But all particular Churches are not one visible political Body, but, as particular Bodies, are complete in themselves; enjoying all parts of ordinary Worship and Government singly; neither is there any part of Worship or Government proper to the Ecumenical Church, qua talis.  
4. The Argument seems stronger the contrary way: God is good and wise, and hath appointed the best Government for his own Church; but he hath not appointed that it should be Monarchical: Therefore that kind of Government seems not to be the best for his Church. Christ might foresee the great inconveniences of his Churches being governed by one Ecclesiastical Monarch, when divided under the several secular Powers of the World; though the Ambition of men overlook it and consider it not.  
Yet that the Government of the Church appointed by God, as best for it, is Monarchical, is not believed by all Catholics. The Sorbon Doctors doubt not to affirm, that Aristocratical Government is the best of all, and most agreeable to the nature of the Church. De Eccl. Polit. potest. an. 1611.  
6. But what if we yield the whole Argument: as the government of the Church is Imperial, 'tis in Christ, the Universal Monarch over it; but he being in a far Country, he governs the several parts of his Church in distinct Countries, by visible ministerial Monarches or Primates, proper to each: The distinction of imperial and ministerial Power, is given us in this very case by our Adversaries: There is nothing unreasonable, unpracticable, or contrary to the practice of the world in the Assertion. We grant that Monarchy is the best kind of Government in a due Sphere; the World is wide enough for many Monarches, and the Church too: The Argument concludes for Primates over Provinces; not for an universal Monarch, either over the world or the whole Church.  
2. The Church cannot be propogated (as Bell. argues) without a universal Monarch, to send Arg. 2 Preachers into other Provinces, etc.  
Who can doubt but that the Governors of any Ans. Church, have as much Power to send any of her members; and have as much power in Pagan and Infidel Countries as the supposed Universal Bishop? And if Heretics can propagate their errors, why should not the Orthodox, the Truth, without the Pope?  
3. 'Tis necessary (saith Bellar.) that all the Arg. 3 faithful should have one Faith, which cannot be without one chief Judge.  
In necessaries they may, in other things they Ans. need not; as appears sufficiently among the Romanists, about this as well as other points; neither could Peter himself, with the help of the rest of the Apostles, in their time prevent Heresies and Schisms. These things are too weak to bear up the great power and Universal Monarchy pretended; and indeed an impeachment of the wisdom and goodness of Christ; if he have not provided such a Government for his Church as they plead a necessity of, for the said ends. The thing next to be enquired.  
2. Not from Scripture Prophecies, Promises, Metaphors, or Example of Highpriest.  
They affirm, that the Scriptures evince an universal Monarchy over the Church: but how is it proved?  
The Prophecies and Promises and sundry Metaphors Arg. (of a House, Kingdom, Body, Flock, etc.) prove the Church to be one in itself; and consequently it must have one Supreme Governor.  
We are agreed, that the Church is but one; and that it hath one Supreme Governor: And Ans. we are agreed, that Christ hath the Supreme Government of it, and that those Scriptures too signify that he is such; if we consider the Government to be Imperial, as Hart confesseth to Dr. Raynolds: And thus the Argument passeth without any harm; but it still rests to be proved that the ministerial Governor is but one; or that the Scriptures intent so, or St. Peter or the Pope, as his Successor, is that one Governor over the whole Church.  
'Tis true; as our Saviour saith, there is one Flock and one Shepherd, but 'tis as true, which he saith in the same place; I am that good Shepherd; but as that one principal Pastor, had many Vicars, not Peter only but 12 Apostles, to gather and feed the Sheep; who were therefore sent to Preach to all Nations: And did, as it said, divide the World into 12 Provinces respectively. So that one great Monarch might have many Viceroy's, if we may so call the future Bishops to govern the Church; though in Faith but one, yet in site and place divided: 'Tis no unreasonable thing, that the King of Britain and Ireland, should Govern Scotland and Ireland, which lie at some distance from him, by his Deputations as before was hinted.  
There was one Highpriest over the Church of the Jews; and by Analogy it ought to be so, Arg. 2 in the Christian Church.  
Many things were in that Church which ought Ans. not to be in this.  
They were one Nation as well as one Church; and if every Christian Nation have one Highpriest the Analogy holds well enough.  
The making the Nations of the World Christian, hath, as experience shows, rendered the Government of the Church by one person, that cannot reside in all places, very inconvenient if not impracticable.  
Now if our Saviour foresaw this; and hath ordered the government of the Christian Church otherwise, than Moses had that of the Jews, who shall say, What hast thou done?  
2. It can never be proved, that the Highpriest 
Vid. Ray. and Hart. p. 240.  over the Jews, was either called the Judge, or had such Power over that Church, as the Pope pretends over the Christian.  
Lastly, 'tis not doubted but Moses was Faithful, and Christ as faithful in appointing a fit Government for these great and distinct States of the Church: But what kind of Government Moses appointed, is nothing to the question; unless it appear that Christ hath appointed the same. The proper question is, whether Christ hath appointed that the Christian Church should be governed by one universal Monarch, let us apply to that.  
The great issue is, the instance of St. Peter. 'Tis affirmed that our Lord committed the Government of the Christian Church to St. Peter, and his Successors; the Popes of Rome for ever.  
A Grant of so great consequence ought to be 
Ar. 3. Peter.  very plain, the whole World is concerned and may expect Evidence very clear. 1. That Christ gave this universal Supremacy to St. Peter. And 2. To the Pope as his Successor; if either fail, Roma Ruit.   

SECT. II.  
Of St. Peter's Monarchy. Tu es Petrus. Fathers abused.  
WE are now come to the quick. The first great question is; Whether Christ gave his Apostle St. Peter the Government of his whole Church. This would be proved from Matth. 
1 Scrip. Matth. 16: 18.  16. 18. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church. The Argument is, what Christ promised he gave, but in these words Christ promised to make Peter the Supreme Head and Governor of his Church; therefore this Power was given him.  
If this Argument conclude, by [this Rock] Ans. must be meant St. Peter; and the words [I will build my Church upon it] must signify the committing the Supreme Power of the Church to him.  
For the First, It is at least a controversy among the ancient Fathers; and many of them do deny that by this Rock we are to understand any thing, but that Confession which was evidently the occasion of this Promise, and was made by Peter just before, as St. Cyril, Hilary, Jerom, Ambrose, Basil, and St. Augustine, whose Lapsus humanus in it is reproved by Stapleton. Princ. doct. li. 6. c. 3.  
But I am willing to agree as far as we may; and therefore shall not deny, but something peculiar to St. Peter's Person was here promised; (though I believe it was a point of Honour, not a Supremacy of Power;) what that was will appear by the thing promised, I will build my Church— that is, upon my Doctrine preached by thee. I will build my Church, thou shalt have the honour, of being a prime and principal Author of the World's Conversion; or as Dr. Reynolds against Hart: Peter, was in order with the first who believed; 
P. 60.  and amongst those First, he had a mark of Honour in that he was named Stone above his Brethren. Yet as he, so the Rest are called Foundations; and indeed so were in both these Senses: For the Twelve were all Prime Converts, and converters of others; and were Foundations in their respective Provinces on which others were built: But they were not built one upon another, and they had no other Foundation on which they themselves were built but Christ himself.  
We are willing to any thing, that the Sense of the words will conveniently bear; but that they should signify Power and Government over the whole Church, and the rest of the Apostles, we cannot understand: for, the Rock is supposed before the building upon it; and the building before the Government of the house; and the Government of the Church, cannot tolerably be thought to be of the Foundation, or first building of the Church; but for the Preservation or Augmentation of it after its existence is supposed.  
Perhaps there is ground to allow, that Peter's Foundation was the first; as his Name was first among the Apostles; and that this was the reason of that Primacy of Order and Dignity which some of the Ancients, in their writings 
Paul had the fame Primacy over Barnabas, that Peter over Apost. as St. Amb. in 2 ad. Gal.  acknowledged in Saint Peter: but certainly, there is need of a plainer Text to argue this Text to signify that Supremacy of Power over the rest of the Apostles and the whole Church; which is so hotly contended for by our Romish Adversaries to be given Saint Peter: however, after the Resurrection of Christ, all were made equal, both in Honour and Power; as Saint Cyprian saith, de Vnita: Eccles.  
But it is urged, that the other Part of the 
2. Script. Matth. 16. 19  Promise, is most clear, to thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, viz. the fullness of Celestial Power, as Hart expressed it.  
Our Answer is, that Christ, here, promised no Answ. more Power to Peter, than he performed to all the Apostles: Peter's Confession was made in the Name of all; and Christ's Promise was made to Peter in the Name of all; and nothing can be clearer, either in the Text, or in Fact.  
The Text is plain; both, in itself, and in the Judgement of the Fathers; that Peter stood in the room of the rest; both when he made the Confession, and received the Promise, Vid. St. Aug. in Joh. Tract. 1 18. St. Ambr. in Psal. 38. Jerom. adv. Jovi: li 1. Orig. in Math. Tract. 1. 
Vid. Concor. Cottrol. l. 2. c. 13.  Hilary de Trinit. l. 6. etc. Cardinal. Cusan. is plain in this Point also.  
And, that it did equally concern the rest of the Apostles, is evident, by the performance of it. A Promise, is of something the futuro: our Saviour saith to Peter, I will give thee the Keys; but when did he do it? and how did he do it? Certainly at the time, when he delivered those words recorded, John 20. 21, 23. And after the manner there expressed, and by that Form of Words: now, are not those Words spoken by Christ equally to all the Apostles? As my Father sent me, so do I send you; whose soever sins ye remit, etc. nothing plainer.  
To say, that Christ gave not the Keys to all; but only the Power of remitting and retaining sins, seems pitiful, unless some other proof be offered, that Christ, did actually perform this Promise to Saint Peter apart; and give him the Keys at some other time, in distinction to the Power given in the 20. John to all together.  
Remitting and retaining sins, is certainly the Power of the Keys; and so called, by the Council of Trent itself, Chatech. in Sacram. Paenit. and 'tis not the keeping, but the Power of the Keys, is the question; and indeed Bellarmine proves, that the whole Power of the Keys, and not a part only, as Stapleton supposed, was granted to all the Apostles in the Words John 20. to be the general interpretation of the Fathers, in Prael. Rom. Controu. 4. q. 3. de Sum. Pontif.  
Stapleton from Turrecrem; distinguisheth betwixt 
From Turrecrem.  the Apostolic, and the Episcopal Power; and they grant, that the Apostolic Power was equal in all the Apostles, and received immediately from Christ; but the Episcopal Power was given to Saint Peter with the Keys; and immediately and by him, to the rest.  
This is a new shift: else, why is the Title, Apostolical, given to the Pope, to his See, to all Acts, etc. seeing the Pope, according to the sineness of this distinction, doth not succeed Peter, as an Apostle, but as a Bishop.  
'Tis as strange, as new: seeing the Power of the Keys, must as well denote the Episcopal Power of the rest of the Apostles, as of Peter; and the Power of using them, by remitting, etc. was given, generally and immediately, by Christ to them all alike.  
This distinction of Turrecremata, was as Reynolds against Hart showeth, spoiled, before 
Relect. 2. de Potest. Eccl.  Doctor Stapleton new vamped it, by two learned Friars, Sixtus Senensis and Franciscus Victoria; evidencing both out of the Scriptures, that the 
Bibli Sanc. l. 6. annot. 269 & 271.  Apostles received all their Power immediately of Christ; and the Fathers, that in the Power of Apostleship and order, (so the two Powers were called) Paul was equal to Peter; and the rest, to them both.  
Therefore, this distinction failing, another is invented, and a third kind of Power is set up; viz. the Power of Kingdoms; and now from the threefold Power of Saint Peter; Apostolatus, Ordinis, Regni, it is strongly affirmed: 1. Touching the Apostleship, Paul, as Jerom saith, 
1. In Com. ad Gal.  was not inferior to Peter; for he was chosen to preach the Gospel, not by Peter, but by God, as Peter was. 2. Touching the Power given 
2. Advers. Jovini. & ad Evag.  in the Sacrament of Order, Jerom saith well too; that all the Apostles received the Keys equally; and that they all, as Bishops, were equal in the degree of Priesthood, and the Spiritual Power of that degree: thus the first distinction is gone. But, thirdly, touching the Power 
3. Advers. Jovin. & Luci●.  of Kingdom, Saint Jerom saith best of all, that Peter was chosen among the Twelve, and made the Head of all, that all occasion of Schism might be removed.  
These are Fancies of the Schoolmen; but where are they grounded? we are seeking for Saint Peter's Supremacy, in the Scripture; where do we there, find this Power of the Kingdom given him by Christ? or what Ancient Father ever so expounded this Text of the Keys?  
We grant, many expressions are found in the Fathers, in honour of Saint Peter: Saint Augustine affirms his Primacy is conspicuous and preeminent with excellent Grace: Saint Chrysostom, calleth him the Mouth, the Chief, the Top of the Company; Theodoret styles him, the Prince; Epiphanius the Highest; Saint Augustine the Head, Precedent and first of the Apostles; which he proveth out of Saint Cyprian, who saith, the Lord chose Peter first; and Saint Jerom saith, he was the Head, that occasion of Schism might be taken away, and gives him the honour of great Authority; all these were used by Hart against Raynolds.  
To them all, Doctor Raynolds gives clear and satisfactory answers showing largely that they signify nothing but a Primacy of Election, or Order, or Dignity, or Esteem, and Authority in that Sense: or a Primacy in Grace and Gifts, viz. a principality or Chiefness in Worth; or a Primacy of Presidentship in Assemblies, as the Mouth and Moderator; or the Head of Unity and Order, as Jerom means: but 'tis not to be proved from any or all of these Encomiums, that the Fathers believed that the other Apostles were under Saint Peter as their Governor; or that he had any real Power given him by Christ more than they.  
The Words of Saint Cyprian are plain and full: albeit Christ, saith he, gave equal Power to 
1. St. Cyp. de Unit. Eccl.  all the Apostles after his Resurrection; and said, as my Father, etc. yet to declare Unity, he disposed by his Authority, the Original of that Unity, beginning in one: no doubt, saith he, the rest were the same that Peter was; endued with the like fellowship (pari Consortio) of Honour and Power; but, the beginning doth come from Unity, that the Church of Christ may be showed to be but one.  
Thus, this Topick of the Fathers, expounding the Text, being found to fail; another device, and such a one as the very detection, both answers and shames the Authors, is fled unto; viz. to corrupt instead of purging the Fathers; and to make them speak home indeed.  
The place of Saint Cyprian, just now set, is a 
In Opusc. Contr. Graec.  very clear instance of this black Art, allowed by the Popes themselves; the place in the former Prints, was, as it is set down, in the Roman-purged. Cyprian, is thus altered by addition of these words, And the Primacy is given to Peter. Again he appointed one Church, and the Chair to be one; and to make all sure, the Antwerp Cyprian addeth conveniently Peter's Chair: And then, saith he, who forsaketh Peter's Chair, on which the 
Against Hart.  Church was founded, etc. And by this time Peter's Primacy is the Pope's Supremacy. Vid. Dr. Rain. p. 210, 211.  
But Tho. Aquinas hath dealt worse with St. Cyril, Fathering a Treasure upon him which he never owned, beyond all tolerable defence. To the Grecians St. Cyril is brought in speaking thus: Christ did commit a full and ample power both to Peter and his Successors— The Apostles in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed (in every Doctrine) Peter and his Church to be instead of God; and to him, even to Peter, all do bow by the Law of God, and the Princes of the World are obedient to him, even as to the Lord Jesus; and we as being Members must cleave unto our Head, the Pope and Apostolic See, etc.  
Now either St. Cyril said thus, or not: If he did; who will believe him, that shall make such Stories, and Father them upon every Doctrine in the New Testament, contrary to common sense, and the knowledge of all; or trust his cause to the interpretation of such Fathers. But if this Book called St. Cyril's Treasure, be none of St. Cyril's, as certainly it is not; then though I am provoked, I shall say no more; but that we should weigh the Reasons, but not the Authority of such a Schoolman, especially in his Master's Cause. 'Tis certain, the words are not to be found in those parts of Cyril's Treasure, which are Extant, as Hart acknowledgeth to Dr. Raynolds.  
Yet the abuse of single Fathers is not so heinous 
Ibid.  a thing, as Thomas committed against 600 Bishops even the General Council of Chalcedon, when he saith they decreed thus. If any Bishop be accused let him appeal freely to the Pope of Rome, because we have Peter for a Rock of Refuge; and he alone hath Right with freedom of Power, in the stead of God, to Judge and Try the crime of a Bishop, according to the Keys which the Lord did give him; calling the Pope the Holy Apostolic and universal Patriarch of the whole World. Now in that Council there is not a word of all this; and they answer, Heretics have razed it out, if you will believe it, but neither Surius nor Caranza find any thing wanting. I shall only make this Note, that seeing the Fathers have been so long in the hands of those men that stick at nothing that may advance the Power of their Master: 'Tis no wonder that their learned Adversaries are unwilling to trust their cause with such Judges, but rather appeal to the true Canon and call for Scripture.  
One would think this were enough: but this Opinion of the equality of Power among the Apostles, was not only the concurrent Judgement of the Ancients, but even of learned later men in the Church of Rome even from these words, Tues Petrus etc. upon unanswerable Reason. Lyra, on Matth. 16. Durand a St. Porciano in 4 Cent. dist. 18. q. 2. both in the 14 Cent. and Abulensis in the 
In Matth. 18. q. 7. In Matth. 20. q. 83, 84.  15 Cent. the latter argues earnestly, that none of the Apostles did understand those words of Christ, to give any Supremacy to Peter; for afterwards they contended for Superiority, Matth. 18. and after that the two Sons of Zebedee desire it, Matth. 20. and at the last Supper the question is put again, Luke 22. Therefore he concludes, they thought themselves equal till Christ's death, when they knew not which of them should be greatest. Cusanus his contemporary the concord. Cath. l. 2. c. 13. and 34. and Fran. Victoria. This was the interpretation of all the Doctors of Paris, 
Bin. Conc. an. 1549.  and of Adulphus Archbishop of Cologne, and of the Bishops of his Province; the Decrees of whose Synod, with this interpretation, were ratified in every point by Charles the Fifth, and enjoined to be observed.  
Thus the chief ground of St. Peter's Supremacy is sunk, and there is little hopes that any other Text will hold up that weighty super-structure.  
Another Scripture much insisted on for the 
3. Joh. 21. 14, etc.  support of St. Peter's Supremacy, is Joh. 21. 14, 15, 16. Peter lovest thou me, feed my Sheep, feed my Lambs: Wherein is committed to Peter the power of the whole Church.  
'Tis answered, this Text gives not any Commission Ans. or power to St. Peter; it gives him charge and Commandment to execute his Commission received before. Now it hath appeared sufficiently, that the Commission was given equally to all the Apostles in those words; as my Father sent me, so send I you, etc. so that the power of feeding, and the Duty of Pastors was alike to them all; though this Charge was given to Peter by name here, with so many Items perhaps intimating his repeated Prevarications; yet were they all sent, and all charged with a larger Province than these words to Peter import: Teach all Nations, Preach the Gospel to every Creature; are our Saviour's charge to them all.  
In the Apostolic Power all were equal (saith Obj. Hart) not in the Pastoral Charge.  
We answer with a distinction (allowed by Ans. Stapleton) of the Name Pastor; 'tis special and distinct from Apostle: Some Apostles— some 
Eph. 4.  Pastors; or general and common to all commissioned to preach the Gospel: So Christ is called Pastor, and all the Apostles were Pastors as well as Peter.  
But St. Peter was the Pastor over the rest; for Obj. he is charged to feed all the Sheep, the whole Church: Now the Rest of the Apostles were Christ's Sheep, and members of his Church. Hart and Ray. p 129.  
Christ saith not to Peter, feed (all) my Sheep, Ans. but he doth say to them all Preach— to every Creature: And if Peter have power over the rest, because they are Sheep, and he is to feed the Sheep; then every one of the rest have power over Peter because he is a Creature, and they are to preach to every Creature. But this is trifling, so is all that is further argued from this Text; though by Feeding we understand Ruling, Ruling of Pastors, or what you will; while whatsoever was charged on Peter here, is within the same Commission, wherein Peter and all the rest of the Apostles are equally impowered as before; and that of Bellarmine, [that Peter was to feed the Sheep as ordinary Pastor; the Apostles as extraordinary Ambassadors] is altogether as groundless; as if there were any colour of Reason, that an ordinary Pastor should have more power than an extraordinary Ambassador.  
Dr. Hammond observes, Bellarmine was not 
13 Oct. 1562.  the Author of that Artifice; Cajetan and Victoria had used it before him; and obtained it the honour of coming into the Council of Trent; where the Bishop of Granada derided it, and the Authors of it; and soon after the Bishop of Paris expressly affirmed, that Cajetan was (about 50 years before) the first deviser of it. The Bishop of Granada confutes it by Scripture, as understood by all the Fathers and Schoolmen; as he affirmed. Concord. Cathol. l. 1. c. 11.  
To conclude this matter, Feed my Sheep, are not a ground for the Pope's Presidency; which are found not to be so of Peter's, above the body of the Universal Church; as was publicly pronounced in the Covent of the Friar's Minors, and appears by the Opusc. of John Patriarch of Antioch: And Cardinal Cusanus who lived at the same 
De Conc. Cath. l. 2. c. 23.  time, makes them words of Precept not of Institution; and both are agreeable to the interpretation of the Ancients. St. Ambrose de dign. Sacerd. c. 2. Aug. de Ago. Christiano c. 30. Theoph. in Joh. c. 21, etc.  
It is time to look further. The third great 
Luk. 22. 31  place of Argument is Luk. 22. 31. Thou being converted, strengthen thy Brethren. Whence Hart reasons thus: Christ commands Peter to strengthen 
Rain. and Hart. p. 142.  his Brethren; and his Brethren were the Apostles: Therefore he was to strengthen the Apostles, and by consequence he must be their Supreme Head.  
When Hart urged this Argument, with all Ans. his wit and might; and Dr. Raynolds had made it evident, there is no Authority given by the words; nor carried in the word Strengthen, that Equals and Inferiors are capable of it as well as Superiors: (much less can it necessarily imply a Supremacy over the whole Church; he confesseth with Stapleton, that Christ gave the Power to Peter after his Resurrection, when he said to him, Feed my Lambs; (which we have weighed before) but those words of (strengthening, etc.) he spoke before his death, and did but (futuram insinuaverat) insinuate therein; and as Heart's word is, that he would make him Supreme Head; then if he did not make him so afterward, he did it not at all.  
That Peter had power over the rest of the 
4 Scrip.  Apostles, would be proved, as before; from the Promise and Commission of Christ, so at last by 
Act. 1. 25.  Peter's Execution; he proposed the Election of a new Apostle in the Room of Judas.  
Therefore he was Speaker (at lest pro tempore) Ans. in the Assembly; but not a Prince or Supreme Monarch.  
But St. Chrysostom saith, that though Peter's Obj. modesty was commendable for doing all things 
In Matth. 40. 51.  by common advice and consent, and nothing by his own Authority; yet addeth, that no doubt it was lawful for Peter to have chosen Mathias himself.  
Yet the same Father calls this Seat given him Ans. 
In Matth. Hom. 15.  by the rest, a Primacy, not a Supremacy: Again he derives this Primacy from the modesty of the Apostles, (not the donation of Christ) as Hart 
Rain. Hart. p. 156.  confesseth. But indeed the Father exceeded in his Charity; and 'tis he that said that Peter might have chosen one himself: The Scripture saith not that he might; yea it saith he did not. And the Argument from Peter's Execution of this power is come to this, that he did not execute it.  
Besides, many Fathers and in Council too; together with St. Cyprian, pronounce; that Peter proposing the matter, to the end it might be carried by common advice and voice, did according to the lessons and Precepts of God; therefore, jure divino, they thought Peter had no such power as Dr. Raynolds shows. p. 159.  
But when Peter had been heard, all the Multitude 
5 Scrip. Act. 15.  held their peace; and James and all the Elders did agree unto Peter's Sentence.  
What is this to prove his Supremacy? because Ans. the Council having heard Gamaliel agreed to him, was therefore Gamaliel (a Pharisee, a Doctor of the Law, whom all the People honoured) Supreme 
Act. 3. 34.  Head, and Superior to the Highpriest and Council? And if Jerom say, Peter was Princeps Decreti, he acknowledged perhaps the Reason, the Motion, and the Delivery or declaration of it, principally to Peter, the first Author of the Sentence, as the same Jerom calls him; and explains himself Epist. 11. inter Epistol. August. So was 
Pro Cor. Balbo.  Tully called, viz. Prince of Decrees, when he was neither Precedent nor Prince of the Senate.  
We conclude, that Peter had no Superiority of Power or Government over the rest of the Apostles, or the whole Church; because it neither was promised him, nor given him, nor 
Peter added, Nihil doctrinae aut potestatis Aquinas. Not inferior to the chief Apost. 2 Cor. 11. 5.  Executed by him; notwithstanding Bellarmine's 28 Prerogatives of St. Peter; from which I presume none can be so hardy as to venture to argue: many of them being uncertain; some vain and trifling, and some common with the rest of the Apostles; but neither divisim or conjunctim sufficient to make, or to evince any real Supremacy of power in St. Peter.  
5. 'Tis indeed, said, by some of the Fathers; 
So Paul judged. Chris. Hom. 12. 2. & 87.  that the Government of the World, and the care of the whole Church was committed to Peter: but it is plain they speak of his Apostleship; for they say the same of Paul; ille Solusgerebat, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & Orbis praefectam suscepit; and the like, of Timothy; who was never reputed Universal Monarch: Paul and Peter had two different Primacies (Saint 
Hom. 1. ad Pop. Orat. 6. Con. Jud.  Ambr.) had the same Dignity; (Chrisost.) were equal.) Oecumenius.    

CHAP. XXI.  
Of the Pope's Succession.  
I Have laboured the more to scatter the pretences of Saint Peter's Supremacy; because (though the Consequence be not good from that to the Popes, yet) 'tis a Demonstration; that if Saint Peter had it not, the Pope cannot have it, as his Successor, Jure divino.  
We must leave Saint Peter's Supremacy, to stand or fall to the Reason of the Discourse before; and must now examine the Plea of Successor; and the Pope's Authority over the Church, as he is Successor to Saint Peter.  
Now, that it may appear we love not quarrelling; we shall not dispute; whether Peter was a Bishop of a particular See? whether he was ever at Rome? whether Rome was at first converted by him? whether he was Bishop of Rome? whether he resided there for any considerable time? whether he died there? whether the Pope had any honour as his Successor? or lastly, whether the Pope had the Primacy of all Bishops in the former Ages of the Church? 'tis well known, that few Adversaries would let you run away quietly, with all or any one of these.  
Yet there are two things, that I shrewdly question- 1. Whether the Pope had at first the Primacy itself, as Successor of Saint Peter. 2. Much more, whether by that Succession, he received Supreme Power over the whole Church, Jure Divino; the main Point to be proved, is the last: yet it may be worth the while, to examine the first.  

SECT. I.  
Whether the Primacy of Peter, descended to the Bishops of Rome? Neg.  
IT doth not appear, that Saint Peter had his 
Peter Primate.  Primacy, over the rest of the Apostles, as Bishop, much less as Bishop of Rome; but the contrary doth appear.  
1. Because he was Primate, long before he Reas. 1 was Bishop, if he was so, at all; and therefore, 
Before.  if he was Primate, ratione Muneris, or with respect to any Office; it was that, of his Apostleship, and not of his Episcopacy; the Consequence, then, is evident, that the Pope could not succeed Saint Peter, in the Primacy, as Bishop of Rome; or indeed in any Sense; for the Apostolical Office was extraordinary; and did not descend by Succession, as the Romanists yield.  
That, Saint Peter was Primate, not as Bishop, 
Not as Bishop.  but was antecedently so; it is most apparent upon the Grounds of it allowed and pleaded by our Adversaries; because he was first called to the Apostleship, he was named, the first of the Apostles; he had the first promise of the Keys; he was the first Converter of the Gentiles, etc. Privilegium personale, cum persona extinguitur. Jesuit Salas.  
2. Indeed, the Primacy of Saint Peter arose Reas. 2 
On personal respects.  from such personal respects and grounds, that rendered it incapable of Succession; and therefore, none could derive that Prerogative, though they had succeeded him both as Bishop and Apostle.  
These Prerogatives of Saint Peter, which Bellarmine himself lays down as the Grounds and Arguments of his Primacy, are generally such, at least, all of them that appear in the Scriptures; all of them but such, as either beg the question or depend on notorious Fables: as appears at first view.  
1. Saint Peter was Primate, because his Name 
21 Prerogatives. Bell.  was changed by Christ. 2. Because, he was always first named. 3. He alone walked on the Waters. 4. He had peculiar Revelation. 5. He paid Tribute with Christ. 6. He was the chief in the miraculous fishing. 7. He is commanded to strengthen his Brethren. 8. He was the first of the Apostles, that saw Christ risen from the dead. 9 His feet Christ first washed. 10. Christ foretold his death, to him alone. 11. He was Precedent at the Election of Mathias. 12. He first preached after the Holy Ghost was given. 13. He did the first Miracle. 14. He condemned the hypocrisy of Ananias, etc. 15. He passed through all quarters, Acts 9 32. 16. He first preached to the Gentiles. 17. He was miraculously delivered out of prison. 18. Paul envied him. 19 Christ baptised him alone. 20. He detected and condemned Simon Magus. 21. He spoke first in the Council, Acts 15.  
These are 21 of the Prerogatives of Saint Peter, which Bellarmine makes Grounds and Arguments of his Primacy; which, if one say them over, and endeavour to apply them to any but Saint Peter's (individual) person, it will appear impossible; the reasons of this Primacy, cannot be supposed out of Peter's person; therefore Argum. the Primacy cannot pass to his Successor: mark them, and you will find they are all either Acts done by Saint Peter, or Graces received by him; and so personally in him, that, whatsoever depends on them, must needs die with Saint Peter's person, and cannot be inherited by his Successor.  
Indeed, this Primacy risen of such Grounds; and was in Saint Peter by Consequence of them; had the Primacy been an Office, or a Grace given, of or in or for itself, without respect to any of these Grounds, there had been some shadow (and but a shadow) for its Succession: but it having an essential dependence on those Reasons which were peculiar and proper to Saint Peter's person, they cease together.  
But, lest it should be thought, that there is 
Other seven Prerog. Bell.  more of Argument in the other seven Prerogatives which Bellarmine mentioned; I beg my Readers pardon, to set down them also: The first is, perpetual stability is promised to Peter and his See. 2. He alone, was Ordained Bishop by Christ, and the Rest by him. Card Cusan believes Aneclet. Epis. Bellarmine proves it counterfeit, c. 34. p. 771. Azorius. Suarez. and Cosm. Ph. deny it (these plainly beg the thing in question.) 3. He placed his Seat at Rome. 4. Christ appeared to him, a little before he died; therefore Primate? and his Successor too? 5. The Churches which he founded, were always counted Patriarchal. 6. The feast of his chair was celebrated. 7. And his Name added to the Name of the Trinity, in literis formatis: What then, was he not yet Primate before all this? was not his Primacy founded upon the Reasons above? will you say, he was not Primate; or by virtue of his Primacy was not Precedent in the two Councils mentioned? and, if that be more than confessed, (even pleaded by you) must not the former personal respects, be the Grounds of that Primacy? and is it possible for such a Primacy, by Succession, to descend to any other person? none, that consider, will say it.  
The Fathers acknowledge a Primacy in Saint 
Fathers.  Peter; but upon such personal grounds▪ as are mentioned. Saint Peter was called a Rock (saith 
Serm. 47.  Saint Ambrose (if the Book he his) eò quòd primus in Nationibus, etc. because he was the first that laid the Foundation of Faith in the World. Cerameus gives him likewise, primus Aditus Aedificationis spiritualis.  
Christianorum Pontifex primus, Petrus; & Reliquorum Apostolorum Princeps, propter virtutis 
Euseb.  Amplitudinem: He was Prince, for the greatness of his Virtue. Virtue, is a personal gift, and cannot pass by Succession.  
Saint Chrisostom indeed, is urged against us— Object. Curam, tum Petro, tum Petri Successoribus Committebat. lib. 2. de Sacerdotio.  
'Tis granted, Peter had his Successors in time Answ. and place; and that's all the words, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be rendered those which followed him) will conclude.  
However, admit the Bishop of Rome, did succeed Saint Peter in his care, as the word is; doth it follow, that he succeeded him in his Primacy? which hath appeared not capable of Succession.  

Application of Sect. 1.  
Therefore, I conclude, that whatsoever 
Inference.  Primacy the Bishop of Rome obtained in the Ancient Church, it was not the Primacy of Saint Peter; or, as he was Successor of Saint Peter in his Primacy; but he obtained it, upon other Grounds, not those Antecedent in Saint Peter; but such as arose afterwards, and were peculiar to the Church of Rome. A Note as easy to be observed by such as look into the practice of the Ancient Church; as of great caution and use in this Controversy. The Grounds are known to be such as these; because Rome was the Imperial City; because the Church of Rome was then most Famous for the Christian Faith; because, she was the most noted Seat of true Tradition; because her Bishops were most Eminent for Piety, Learning, and a charitable Care for other Churches: and lastly, perhaps, because Saint Peter had been Bishop there, his Memory might deflect some honour, at least, by way of motive, on the Bishop of Rome; as the Council of Sardica moveth; if it please you let us honour the Memory of Saint Peter: but, though the Memory of Saint Peter might be used, as an Argument of the Pope's Priority; 'tis far from concluding his inheriting Saint Peter's Primacy; though he had honour by being his Successor.  
2. It further follows, that the Primacy of 
Inference. Primacy not Jure Divino.  that See heretofore, was not Jure Divino, but from the Civility of the World; and the Courtesy of Princes; and the Gratitude of the Church.  
Indeed, this Primacy was not an Office, but an honour; and that honour, was not given by any Solemn Grant of God or Man; but seems to have gained upon the World insensibly, and by degrees, till it became a Custom, as the Council of Nice, intimates.  
3, Lastly, it follows, that this Primacy, was 
Inference; Not in succeeding Popes.  not derived to the Succeeding Bishops of Rome; it standing upon such temporary Grounds, as too soon, failed: for, when that, which was the cause of it, ceased; no wonder, if the honour was denied. When the Faith of the See was turned to Infidelity, and Blasphemy, and Atheism, and Sorcery (as their own men say) when their piety was turned into such villainies of pride, Simony, uncleaness, and monstrous lawdness, (as themselves report) when their care and vigilance was turned into Methods of wasting and destroying the Churches; when the Exordium Vnitatis was turned into a Head of Schism and division; no wonder that the Primacy and honour of the See of Rome, which was raised and stood upon the contrary grounds, was at length discovered to be groundless; and the former primacy which stood on Courtesy, and was exalted by an usurped Supremacy and Tyranny, was thrown off by us; and our ancient liberty is Repossessed, and the Glory of Rome is so far departed.    

SECT. II.  
Whether the Pope be Supreme as Successor of Peter, by Divine Right? Neg. Not Primate as such. Peter himself not Supreme. Pope not Succeed him at all.  
THis is the last Refuge, and the meaning of it is; that our Saviour made St. Peter Universal Monarch of the whole Church, and intended the Pope of Rome should succeed him in that power.  
All possible defence herein, hath been prevented: For if the Bishop of Rome did not succeed him in his Primacy, how should he succeed him in his Supremacy? Again, if St. Peter had no such Supremacy, as hath appeared, how should the Pope receive it as his Successor? Besides, what ever power St. Peter had, it doth no way appear that the Pope should succeed him in it; much less in our Saviour's Intention, or by Divine Right.  
However, let us try their colours. Will they maintain it, that Christ appointed the Bishops of Rome to succeed St. Peter in so great a power? The Claim is considerable, the whole World in all Ages is concerned; none could give this privilege of Succession, but the giver of the power. But where did he do it? Where or how, when or by whom was it expressed? Should not the Grant of so great an Empire, wherein all are so highly concerned, especially when it is disputed and pretended, be produced?  
Instead of plain proof we are put off with obscure and vanishing Shadows, such as follow.   

SECT. III.  
Arg. 1. Peter Assigned it.  
INstead of proving that Christ did, they say Arg. 1 that St. Peter when he died, bestowed the Supremacy upon the Bishops of Rome, in words to this effect; as Hart expresseth them. I Ordain this Clement to be your Bishop; unto whom alone I commit the Chair of my Preaching and Doctrine; And I give to him that power of binding and losing, which Christ gave to me.  
And what then? (I Ordain) than he had it Ans. not, as Peter's Successor by Divine Right, but as a Gift and Legacy of St. Peter. 2. (This Clement) a foul blot to the Story: For it's plain in Records, that Linus continued Bishop eleven years after Peter's death; and Cletus twelve after Linus; before Clemens had the Chair. [Your Bishop] 
Euseb. in Chron.  that is the Bishop of Rome; what's this to the Universal Bishop? [And I give to him] what? the Chair of Preaching and Doctrine, and the power of the Keys. viz. no more than is given to every Bishop at his Ordination. Now 'tis observable, though this pitiful Story signify 
Vid. Raynolds and Hart. p. 269 etc.  just nothing; yet what strange Arts and stretches of invention are forced to support it, and to render it possible though all in vain.   

SECT. iv  
Arg. 2. Bishop of Antioch did not Succeed: Ergo of Rome.  
BEllarmine argues more subtly, yet supposeth Arg. 2 more strongly than he argues. Pontifex Romanus, the Highpriest of Rome, succeeded St. Peter (dying at Rome) in his whole dignity and power; for there was never any that affirmed himself to be St. Peter's Successor any way, or was accounted for such; besides the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Antioch: But the Bishop of Antioch did not succeed St. Peter in pontificatu Ecclesiae totius; therefore the Bishop of Rome did.  
He supposeth that St. Peter's Successor succeeded Ans. him in all his dignity and power; but 'tis acknowledged by his friends, there was no Succession of the Apostolic, but only of the Episcopal power. 2. If so, then Linus, Cletus, and Clemens, should have had dignity and power over John, and the other Apostles; (who lived after St. Peter) as their Pastor and Head; according to their own way of Arguing. 3. Besides, St. Peter had power of casting out of Devils, etc. and doing such miracles as the Pope pretends not to do. Lastly, what if the Pope affirms that he is, and others account him to be St. Peter's Successor; the point requires the truth thereof to be shown, Jure divino.   

SECT. V  
Arg. 3. St. Peter died at Rome. Then de Facto, not the Fide.  
BEllarmine saith, the Succession itself is Jure Arg. 3 divino; but the Ratio Successionis arose out of the Fact of St. Peter (planting his See and dying at Rome;) and not from Christ's first Institution: Then doubts (quamvis non sit etc.) whether this Succession be so according to his own position, fortè non est de jure divino; but neither shows the Succession itself to be Christ's Institution at all; nor proves the Tradition of Peter, on which he seems to lay his stress; and we may guests why he doth not.  
In short, if the Succession of the Bishop of Rome Ans. be of Faith; 'tis so either in Jure or in Facto: But neither is proved. Yea the contrary is acknowledged by Bellarmine himself. Not in Right because that is not certo divinum, as Bellarmine confesseth: Nor in Fact, because before Peter's death, which introduced no change in the Faith, as Bellarmine also confesseth, this Succession was not of Faith.  
Indeed it is well observed, that the whole weight of Bellarmine's reasoning, is founded in Fact; (then where is the Jus divinum?) 2. In such fact (of Peter) as is not found in Scripture, or can be proved any way. 3. In such Fact as cannot constitute a Right either divine or humane. 4. In such Fact as cannot conclude a Right, in the sense of the most learned Romanists. Scot in 4. dist. 24. Cordubensis lib. 4. qu. 1. Cajetan de prim. pap. c. 23. Bannes in 2. 2. q. 1. a. 10. who contend, that the union of the Bishopric of the City and the World, is only per accidens, and not Jure divine, vel imperio Christi.  
But when the uncertainty of that Fact (on which the Right of foe great and vast an Empire is raised) is considered; what further answer can be expected? For is it not uncertain whether Peter were ever at Rome? or whether he was ever Bishop of Rome? or whether he died at Rome? or whether Christ called him back that he might die at Rome? or whether he ordained Clement to succeed him at Rome? Indeed there is little else certain about the matter but this; that Peter did not derive to him that succeeded him, and his Successors for ever, his whole dignity and Power; and a greater Authority than he had himself, Jure divino.  
But if we allow all the uncertainties mentioned, to be most certain; we need not fear to look the Argument, with all its attendants and strength, in the face. Peter was Bishop of Rome, was warned by Christ immediately to place his Seat at Rome, to stay and die at Rome; and before he died, he appointed one to succeed him in his Bishopric at Rome: Therefore the Bishops of Rome successively are universal Pastors, and have supreme power over the whole Church jure divino. Is not the cause rendered suspicious by such Arguments? and indeed desperate, that needs them, and has no better?   

SECT. VI  
Arg. 4. Councils, Popes, Fathers.  
BEllarmine tells us boldly, that the Primacy Arg. of the Roman Highpriest, is proved out of the Councils; the Testimonies of Popes, by the consent of the Fathers, both Greek and Latin.  
These great words are no Arguments; the matter hath been examined under all these Topics, Ans. and not one of them proves a Supremacy of Power over the whole Church to have been anciently in the Pope, much less from the beginning and jure divino; especially when St. Augustine and the Greek Fathers directly opposed it as an Usurpation.  
A Primacy of Order is not in the question; though that also was obtained by the ancient Popes, only more humano; and on Temporary Reasons as hath before appeared. But as a learned man saith, the Primacy of a Monarchical Power in the Bishop of Rome, was never affirmed by any ancient Council, or by any one of the ancient Fathers, or so much as dreamt of; and at what time afterwards the Pope took upon him to be a Monarch; it should be inquired qno jure, by what Right he did so: whether by Divine, Humane, or altogether by his own, i. e. no Right at all.   

SECT. VII.  
Arg. 5. The Prevention of Schism. St. Jerom.  
A Primacy was given to Peter for preventing 
Ar. 5.  Schism, as St. Hierom saith: Now hence they urge, that a mere precedency of Order is not sufficient for that.  
The Inference is not divine; it is not St. Hieroms; Ans. it is only for St. Peter and reacheth not the Pope: Besides it plainly argues a mistake of 
Lib. 1. Jou. c. 14.  St. Jerom's assertion, and would force him to a contradiction. For immediately before; he teacheth, that the Church is built equally on all the Apostles, and that they all receive the Keys, and that the firmness of the Church is equally grounded on them all; so that what Primacy he meant, it consisted with Equality, as Monarchy cannot.  
Therefore St. Hierom more plainly in another 
Epis. ad Evagr.  place, affirms; that wherever there is a Bishop, whether at Rome, Constantinople, etc. Ejusdem meriti est, ejusdem est & Sacerdotii. Again, 'tis neither Riches nor Poverty which makes Bishops higher or lower, but they are all the Apostles Successors.   

SECT. VIII.  
Arg. 6. Church committed to him.  
ST. Chrysostom saith, the Care of the Church 
Ar. 6.  was committed, as to Peter, so to his Successors. (Tum Petro, tum etc.) therefore the Bishops of Rome being Successors of St. Peter in that Chair; have the care, and consequently the power committed to them, which was committed to Peter.  
True, the Care and power of a Bishop, not Ans. of an Apostle or universal Monarch; the commission of all other Bishops, carried Care and power also.  
But indeed, this place proves not so much as that the Pope is Peter's Successor in either; much less Jure divino, which was the thing to be proved: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, those which followed in time and place, not otherwise; as before.   

SECT. IX.  
Arg. 7. One Chair. Optatus, Cyprian, Ambrose, Acacius.  
THere is one Chair (saith Optatus) quae prima Arg. 7 est de Dotibus; in which Peter sat first; Linus succeeded him; and Clemens, Linus.  
Optatus speaks nothing against the Title or power of other Chairs; or for the pre-eminence of power in this one Chair above the rest.  
He intended not to exclude the other Apostolical Seats from the honour or power of Chairs: For he saith as well that James sat at Jerusalem, and John at Ephesus; as that Peter sat at Rome, which Tertullian calls Apostolicas Cathedras; all presiding in their own places. De praescrip. c. 36.  
'Tis most evident, that Optatus calls the Chair of Peter one, not because of any Superiority over other Apostolical Chairs; but because of the Unity of the Catholic Church, in opposition to the Donatists; who set up another Chair in opposiion (Altar contra Altar) to the Catholic Church.  
Bellarmine well observes, that Optatus followed the doctrine of St. Cyprian, who said, there is but one Church, one Chair, etc. And out of St. Cyprian himself, his meaning therein is manifest 
Cyprian.  to be no other, than a specifical, not numerical Unity. He tells us plainly in the same place, that the other Apostles were the same with Peter, equal in honour and power: He teacheth that the one Bishopric is dispersed— consisting of the unanimous multitude of many Bishops; that the Bishopric is but one; a portion whereof is wholly and fully Head of every Bishop: So there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholic Church, i. e. all Bishops ought to be one in Faith and Fellowship. Vid. Cypr. de Vnit. Eccles. & lib. 3. Epis. 11.  
But is it not prodigious, that men should build the Pope's Dominion, upon the Doctrine of Saint Cyprian and Optatus? The latter tells us roundly; that whosoever is without (the Communion of) seven Churches of Asia, is an Alien; in effect, calling the Pope Infidel; and Saint Cyprian, is well known to have always styled Pope Cornelius, Brother; to have severely censured his Successor Pope Stephen, contradicting his Decrees; opposing the Roman Councils; disclaiming the Pope's Power of Appeals, and contemning his Excommunications.  
A Council at afric under Saint Cyprian; as another, wherein Saint Augustine sat, rejected and condemned the Jurisdiction of the Pope over them; as is frequently observed; and why do men endeavour to blind the World with a few words of these great Father's contrary to the known Language of their Actions and course of Life.  
The sense of the words may be disputed, but when it came to a Trial, their deeds are known to have showed their mind, beyond all dispute.  
For Instance, Ambrose calls Pope Damascus' 
Ambr.  Rector of the whole Church: yet 'tis known that he would never yield his Senses to the Law of Rome about Easter, lib. 3. de sacr. c. 1. for which, the Church of Milan, was called the Church of Ambrose 670 years after his death, when the Clergy of Milan withstood the Legate of Leo 9 saying, the Church of Ambrose had been always free, and never yet subject to the Laws of the Pope of Rome; as Baron. notes, An. 1059. Nu. 46.  
Many other Airy Titles and Courtly Addresses given to the Pope in the Writings of the Fathers, we have observed before, to carry some Colour for a Primacy of Order; but no wise man can imagine, that, they are an Evidence or Ground, much less a formal Grant of Universal Dominion: seeing, scarce one of them, but is, in some of the Fathers; and usually by the same Fathers, given, as well to the other Apostles, and to other Bishops, as to Peter and the Pope; and so unfortunate is Bellarmine in his Instances, that usually, the very same place carries its Confutation.  
It is strange, that so great a Wit should so egregiously bewray itself; to bring in Acacius, Bishop of Constantinople, submitting, as it were, the Eastern Church to the See of Rome; because, in his Epistle to Pope Simplicius, he tells him, he hath the care of all the Churches: for, what one Bishop of those times could have been worse pitched upon for his purpose? who, ever opposed himself more fiercely against the Jurisdiction of the Pope than Acacius? who, more boldly rejected his Commands than this Patriarch? or stands in greater opposition to Rome in all History? yet Acacius must be the Instance of an Eastern Patriarch's Recognition of the 
An. 478 n. 3. An. 483. n. 78. An. 484. n. 17. As they say.  See of Rome. Acacius, phrenesi abreptus (as Baronius hath it) adversus Rom. Pontificem Violenter insurgit. Acacius, that Received those whom the Pope Damned. Acacius, Excommunicated by the Pope; and the very Head of the Eastern Schism; this is the man that must witness the Pope's Supremacy against himself, and his own▪ and his Churches famous Cause: and this, by saying in a Letter to the Pope himself, that he had the care of all Churches; a Title given to Saint Paul in the days of Peter; to Athanasius, in the time of Pope Julius; to the Bishops of France, in time of Pope Elutherius; and to Zecharias an Archbishop, by Pope John the first; but conferred no Monarchy upon any of them.  
I do not remember, that I have yet mentioned the Titles of Summus Pontifex, and Pontifex 
Sum. & max. Pontifex.  Maximus; which are also said to carry the Pope's Supremacy in them; but it is impossible any wise man can think so. Azor. (Jesuit) acknowledgeth these terms, may have a Negative Sense only: and Baronius saith, they do admit Equality. In this Sense, Pope Clemens called Saint James, Bishop of Bishops; and Pope 
Epis. 8●  Leo, styled all Bishops, Summos Pontifices; and the Bishops of the East write to the Patriarch of Constantinople under the Title of Universal Patriarch, and call themselves Chief Priests. Epist. ad Tharasiam, etc.   

SECT. X.  
The Conclusion touching the Fathers. Reasons why no more of them. A Challenge touching them. No Consent of Fathers in the Point. Evident in General Councils. Reasons of it. Rome ' s contradiction of Faith. Pope, Schism, Perjury, etc.  
I Was almost tempted, to have gone through, with a particular Examination of all the Titles and Phrases, which Bellarmine hath with too much Vanity, gathered out of the Fathers both Greek and Latin, on behalf of the Pope's Supremacy: But, considering, they are most of them very frivolous and impertinent; and that I conceive I have not omitted any one that can be soberly thought material; and, that all of them have been frequently answered by Learned Protestants; and very few of them (so answered) thought fit to be replied to by our Adversaries; I thought it prudent, to excuse that very needless exercise; and I hope none will account me blame-worthy for it: but, if any do so, I offer Compensation, by this humble Challenge upon mature deliberation.  
If any one, or more places, in any of the 
A Challenge.  Ancient Fathers, Greek or Latin, shall be chosen, by any sober Adversary; and argued from, as Evidence of the Pope's Supremacy, as Successor to Saint Peter; God giving me life and health, I shall appear and undertake the Combat, with weapons extant, in our English Writers; though they may not think, that one or two, or more passages out of single Fathers are sufficient, to bear away the Cause in so great a Point: seeing, they themselves, will not suffer the Testimony of many of the same Fathers, to carry it for us, in a Point of the least Concernment.  
In the mean time, I most confidently conclude; that the Pope's Supremacy hath not the Consent of the Primitive Fathers; as Bellarmine boasts; and that, what ever he would have them say; they did not believe, and therefore not intent to say; that, the Pope was absolute Monarch of the Catholic Church: and consequently, that there was no such Tradition in the Primitive Ages; either before, or during the time of the eight first General Councils; is to me, a Demonstration, evident, for these Reasons.  
The eight first General Councils, being all Reas. 1 Called and Convened by the Authority of Emperors, stand upon Record, as a notable Monument of the former Ages of the Catholic Church; in prejudice to the Papal Monarchy, as Saint Peter's Successor, in those times; the first eight General Councils (saith Cusanus) were gathered, 
Concord. Cathol. l. 2. c. 25.  by Authority of Emperors, and not of Popes: insomuch that Pope Leo, was glad to entreat the Emperor Theodosius the younger, for the gathering of a Council in Italy, and (non obtinuit) could not obtain it.  
Every one of these Councils opposed this pretended Reas. 2 Monarchy of the Pope: the first by stating the limits of the Roman Diocese; as well as other Patriarchates: the second, by concluding, the Roman Primacy not to be grounded upon Divine Authority; and setting up a Patriarch of Constantinople, against the Pope's Will: the third, by inhibiting any Bishop whatsoever, to ordain Bishops, within the Isse of Cyprus: the fourth, by advancing the Bishop of Constantinople, to equal privileges, with the Bishop of Rome; notwithstanding the Pope's earnest opposition against it: the fifth, in condemning the Sentence of Pope Vigilius although very vehement in the cause: the sixth and seventh, in condemning Pope Honorius of Heresy: and the eight and last, by imposing a Canon upon the Church of Rome, and challenging obedience thereunto.  
This must pass for the unquestionable Sense Reas. 3 of the Catholic Church, in those Ages, viz. for the space of above 540 years together, from the first General Council of Nice: for our Adversaries themselves, style every one of the General Councils the Catholic Church; and what was their Belief, was the Faith of the whole Church; and what their belief was, hath appeared; viz. that the Pope had not absolute power over the Church Jure Divino; an Opinion abhorred by their contrary Sentences and practices.  
'Tis observed by a Learned man, that the Reas. 4 Fathers, which flourished in all those eight Councils, were in Number 2280. how few Friends 
2280 Fathers.  had the Pope left to equal and Countermand them? or, what Authority had they to do it? yea name one eminent Father, either Greek or Latin, that you count a Friend to the Pope, and in those Ages; whose name we cannot show you in one of those Councils: if so, hear the Church; the Judgement of single Fathers is not to be received, against their Joint Sentences and Acts, in Councils; 'tis your own Law: now, where is the Argument for the Pope's Authority from the Fathers? they are not to be believed against Councils: they spoke their Sense in this very Point, as you have heard, in the Councils; and in all the Councils rejected and condemned it.  
The belief of these eight General Councils Reas. 5 is the professed Faith of the Roman Church: Therefore, the Roman Church hath been involved 
Rome's contradiction of Faith.  and entangled, at least ever since the Council of Trent, in the Confusion and Contradiction of Faith; and that in Points necessary to Salvation.  
For the Roman Church hold it necessary to Salvation, to believe all the eight General Councils; as the very Faith of the Catholic Church; and we have found all these Councils, have one way or other, declared plainly, against the Pope's 
Bull. Pii. 4.  Supremacy; and yet the same Church holds it necessary to Salvation to believe the contrary, by the Council of Trent; viz. that the Pope is Supreme Bishop and absolute Monarch of the Catholic Church.  
Some Adversaries would deal more severely 
Rome's Heresy.  with the Church of Rome upon this Point; and charge her with Heresy in this, as well as in many other Articles: for there is a Repugnancy in the Roman Faith, that seems to inter no less than Heresy, one way or other: he that believes the Article of the Pope's Supremacy, denies, in effect, the eight first General Councils, at least in that Point; and that's Heresy. And, he that believes the Council of Trent; believes the Article of the Pope's Supremacy: therefore, he that believes the Council of Trent, does not believe the eight first General Councils; and is guilty of Heresy.  
Again, he that believes, that the Pope is not Supreme, denies the Council of Trent, and the Faith of the present Church, and that's Heresy; and he that believes the eight first general Councils, believes that the Pope is not Supreme: therefore, he denies the Council of Trent, and the Faith of the present Church, and is an Heretic, with a witness.  
'Tis well if the Argument conclude here; 
etc. Infidelity.  and extend not its Consequence to the charge of Infidelity, as well as Heresy, upon the present Roman Church: seeing, this Repugnancy in the Roman Faith seems to destroy it, altogether: for,  
He that believes the Pope's Supremacy, in the Sense of the Modern Church of Rome, denies the Faith of the Ancient Church in that point, and he that believes it not, denies the Faith of the present Church; and the present Church of Rome that professeth both, believes neither. These contrary Faiths put together, like two contrary Salts, mutually destroy one another. He that believes that, doth not believe this; he that believes this, doth not believe that: Therefore he that professeth to believe both, doth plainly profess he believes neither.  
Load not others with the crimes of Heresy and Infidelity, but Pull the beams out of your own eye.  
But the charge falls heavier upon the Head of 
Pope's Schism and Perjury.  the present Roman Church: For not only Heresy and Infidelity, but Schism, and the foulest that ever the Church groaned under; and such as the greatest Wit can hardly distinguish from Apostasy; Reas. 6 and all aggravated with the horrid crime of direct and self-condemning Perjury, fasten themselves to his Holiness' Chair, from the very constitution of the Papacy itself.  
For the Pope as such, professeth to believe, and sweareth to govern the Church according to the Canons of the 8 first general Councils; yet openly 
Greg. 7. Bin. To. 3. p. 1196. Innoc. 3. Bonif. 8. Calechis. Ro. Nu. 10, 11, and 13.  claims, and professedly practiseth a Power condemned by them all.  
Thus Quatenus Pope, he stands guilty of separation from the Ancient Church; and as Head of a new and strange Church, draws the Body of his Faction after him into the same Schism; in flat contradiction to the essential Profession, both of the ancient and present Church of Rome: and to that solemn Oath, by which also the Pope as Pope, binds himself at his Inauguration, to maintain and communicate with.  
Hence, not only Usurpation, Innovations, and Tyranny, are the Fruits of his Pride, Ambition, and Perjury; but if possible, the guilt is made more Scarlet by his Cruelty to Souls; intended by his formal Courses of Excommunications, against all that own not his usurped Authority, viz. the Primitive Churches, the 8 first general Councils, all the Fathers of the Latin and Greek Churches, for many hundred years; the greater part of the present Catholic Church, and even the Apostles of Christ, and our Lord himself.  

The Sum of the whole matter. A touch of another Treatise. The material Cause of Separation.  
THe Sum of our defence is this: If the Pope have no Right to Govern the Church of England, as our Apostle or Patriarch, or as Infallible; if his Supremacy over us was never grounded in, but ever renounced by our Laws and Customs, and the very constitution of the Kingdom: If his Supremacy be neither of Civil, Ecclesiastical, or Divine Right; if it be disowned by the Scriptures and Fathers, and condemned by the Ancient Councils; the Essential Profession of the present Roman Church, and the solemn Oaths of the Bishops of Rome themselves: If, I say, all be certainly so as hath appeared; what reason remains for the necessity of the Church of England's readmission of, or submission to the Papal Authority, usurped contrary to all this? Or what reason is left to charge us with Schism for rejecting it?  
But it remains to be shown; that as the claim of the Pope's Authority in England cannot be allowed; so there is cause enough otherwise of our denial of obedience actually to it, from Reason's inherent in the Usurpation itself, and the Nature of many things required by his Laws.  
This is the second Branch of our defence; proposed at first to be the Subject of another Treatise.  
For who can think it necessary to communicate with Error, Heresy, Schism, Infidelity and Apostasy; to conspire in damning the Primitive Church, the Ancient Fathers, General Councils, and the better and greater part of the Christian World at this day? or willingly at least, to return to the infinite Superstitions and Idolatries; which we have escaped, and from which our blessed Ancestors (through the infinite mercy and providence of God) wonderfully delivered us.  
Yet these horrid things cannot be avoided, if we shall again submit ourselves, and enslave our Nation to the pretended Powers and Laws of Rome; from which, Libera nos Domine.      

THE POSTSCRIPT.  
Objections touching the First General Councils, and our Arguments from them, answered more fully.  

SECT. I.  
The Argument from Councils drawn up, and Conclusive of the Fathers, and the Cath. Church.  
IN this Treatise I have considered the Canons of the ancient Councils two ways; as Evidence, and Law. As Evidence, they give us the undoubted sense and Faith, both of the Catholic Church, and of single Fathers in those times; and nothing can be said against that. As Law, we have plainly found that none of them confer the Supremacy pleaded for, but every one of them in special Canons condemn it.  
Now this latter is so great a proof of the former, that it admits of no possible reply; except Circumstances on the by, shall be set in opposition and contradiction to the plain Text in the body of the Law.  
And if neither the Church nor single Fathers had any such faith of the Pope's Supremacy, during the first General Councils; then neither did they believe it from the Beginning: For if it had been the Faith of the Church before, the Councils would not have rejected it, and indeed the very form and method of proceeding in those Ancient Councils, is sufficient Evidence that it was not.  
However, why is it not shown by some colour of Argument at least, that the Church did believe the Pope's Supremacy before the time of those Councils? why do we not hear of some one single Father, that declared so much before the Council of Nice, or rather before the Canons of the Apostles? Or why is there no notice taken of such a Right, or so much as Pretence in the Pope, either by those Canons or one single Father before that time?  
Indeed our Authors find very shrewd Evidence of the contrary.  
Why (saith Casaubon) was Dionysins so utterly 
Dionysins.  silent, as to the Universal Head of the Church Reigning at Rome; if at that time there had been any such Monarch there? Especially seeing he professedly wrote of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and Government. Exerc. 16. in Bar. an. 34. Nu. 2●0.  
The like is observable in Ignatius, the most 
Ignatius Epist. ad Tral.  Ancient Martyr and Bishop of Antioch; who in his Epistles frequently sets forth the Order Ecclesiastical, and dignity of Bishops upon sundry occasions, but never mentions the Monarchy of St. Peter or the Roman Pope. Ibid. he writing to the Church of Trallis to obey Bishops as Apostles, instanceth equally in Timothy St. Paul's Scholar, as in Anacletus Successor to St. Peter.  
The Prudence and Fidelity of these two prime Fathers, are much stained, if there were then an Universal Bishop over the whole Church; that professedly writing of the Ecclesiastical Order, they 
St. Paul.  should so neglect him, as not to mention Obedience due to him; and indeed of St. Paul himself, who gives us an enumeration of the Primitive Ministry, on set purpose, both in the ordinary and extraordinary kinds of it, [viz. Some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors and Teachers] and takes no notice of the Universal Bishop; but we hence conclude rather, there was no such thing.  
For who would give an account of the Government of a City, Army, or Kingdom; and say nothing of the Mayor, General, or Prince? This surpasseth the fancy of Prejudice itself.  
Irenaeus is too ancient for the Infallible Chair; 
Ireneus lib. 2. c. 3. p. 140, 141.  and therefore refers us, in the point of Tradition, as well to Polycarp in the East, as to Linus Bishop of Rome in the West.  
Tertullian adviseth to consult the Mother-Churches 
Tertullian praescr. p. 76.  immediately founded by the Apostles; and names Ephesus and Corinth as well as Rome; and Polycarpus ordained by St. John, as well as Clemens by Peter. Upon which their own Renanus notes, that Tertullian doth not confine the Catholic and Apostolic Church to one place; for which freedom of Truth, the Judex expurgatorius corrected him, but Tertullian is Tertullian still.  
These things cannot consist, either with their own knowledge of an Universal Bishop, or the Churches at that time; therefore the Church of Egypt held the Catholic Faith with the chief-Priests, naming Anatolinus of Constant. Basil of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, as well as Leo Bishop of Rome. Bin. To. inter Epist. illust. person. 147. And it is decreed (saith the Church of Carthage) we consult our Brethren, Syricius Bishop of Rome, and Simplicius Bishop of Milan. Concil. Carth. 3. c. 48.  
The like we have observed out of Origen, Clemens Alex. Cyprian, etc. before.  
Hence it follows, that the Church and the Fathers before the Councils, had no knowledge of the Pope's Supremacy, and we have a plain answer to all obscure passages in those Fathers to the contrary.  
Besides, whatever private opinion any of them might seem to intimate on the Pope's behalf before, 'tis certain it can have no Authority against the sense and sentences of General Councils, which soon after determined against him, as hath appeared in every one of them, in so express and indisputable terms, in the very body of the Canons; that it is beyond all possible hopes to support their cause from any circumstantial Arguments touching those Councils: Yet these also shall now be considered in their order.   

SECT. II.  
Objections touching the Council of Nice, answered  
LEt us begin with the Council of Nice, consisting 
1. General.  of 318 Bishops, which is found so plain in two special Canons, (the one forbidding Appeals, and the other limiting the Jurisdiction of the Provinces according to Custom) against the Papal Supremacy; that one would think nothing could be objected: But Bellarmine will say something that was never said before.  
He saith, the Bishop of Alexandria should Obj. 1 have those Provinces, because the Bishop of Rome was accustomed to permit him so to do.  
We have given full answer to this before; but Ans. a learned Prelate of ours hath rendered it so senseless 
Morton grand impost. p. 132 etc.  and shameless a gloss, in so many and evident instances; that I cannot forbear to give the sum of what he hath said, that it may further appear our greatest Adversaries are out of their Wits, when they pretend a fence against the Canons.  
After the nonsense of it, he shows its impudence against the Sunshine Light of Story and Grammar; because it is so evident, that the words [because the Bishop of Rome hath the same Custom] are words of Comparison betwixt Alexandria and Rome, in point of ancient Privilege, both from the words [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and three Editions; now entered into the body of the Councils by their own Binius; wherein the words are, because the Church of Rome hath the like Custom.  
Yet this were modesty, Did they not know, saith he, that the Council of Chalcedon did against the Will of the Pope, advance the privilege of Constantinople, upon this ground of Custom?  
The matter is so plain, that 〈◊〉 own Cardinal Cusan. concord Catho. li. 2. cap. 12. concludes thus; We see how much the Bishop of Rome, by use and custom of Subjectional Obedience hath got at this day, beyond the ancient Constitutions; speaking of this very Council.  
Bellarmine saith, the beginning of that Canon in the vulgar Books is thus: The Roman Church Obj. 2 semper habet primatum, mos autem perduret.  
The answer is; 'tis shameful to prefer one Ans. vulgar Book before all other Greek or Latin Copies; and before the Book of the Pope's decrees, set out at Paris, an. 1559. or the Editions sent by two Patriarches, on purpose to give satisfaction in this Cause; which Bellarmine himself acknowledgeth, lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 13. In none of all which, the word [Primacy] is to be found; and consequently is foisted into that vulgar book. But what if it were? the bare Primacy is not disputed in the sense given of it by the Council of Chalcedon; It behoves, that the Archbishop of Const. (new Rome) be dignified with the same Primacy of Honour after Rome: Prerogativam dignitatis Zozom. l. 7. c. 9   

SECT. III.  
2. Gen. Council. Objections touching the Council of Constantinople, Answered.  
NExt, to the Council of Constantinople, being 
2. General.  the second General; let us hear what is objected.  
They say themselves, saith Bellarmine, that Obj. 1 they were gathered by the mandate of Pope Damasus.  
1. What then? suppose we should give the Ans. Pope as the Head of Unity and order, the honour of convening General Councils; and of sitting as Precedent in them? What's this to the Supremacy of Government? or what more than might be contained in the Primacy, that is not now disputed.  
2. But Bellarmine himself confesseth, that those words are not in the Epistle of the Council as all Mandates use to be; but of certain Bishops that had been at the Council.  
3. 'Tis recorded, that the Mandate from the 
Vid. Theod. l. 5. c. 7. Zoz. l. 7. c. 7. Neeeph. l. 12.  Emperor gathered them together: the Testimony will have credit before the Cardinal.  
4. Indeed the Pope sent Letters, in order to the calling this Conncil, but far from Mandatory; neither were they sent to the Eastern Bishops, to 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  require, but to the Emperor Theodosius by way of Request, for the obtaining Liberty to assemble a Synod. Did he command the Emperor? why did not Pope Leo afterwards command a general Council in Italy nearer home, when he had entreated Theodosius for it with much importunity; and could not obtain? the time was not ripe for the Pope's Commands, either of Emperors or Synods.  
It is also said, that the Council acknowledged Obj. 2 that the Church of Rome was the Head, and they the Members, in their very Epistle to Pope Damasus.  
Bellarmine confesseth, this is not in their Epistle, Ans. but the Epistles of the Bishops as before.  
2. If they had thus complemented the Pope, it could not be interpreted beyond the Head of a Primate and their union with him in the same Faith: 'Tis evident enough they intended nothing less than a Supremacy of Power in that Head, or subjection of Obedience in themselves as Members.  
3. This is evident in the very inscription of the Epistle, which was not to Damasus only, but jointly to others, thus. Most Honourable and Reverend Brethren and Colleagues: And the Epistle itself is answerable; We declare ourselves to be your proper Members: but how? That you Reigning, we may Reign with you.  
4. The Sum is, there were at this time two Councils, convened by the same Emperor Theodosius both to one purpose; this at Constantinople, the other at Rome: That at Rome was but a particular, the other at Constantinople was ever esteemed a general Council. Who now can imagine, that the General was subject to the Particular; and in that sense, Members? No, the particular Church of Rome then, was not the Catholic; they humbly express their Communion: We are all Christ's, who is not divided by us; by whose grace we will preserve entire the body of the Church. They did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (as their word was) their fellow Members, which they styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their fellow Workers.  
This second Canon against the Pope, was never Obj. 3 
Baron. Binius.  received by the Church of Rome; because Furtive, as Baronius, inter Acta relatus.  
This is beyond all colour; for the Bishops of Ans. Rome opposed it as unfit, yet never said it was forged. Leo, Gelasius, Gregory, all took it very ill, but no one said it was false: The Pope's Legates also in the Council of Chalcedon made mention of this Canon by way of Opposition, but yet never offered at its being surreptitious: But that which is, instar omnium, in this Evidence, is this; the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, in their Letters to Pope Leo, say, that with mutual consent, they confirmed the Canon of 150 Bishops at Const. notwithstanding that his Bishops and Legates— did descent therefrom. Now what if a few Histories do not mention this Canon, which is all that remains to be said? Socrates and Zozomon do, and two positive Witnesses are better than twenty Negative. Besides, though it's much against the Hair of Rome, yet it's so evident, that Gratian himself reports that Canon verbatim, as Acted in that Council.   

SECT. iv  
Objections against the Third General Council at Ephesus, answered.  
IT is said by Bellarmine, that they confessed Obj. 1 they deposed Nestorius, by the Command of Pope Celestine.  
We answer; that Command should appear in Ans. 1 the Pope's Letters to them, but it doth not; the stile of Command was not then in use, for almost 200 years after, Pope Gregory abhors it. 
Li 7. Ep. 30.   
2. The words intended are these; tum Ecclesiae canonibus, tum Epistolâ Patris (Celestini) & 
Verb. Conc. de Nest. l. 1. c. 4.  Collegae nostri, compulsi: They were compelled both by the Canons and by his Letters, therefore they did it by the Pope's Command; an excellent consequence from the part to the whole. Indeed they first show, that they were satisfied both by his Words and Letters, that he had deserved deposition; and then acknowledge they ought by the Canons, and no doubt would have deposed him, as well as John of Antioch shortly after, without the Pope's Authority; though they give this Compliment to Celestine, for his seasonable advice, grounded upon the Canons and merits of the Cause.  
But the Council, say they, durst not Judge▪ Obj. 2 John Bishop of Antioch; and that they reserved him to the Judgement of Pope Celestine.  
Strange! Bellarmine hence 1. Denies matter Ans. of Fact, mentioned in the very same Paragraph. They durst not depose this Patriarch, when they tell the Pope in terminis they had done it: Se illum prius excommunicasse & omni potestate sacerdotali exuisse. What is this but Deposition? 2. He hence concludes, a wonderful Right; that the Pope is absolutely above a General Council: a conclusion denied by their own general Councils of Constance and Basil, ever disclaimed by the Doctors of Paris, as contrary to Antiquity; and which no Council since the beginning of Christianity did expressly decree; as Dr. Stapleton himself confesseth; and therefore flies to Silence as consent. Quamvis nullo decreto publico tamen tacito doctorum consensu definita etc. doctr. princ. l. 13. c. 15.  
But all this is evidently against both the sense of the Council declared in this point, and the reason of the Canon itself.  
1. They sufficiently declared their sense in the very Epistle alleged, where speaking of the points constituted by the Pope; We, say they, have judged them to stand firm: wherofore we agree with you in one sentence, and do hold them (meaning Pelagius and others) to be deposed: So that instead of the Pope's confirming Acts of Councils, this Council confirms the Acts of the Pope, whom indeed they plainly call their Colleague and Fellow-worker. Epis. Syn.  
2. In the Acts or Canons (their reason and very words, establishing the Cyprian Privilege, as hath been shown) they bond and determine the power of Rome, as well as other Patriarchates; and certainly they therefore never intended to acknowledge the absolute Monarchy of the Pope over themselves, by reserving John of Antioch to Celestine, after they had deposed him; they declare their own end plainly enough: vilius temeritatem animi lenitate vinceremus; that is, as you have it in Binius, Celestine might try whether by any reason he could bring him to a better mind, that so he might be received into favour again.   

SECT. V  
Objections touching the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth General Councils especially. Touching the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon, answered. Conclusion.  
THis Council styled the Pope, Ecumenical Patriarch, Obj. 1 
Bellar.  or Universal Bishop.  
The Title was not given by the Council itself, but by two Deacons writing to the Council, and of Paschasius the Popes Legate in the Council.  
2. Though the Council did not question the form of the Title, yet no one can think that they either intended to grant or acknowledge the Pope's Universal Authority by such their silence: For, 'tis incredible that the same Council which gave equal Privileges to Constantinople, should give or acknowledge an Universal Jurisdiction to Rome, over the whole Church.  
3. But the words answer themselves; Vniversali Archiepiscopo magnae Romae, Universal Archbishop, 
Conc. Calc. Act. 3.  not of the whole Church, but of Great Rome: Which grand Restriction denies that Universal Power, which they would argue from it●▪ The stile of the Roman Emperor▪ is Universal Emperor of Rome, and thus is distinguished from the Emperor of Turkey and all others; and denieth him to be the Emperor of the whole world.  
Saith Binius, in Annot▪ in Conc. Calced. Act 3. ex Obj. Baron. The Title at first was the Bishop of the Universal Church, because it is so read in the Epistle of Leo; but was altered by some Greek Scribe in envy to the Church of Rome.  
'Tis likely that a private man could or durst Ans. alter the Style of a General Council, against the dignity of the Pope, his Legate present; but 'tis more likely that▪ some Latin Scribe hath added that Inscription to the Epistle of Pope Leo, in honour of the Church of Rome; as is confessed by Cusanus to have been done to the Epistle of Anacletus; and by Baronius to have been done to the Epistle of Pope Boniface; and by three other Popes themselves unto the Council of Nice, viz. Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestinus. And the rather▪ because as was just now noted, this Council at the same time, honoured the Bishop of Constantinople, with equal Privileges to the Bishop of Rome.  
Pope Leo opposed this Decree of the Council, Obj. 3 and disclaimed it.  
No wonder; but it seems General Councils Ans. were not always of the Pope's mind; and the Pope would then have had a greater Privilege than a General Council; and if that was a General Council, as they themselves say it was, the Controversy is ended: For by their own confession, this General Council made a Decree against the Pope's pretences of Superiority, and therefore it did not intent, by the Title of Bishop of the whole Church, to acknowledge that Superiority which he pretended; and that Council of 400 Bishops denied him.  
This Decree was not lawfully proceeded in, because Obj. the Legates of the Pope were absent. Bel. l. 2. de Pont. c. 22.  
The Legates were there the next day; and Ans. excepted and moved to have the Acts of the day before, read. Aetius for the Council showeth, that the Legates knew what was done; all was done Cononically: Then the Acts being read, the Pope's Legates tell the Council, that Circumvention was used in making that Canon of Privileges, and that the Bishops were compelled thereunto. The Synod with a loud voice cried, Jointly, we were not compelled to subscribe. After, every one severally protest, I did subscribe willingly and freely, and the Acts are ratified and declared to be just and valid; and wherein say they, we will persist: the Legates are instant to have the Act revoked, because the Apostolical See is humbled or abased; thereto the Fathers unanimously answered, the whole Synod doth approve it. This clear account we have in Bin. in Concil. Calced. Act. 16. p. 134, and 137.  
Bellarmine saith, that the Pope approved all the Decrees of this Council, which were de fide: and doth not Bellarmine argue that the Pope's Superiority is Jure divino? and the present Church of Rome hold, that his Supremacy is a point necessary to Salvation? How comes it to pass, that he would not approve this Decree? or how can they esteem this Council general and lawful, and swear to observe the decrees of it, when 'tis found guilty of Heresy in so great a point as the Pope's Primacy?  
But to end with this, the very Title itself of Bishop of the Universal Church, in the stile of those Ages, signified certainly neither Supremacy nor Primacy; Universal Bishop of the Church seemed a dangerous Title, importing universal Power over it, and was therefore so much abhorred by Pope Gregory. But the Title of Bishop of the Universal Church signified the care of the whole Church, to which, as Origen saith, every Bishop is called: Therefore Aurelius, Fortunatianus, Augustine, are called Bishops of the Universal Church, and many in the Greek Church had the same honourable Titles given them; which signified either that they professed the Catholic Faith, or as Bishops, had a general regard to the good of the Catholic Church.  
But your own Jesuit confesseth, that Pelagius 
Azorius.  and Gregory both Popes, have born witness that no Bishop of Rome before them, did ever use the Style of Universal Bishops. However, Universal Patriarch makes as great a sound as Universal Bishop; yet that Title was given to John Bishop of Constantinople, by the Bishops of Syria. Cod. Authent. Constitu. 3.  
The custody of the Vine, i. e. the whole Obj. 
Bell. de Pont. l. 2. c. 13.  Church, the Council saith is committed to the Pope by God.  
True, so that Primitive Pope Elutherius said to Ans. 
Bin. Epist. Eleuth.  the Bishops in France, the whole Catholic Church is committed to you. St. Paul also had the care of all the Churches, but that is high which Greg. Nazian. saith of Athanasius; that he having the presidence of the Church of Alexandria, may be said thereby to have the Government of the whole Christian World. Sai. Tom. 16. in 1 Pet. 5.  
Now, saith a Learned man, we are compelled to ask with what Conscience you could make such Objections 
Bishop Morton.  in good earnest, to busy your Adversaries and seduce your Disciples withal, whereunto you yourselves could so easily make answer.  
We find no further objection against the other Obj. Councils, worthy Notice: Bellarmine argues the Pope's Supremacy, because the Synod of Const. being the Fifth General Council, complemented the Pope as his Obedient Servants; nos (inquit Praeses) Apostolicam Sedem sequimur & obedimus, etc. Bell. lib. 2. de pont. c. 13. Though this very Council both opposed, accused, and condemned the Pope for Heresy; which could not possibly consist with their acknowledgement of his Supremacy or Infallibility.  
The same is more evident, in the sixth, seventh, and eighth General Councils, condemning the Persons and Judgements of, and giving Laws to the Bishops of Rome; to which nothing material can be objected, but what hath been more than answered.  
Binius indeed in his Tract de Prim. Eccl. Rom. gives us the sayings of many ancient Popes for the Supremacy pretended; especially in two points, The Power of Appeals, challenged by Pope Anacetus; Zepherinus, Fabianus, Sixtus, and Symachus; and Exemption of the first See from censure or judgement by any other power; claimed by Pope Sylvester and Gelasius. But these are Testimonies of Popes themselves in their own cause, and besides both these points have been found so directly and industriously determined otherwise by their own General Councils, that further answer is needless.   

CONCLUSION.  
THus Objections being removed, the Argument from the Councils settles firm in its full strength; and seeing both the ancient Fathers and the Catholic Church have left us their sense in the said Councils; and the sense of the Councils is also the received and professed faith of the present Church of Rome itself; who can deny that the Catholic Church to this day, hath not only not granted or acknowledged, but even most plainly condemned the pretended Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome: Yea who can doubt but our Argument against it, is founded upon their own Rock, the very constitution of the Papacy itself, as before hath appeared?  
Therefore the Pope's claim upon this Plea, as well as upon any or all the former, is found groundless; and England's Deliverance from his foreign Jurisdiction, just and honest as well as happy: Which our good God in his wise and merciful Providence, ever Continue, Preserve, and Prosper. Amen, Amen.    

A Serious ALARM to all sorts of ENGLISHMEN against POPERY, from Sense and Conscience; their OATHS and their INTEREST.  
1. THe Kings of England seem bound, not only by their Title, but in Conscience of their Ministry under God, to defend the Faith and the Church of Christ within their Dominions, against Corruption and Invasion, and therefore against Popery.  
They are also bound in Honour, Interest, and Fidelity, to preserve the Inheritance and Rights of the Crown; and to derive them entire to their Heirs and Successors; and therefore to keep out the Papal Authority.  
And lastly, 'tis said they are bound by their Oaths at their Coronation, and by the Laws of Nature and Government, to maintain the Liberties and Customs of their people; and to govern them according to the Laws of the Realm, and consequently not to admit the foreign Jurisdiction of the Pope, in prejudice of our ancient Constitution, our common and Ecclesiastical Laws, our natural and legal Liberties and Properties.  
2. The Nobility of England have anciently held themselves bound, not only▪ in honour, but by their Oaths, Terras & honores Regis etc. to preserve together with the King, the Territories and honours of the King, (omni fidelitate ubique) most faithfully; and to defend them against Enemies and Foreigners, meaning especially the Pope of Rome. 'Tis expressed more fully in their Letter to the Pope himself, in Edw. 1. Reign, to defend the Inheritance and Prerogative of the Crown, the State of the Realm, the Liberties, Customs and Laws of their Progenitors, against all foreign Usurpation, (toto posse, totis viribus) to the utmost of their power, and with all their might: adding, We do not permit, or in the least will permit, (sicut nec possum ●● nec debemus) though our Sovereign Lord the King do, or in the least wise, attempt to do any of the Premises, (viz. owning the Authority of the Pope, by his answer touching his Right to Scotland) so strange, so unlawful, prejudicial, and otherwise unheard of, though the King would himself.  
See that famous Letter sent to the Pope, the 29 of Edw. 1. taken out of Cor. Christi College-Library, and printed this year at Oxford, the reading of which gave the occasion of these Meditations.  
3. It appears further, in the Sheet where you have that Letter; that the Commons in Parliament have heretofore held themselves bound, to resist the invasion and attempts of the Pope, upon England, though the King and the Peers should connive at them; their words are resolute, Si Dominus Rex & Regni majores hoc vellent (meaning Bishop Adomers' Revocation from Banishment upon the Pope's order) Communitas tamen ipsius ingressum, in Angliam nullatenus sustineret. This is said to be recorded about the 44 of Hen. 3.  
4. It is there observed also, that upon the Conquest, William the Conqueror made all the Freeholders of England to become sworn Brethren; sworn to defend the Monarchy with their Persons and Estates to the utmost of their Ability; and manfully to preserve it: So that the whole Body of the people▪ as well as the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, stood anciently bound by their Oath, to defend their King and their Country against Invasion and Usurpation.  
5. The present Constitution of this Kingdom, is yet a stronger Bulwark against Popery: Heretofore indeed the Papal pretensions were checked, sometimes in temporal, sometimes in spiritual concerns and Instances: But upon the Reformation, the Pope's▪ Supremacy was altogether and at once rejected, and thrown out of England; and the consequence is, an universal standing obligation upon the whole Kingdom, by Statutes, Customs, and most solemn Oaths, to defend our Monarchy, our Church, our Country, and our Posterity, against those Encroachments and that Thraldom, from which we were then so wonderfully delivered, and, for this hundred years have been so miraculously preserved, blessed be God.  
Accordingly in our present Laws, both the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Supremacy is declared to be inherent in the Crown; and our Kings are sworn to maintain and govern by those Laws: And I doubt not but all Ministers of the Church, and all Ministers of State, and of Law and War, all Mayors and Officers in Cities and Towns corporate etc. together with all the Sheriffs and other Officers in their several Countries; and even all that have received either Trust or power from his Majesty within the Kingdom: All these I say, I suppose are sworn to defend the King's Supremacy as it is inconsistent with, and in flat opposition to Popery.  
In the Oath of Allegiance, we swear to bear true Allegiance to the King, and to defend him against all Conspiracies and Attempts, which shall be made against his Person and Crown, to the utmost of our power; meaning especially the Conspiracies and Attempts of Papists, as is plain by that which follows in that Oath, and yet more plain by the Oath of Supremacy.  
In which Oath we swear, that the King is the only Supreme Governor in this Realm, as well in all spiritual things and causes, as temporal; and that no foreign Prince or Prelate, hath or aught to have any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical within this Realm; and that we do abhor and renounce all such. We swear also, that we will bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King— and to our power assist and defend all Jurisdictions, viz. Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal, granted or belonging to the King's Highness.  
6. Now next to Oaths, nothing can be thought to oblige us more than Interest: But if neither Oaths nor Interest, neither Conscience nor Nature, neither Religion nor self-Preservation, can provoke us to our own defence; what remains! but a certain fearful expectation of judgement to devour a perjured and senseless Generation.  
If either our joint or several Interests be considerable, how are we all concerned?  
1. Is there any among us that care for nothing but Liberty and Money? they should resist Popery, which would many ways deprive them of both.  
2. But if the knowledge of the Truth, if the Canon of life in the holy Scriptures, if our Prayers in our own tongue, if the Simplicity of the Gospel, the purity of Worship and the Integrity of Sacraments, be things valuable and dear to Christians; let them abhor Popery.  
3. If the ancient Privileges of the British Church, the Independency of her Government upon Foreign Jurisdiction; if their legal Incumbencies, their Ecclesiastical Dignities; if their opportunities and capacities of saving Souls in the continuance of their Ministries; if their judgement of discretion touching their Doctrine and Administrations; their judgement of Faith, Reason, and Sense, touching the Eucharist; if exemption from unreasonable impositions of strange Doctrines, Romish Customs, groundless Traditions, and Treasonable Oaths: And lastly, if freedom from spiritual Tyranny and bloody Inquisitions; if all these be of consequence to Clergymen, let them oppose Popery.  
4. If our Judges and their several Courts of Judicature, would preserve their Legal proceed, and judgements and decrees; if they would not be controlled and superseded by Bulls, Sentences and Decrees from the Pope, and Appeals to Rome; let them never yield to Popery.  
5. If the Famous Nobility and Gentry of England would appear like themselves and their heroic Ancestors, in the defence of the Rights of their Country, the Laws and customs of the Land, the Wealth of the people, the Liberties of the Church, the Empire of Britain, and the grandeur of their King, or indeed their own honour and Estates in a great measure; let them never endure the readmission of Popery.  
6. Yea, let our great Ministers of State, and of Law, and of War consider, that they stand not firm enough in their high and envied places, if the Roman Force breaks in upon us; and remember, that had the late bloody and barbarous design taken effect, one consequence of it was, to put their places into other hands: And therefore in this capacity as well as many other, they have no reason to be Friends to Popery.  
7. As for His Most Excellent Majesty, no suspicion either of inclination to, or want of due vigilance against Popery, can fasten upon him; and may he long live in the Enjoyment, and under a worthy Sense of the Royalties of Monarchy, and the honour and exercise of his Natural and Legal Supremacy, in all Causes and over all Persons within his Dominions, both Civil and Ecclesiastical, his Paternal Inheritance of Empire; and at last leave it entirely to his Heirs and Successors upon Earth, for a more glorious Crown in Heaven. And in the mean time, may he defend the Faith of Christ, his own Prerogative, the Rights, Privileges, and Liberties and Estates of his People, and the defensive Laws and Customs of his Royal Progenitors: And therefore may he ever manage his Government, both with Power, Care and Caution, in opposition to the force, and detection and destruction of the hellish Arts and traitorous designs and attempts of Popery.  
8. I Conclude, that if the precious things already mentioned, and many more, be in evident danger with the Return of Popery, let us again consider our Oaths as well as our Interest; and that we have the Bond of God upon our Souls; and, as the Conqueror's words are, we are Jurati Fratres, we are sworn to God, our King and Country, to preserve and defend the things so endangered, against all foreign Invasion and Usurpation, i. e. against Popery. Accordingly, may our Excellent King and his Councils and Ministers; may the Peers of the Realm, and the Commons in Parliament; may the Nobility and Gentry, may the Judges and Lawyers, may the Cities and the Country, the Church and State, and all Ranks and Degrees of Men amongst us; may we all, under a just Sense, both of our Interest and our Oaths, may we all as one man, with one heart stand up resolved by all means possible to keep out Popery; and to subvert all grounds of Fear of its Return upon England for ever. Amen, Amen.  
Origen, Cont. Cells. l. 3.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
It is fit that the Governor of the Church of each City, should Correspond to the Governor of those which are in the City.  
Praesumi malam fidem ex Antiquiore Adversarii possessione. Leg. Civil.  
Ad transmarina Concilia qui putaverint appellandum, a nullo intra Africam in communionem recipiantur. Concil. Milevitan.   

THE OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE AND SUPREMACY.  

The Oath of ALLEGIANCE.  
I A. B. Do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify and declare in my Conscience before God and the World, that our Sovereign Lord King Charles is Lawful and Rightful King of this Realm, and of all other his Majesty's Dominions and Countries: And that the Pope, neither of himself, nor by any Authority of the Church or See of Rome, or by any other means with any other, hath any Power or Authority to depose the King, or to dispose any of his Majesty's Kingdoms or Dominions, or to Authorise any Foreign Prince to Invade or Annoyed Him or his Countries, or to discharge any of his Subjects of their Allegiance and Obedience to his Majesty, or to give Licence or leave to any of them to bear Arms, raise Tumults, or to offer any violence or hurt to his Majesty's Royal Person, State or Government, or to any of his Majesty's Subjects within his Majesty's Dominions.  
Also I do swear from my Heart, that notwithstanding any Declaration or Sentence of Excommunication or Deprivation made or granted, or to be made or granted by the Pope or his Successors, or by any Authority derived or pretended to be derived from him or his See, against the said King, his Heirs or Successors, or any Absolution of the said Subjects from their Obedience; I will bear Faith and true Allegiance to his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, and Him and Them will defend to the uttermost of my power, against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against his or their Persons, their Crown and Dignity, by reason or colour of any such Sentence or Declaration, or otherwise; and will do my best endeavour to disclose and make known unto his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, all Treasons and Traitorous Conspiracies which I shall know or hear of, to be against Him or any of them.  
And I do further swear, That I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure, as impious and heretical, this damnable Doctrine and Position, That Princes which be excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, may be Deposed or Murdered by their Subjects, or any other whatsoever.  
And I do believe, and in Conscience am resolved, That neither the Pope, nor any person whatsoever, hath power to absolve me of this Oath, or any part thereof, which I acknowledge by good and full Authority to be lawfully Administered unto me, and do Renounce all Pardons and Dispensations to the contrary. And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge, and Swear according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words, without any Equivocation or mental Evasion, or secret Reservation whatsoever: And I do make this Recognition and Acknowledgement hearty, willingly and truly, upon the true Faith of a Christian. So help me God, etc.   

The Oath of SUPREMACY.  
I A. B. Do utterly testify and declare in my Conscience, That the King's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm, and of all other his Highness Dominions and Countries, as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes, as Temporal: And that no Foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate, hath, or aught to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Pre-eminence or Authority Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realm: And therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all Foreign Jurisdictions, Powers, Superiorities and Authorities, and do promise from henceforth I shall bear Faith and true Allegiance to the King's Highness, his Heirs and lawful Successors, and to my Power shall assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Privileges, Preeminences and Authorities granted, or belonging to the King's Highness, his Heirs and Successors, or united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm. So help me God● and by the Contents of this Book.   
THE END.   

A Catalogue of some Books Reprinted, and of other New Books Printed since the Fire, and sold by R. Royston. (viz.)  

Books Written by H. Hammond, D. D.  
A Paraphrase and Annotations upon all the Books of the New Testament, in Folio. Fourth Edition.  
The Works of the said Reverend and Learned Author, containing a Collection of Discourses chief Practical, with many Additions and Corrections from the Author's own hand; together with the Life of the Author, enlarged by the Reverend Dr. Fell, now Bishop of Oxford. In large Fol.   

Books written by Jer. Taylor, D. D. and late Lord Bishop of Down and Connor.  
Ductor Dubitantium, or, The Rule of Conscience, in Five Books, in Fol.  
The Great Exemplar, or, The Life and Death of the Holy Jesus, in Fol. with Figures suitable to every Story, engraved in Coper: whereunto is added, the Lives and Martyrdoms of the Apostles, by Will. Cave, D. D.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or, A Collection of Polemical Discourses addressed against the enemies of the Church of England, both Papists and fanatics, in large Fol. The Third Edition.  
The Rules and Exercises of holy Living, and holy Dying. The Eleventh Edition, newly Printed, in Octavo.   

Books written by the Reverend Dr. Patrick.  
The Christian Sacrifice: A Treatise showing the Necessity, End, and Manner of receiving the Holy Communion: together with suitable Prayers and Meditations for every Month in the Year; and the principal Festivals in memory of our blessed Saviour: in Four Parts. The Third Edition corrected.  
The devout Christian instructed how to pray and give thanks to God: or a Book of Devotions for Families, and particular persons, in most of the concerns of humane life. The Second Edition, in Twelves.  
An Advice to a Friend. The Third Edition, in Twelves.  
A Friendly Debate between a Conformist and a Nonconformist, in Octavo, Two Parts.  
Jesus and the Resurrection justified by Witnesses in Heaven and in Earth, in Two Parts, in Octavo, new.  
The Glorious Epiphany, with the devout Christians love to it, in Octavo, new.  
The Book of Job paraphrased, in Octavo, new.  
A Collection of Sermons upon several occasions, together with a correct Copy of some Notes concerning God's Decrees, in Quarto. Enlarged by Tho. Pierce, D. D. Dean of Sarum.  
The History of the Church of Scotland, by Bishop Spotswood. The Fourth Edition, Enlarged, Fol.  
Memoires of the late Duke Hamilton, or a continuation of the History of the Church of Scotland, beginning in the Year 1625. where Bishop Spotswood ends, and continued to the Year 1653. Fol. new.  
The Lives of the Apostles, in Fol. alone, by Will. Cave, D. D.  
Chirurgical Treatises, by R. Wisman, Serjeant-Surgeon to his Majesty, Fol. new.  
Go in peace; containing some brief directions for Young Ministers in their Visitation of the Sick. Useful for the People, in this state both of Health and Sickness. In Twelves, new.  
The Practical Christian; in Four Parts: or a Book of Devotions and Meditations. Also with Meditations and Psalms upon the four last things; 1. Death, 2. Judgement, 3. Hell, 4. Heaven: By R. Sherlock, D. D. Rector of Winwick. In Twelves.  
The Life and Death of K. Charles the First; by R. Perenchief, D. D. Octavo.  
Bishop Cozen's Devotions, in Twelves.  
The true Intellectual Systeme of the Universe, the First Part: wherein all the Reason and Philosophy of Atheism is confuted, and its Impossibility demonstrated: By R. Cudworth, D. D. Fol. new.  
The Jesuits Loyalty, manifested in three several Treatises lately written by them against the Oath of Allegiance: with a Preface, showing the pernicious consequence of their Principles as to Civil Government. Also three other Treatises concerning the Reasons of the Penal Laws. (viz.) 1. The Execution of Justice in England, not for Religion but for Treason. 2. Important Considerations by the Secular Priests. 3. The Jesuits Reasons unreasonable. In Quarto, New.  
The Sinner Impleaded in his own Court: wherein are represented the great Discouragements from Sinning, which the Sinner receiveth from Sin itself. To which is added the signal diagnostic, whereby we are to judge of our own Affections; and as well of our Present, as Future State. By Tho. Pierce, D. D. Dean of Sarum, and Domestic Chaplain to his Majesty, the Fourth Edition, in Quarto.  
Les Provinciales, The Mystery of Jesuitism, discovered in certain Letters, written upon occasion of the present differences at Sorbonne, between the Jansenists and the Molinists, displaying the pernicious Maxims of the late Casuists, with Additionals, in Octavo.  
The Penitent Pardoned: or, a discourse of the Nature of Sin, and the Efficacy of Repentance; under the Parable of the Prodigal Son, by J. Goodman, D. D. Rector of Hadham. In Quarto, New. To which is added a Visitation Sermon.  
A Century of Select Psalms, and Portions of the Psalms of David, especially those of Praise; turned into Meter and fitted to the usual Tunes in Parish Churches, for the use of the , London. By J. Patrick Preacher there, in Octavo, New.   
THE END.   


DUX MEA IN TENEBRAS ET GAUDIUM IN MEROREM  
VT PELLICANA IN DESERTO  
Nunquam CHRISTO Charior quam sub Cruce gemens Ecclesia    

LEGES ANGLIAE.  
THE LAWFULNESS OF Ecclesiastical jurisdiction IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, Asserted and Vindicated In ANSWER to Mr HICKERINGILL's Late Pamphlet Styled NAKED TRUTH, the 2d Part.  Gen. II. ult. Naked— but not ashamed. 
By Fran. Fullwood, D. D. Archdeacon of Totnes in Devon.  
LONDON, Printed for R. Royston, Bookseller to the King's most Excellent Majesty, at the Sign of the Angel in Amen-Corner, 1681.   

TO THE READER  
I MUST beg my Readers pardon, that I have not chastised so spiteful an Adversary, according to his merits and provocations; for I verily want his Talon, and dislike the Sport.  
I confess that when a Divine of the Church of England, who hath also a share in her Government, when such a one shall be taken throwing dirt in the face of his Mother, Fathers, Brethren, and his own Profession, he cannot but expect to be lashed to purpose, and to be told roundly, that none but accursed Children and very fools would speak such Naked Truth.  
Some Censors, that observe his endeavours, to make not only the Canons of the Church, but the very Canon of Scripture itself to veil to the Law of the Land, would charge him with the profaneness of Hobbs: yea, others that find him playing tricks, and sporting (according to his little wit) with the very names of Canon, Clergy, Church and Churchmen; and scoffing at almost all that's Sacred, will take him to be at Hugh Peters' game, and running his wretched race.  
But while he damns the Presbyterians, Independents▪ and the Fifth-Monarchy, together with the Church of England, he tempts the Wits to produce thirty one reasons to prove he is something, viz. a Papist; notwithstanding his drollery and raillery about Foppery and Popery.  
Lastly, For Pride, Envy, Wrath, Malice, Spite and Revenge, some say he is a very Angel of Light, and in somewhat more excellent; for the Scriptures witness that the Devil himself spoke many words both of truth and soberness; and that he seldom or never speaks like an Atheist.  
For my part, I say nothing of him further than this, That if others can find Truth in the man, I cannot: And though I am sure he lies open and naked enough, yet I had never troubled myself to expose him, had it not been to secure the Government, and to preserve the Simple from being betrayed to the danger of the Laws by the insolent Rant of a pitiful Sophister.   

THE PROEM.  
The Contents of it.  
1. Power purely Spiritual of Divine Right. 2. Emperors confirmed Bishops-Canons. 3. The force of our Canons not from Rome. 4. Officers of our Courts. 5. Magna Charta. 6. The Author's Concessions.  
1. DIscoursing in the following Treatise of the Forensic Jurisdiction of this Church, as Established by the Law of the Land, we had no direct or necessary occasion to speak of the Church's Power, as purely Spiritual, touching Preaching, the Sacraments and Censures.  
For this is certainly of Divine Right; and was given to the Church by Christ himself, with the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; and was accordingly exercised in the Apostles times, and several hundred years after, without the allowance of the Civil Magistrate; and was also supposed, allowed, and admitted as such in our own Kingdom; and by all the world, even with their receiving Christianity, without question or Alteration, as is evident in all our Histories: and indeed our own Laws exclude this purely Spiritual Power of the Keys from the Supremacy of our Kings, except it be to see that Spiritual men do their duty therein.  
2. Neither doth it concern me to inquire what Power the Church had, and exercised after the Empire became Christian: only it seems very clear, that Constantine, and the other eminent Christian Emperors never made any Ecclesiastical Laws without the Counsel of Bishops; but only in Confirmation, or for the Execution of Ecclesiastical Canons: Yet it cannot be denied, but they called Councils; they approved their Canons; and afterwards entered them into the body of their Laws; and still ratified the Sentences of Ecclesiastical Judges with Civil penalties.  
3. Nor yet is't my present Province to recollect what Influence Imperial Christian Rome had upon the Tender Age, and immature State of the new born Church of England: though we do not deny, but it might be considerable, both as to the Form and Order of our External Jurisdiction in our inferior Ministers and ancient Canons.  
But how great soever it was, it was at first only by way of Example and Direction: and when afterwards it was by Command, it was such Command, as according to the Rights and Constitution of this Church, had no Legal obligation upon us, but by our own consent; and as it became part of our own Establishment, either by Custom or express Law; upon such an occasion the ancient State of England cry out, Nolumus mutare Leges Angliae. This Realm hath been and is free from Subjection to any man's Laws, but only to such as have been devised— within this Realm, or to such other as by sufferance of your Grace and your Progenitors, the people of this Realm have taken at their free liberty, by their own consent to be used amongst them; and have bound themselves by long use and Custom to the observance thereof; not as to the observance of the Laws of any foreign Prince, 25 Hen. 8. 21.  
For (as Coke declares in Cawdries Case) as the Romans fetching divers Laws from Athens, yet being approved and allowed by the State there, called them Jus  Romanorum; and as the Normans borrowing all or most of their Laws from England, yet baptised them by the name of the Laws or Customs of Normandy; so albeit, the Kings of England derived their Ecclesiastical Laws from others, yet so many as be proved, approved and allowed here, by and with a general consent, are aptly and rightly called, The King's Ecclesiastical Laws of England.  
4. As for the Inferior Ministers in the Ecclesiastical Courts, that seem to be so offensive to weak people, that they are▪ not Popish, or so slanderously to be reported, there is this plain demonstration, that these Courts are the King's Courts, and the Laws thereof are the King's Laws; and that notwithstanding all the severe Statutes, especially since the Reformation, against all foreign Jurisdiction, and all such as act under, or by virtue of any foreign Power within this Realm; yet such Ministers are both permitted and required to execute their places in the said Courts by the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom.  
But grave Mr. Hickeringill saith, there is not the least Specimen of Chancellors, Registers, Summoners, Officials, Commissaries, Advocates, Notaries, Surrogates, etc. or any ejusdem farinae in holy Writ: and hence 'tis learnedly inferred by some, that we have made so many new Officers in the Church of Christ.  
But how witless and Quaker-like is this? and how unlike Mr. Hickeringill? I should suspect he would call for Scripture, for an hourglass, and for Clerks and Sextons, were it not that he is so palpably in the service of a vile Hypothesis, that will stand upon no better grounds; for he knows, that these are not so many new Officers of the Church, but only Assistants allowed by Law under Bishops, and such other Spiritual men as have proper power of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: he knows there is no other Canon, but the Law of the Land; and that the Civil Magistrate hath power to tell us what is Scripture: and that he hath told us S. Paul's Epistles are so, where we read of helps in 
1 Cor. 12. 28.  Government; and that Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials and Surrogates are but such helps under different names, from the several ways and degrees of their Delegation: That Registers are but to make and keep the Acts of Court, etc. Advocates and Proctors to order and manage Causes; and Apparators to serve Process, and execute Mandates: and that none but one in Orders meddles with the Keys, either for Excommunication or Absolution; Mr. Hickeringill is a man of great experience in Spiritual Jurisdiction, and need not be told of these plain matters.  
5. And seeing the Statist will not be quieted, but by Argument taken from Law; I have written the following Treatise, wherein I hope I have sufficiently demonstrated, that our Ecclesiastical Courts are Established in the Laws and Statutes of this Kingdom. Our Magna Charta itself, or the great Charter of the English Liberties doth suppose and acknowledge the Legal exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by the forementioned Ministers, as one of the Ancient Rights and Liberties of this Church; and doth also ratify, confirm and establish it for ever; at least in the Judgement of my Lord Coke, in these words.  
This Charter is Declaratory of the Ancient Law and Liberty of England.— [Et habeat omnia Jura sua integra] that is, that all Ecclesiastical persons shall enjoy all their lawful Jurisdictions, and other their Rights, wholly without any Diminution or Substraction whatsoever: and [Jura sua] show plainly, that no new right was given unto them, but such as they had before, hereby are Confirmed.  
Libertates suas illaesas] Libertates are here taken in two Senses; 1. For the Laws of England. 2. For Privileges held by Parliament, Charter or Prescription more than Ordinary. Coke Magna Charta. By all which Titles the Church of England (Ecclesia non Moritur, but Moriuntur Ecclesiastici) holds her Ancient Liberty of keeping Courts to this day.  
6. Yet I do not say but the manner of proceed in these Courts may be justly and reasonably altered, as his gracious Majesty may be advised; and yet the true Liberty of the Church be rather fortified than Violated.  
Therefore, after some Overtures made lately, by a far greater Person, in a larger Sphere, my Narrower subject may suffer me humbly to offer my thoughts touching some Alterations, that perhaps might not prejudice our Ecclesiastical Ministers, or their Courts; with all due submission to my Superiors.  
These things following have been long in my thoughts.  
1. That a speedier way might be appointed for the dispatch of Causes in the Spiritual Courts than the present Legal Rules thereof will allow.  
2. That trivial matters (such as small Tithes and Church-Rates) might be summarily ended, without exposing the solemn Sentence of Excommunication, as is generally complained. Especially considering that the Statute touching the Writ de Excom. capi. (as well as Vulgar apprehension) makes a difference in Original Causes; though indeed the immediate cause of all Excommunication is always the contempt of the King's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, in not obeying, either its Summons or Sentence; both these perhaps may be contrived by wise men, without prejudice to the said Jurisdiction.  
3. That there is reason to reascertain the Fees for Probates of Wills, and granting Letters of Administration, with some moderate respect had to the difference of the value of Money, when the former Act was made, and at this time, so as the Officers in the King's Spiritual Courts may live upon their Employment.  
4. And why Excommunication decreed in Court may not be sent to the Parochial Minister, to be, not only declared, but Executed by him, as the Bishops Surrogate; and convenient time allowed him to endeavour to reconcile the offender, and to prevent the Sentence, if it may be, I see not, if that may give any satisfaction.  
Such kind of Alterations perhaps may be admitted without real prejudice to the Church, or rather with advantage, as well as those made by the Conqueror, when he divided the Ecclesiastical from the Civil Courts: The Law by which he made that Division is famous, the clauses of it concerning this matter may be desired by the Reader, therefore I shall take the pains to transcribe them; they are these:  
Willielmus Gratia Dei, Rex Anglorum, etc. William by the Grace of God, King of England— to all— that have Land in the Bishopric of Lincoln; know ye all, and all others my faithful People in England, that the Episcopal Laws, that have [Non benè] not well been exercised, nor according to the Precepts of holy Canons, even to my time in this Kingdom (Concilio Communi) with Common Counsel, and with the Counsel of the Bishops and Abbots, and all the chief men of my Kingdom, I judge (fit) to be amended. Moreover, I Command, and by my Kingly Authority enjoin, That no Bishop or Archdeacon de Legibus Episcopalibus, hold (Placita) Pleas any longer in Hundret, nor bring any Ecclesiastical Cause to the judgement of Secular men; but whosoever shall be called or questioned for any Cause according to the Ecclesiastical Laws, he shall come to the place which the Bishop shall choose, and there shall answer for his Cause; and not secundum Hundret; and he shall do right to God and the Bishop; not according to the Hundred, but according to the Canons and Episcopal Laws.  
— But if any through pride will not appear [Venire ad Justiciam Episcopalem] let him be called the first, second and third time, and if yet he will not come, let him be Excommunicated, and if need be, let the Strength and justice of the King or Sheriff, ad hoc Vindicandum adhibeatur— This also I defend, and by my Authority interdict, that no Sheriff or other Minister of the King, or any Layman do intermeddle with the Laws which belong to the Bishop.  
Give me leave to subjoin a few Notes upon this Law of the Conqueror and I have done.  
1. The substance and matters of Ecclesiastical Power and Connusance, was the same long before this Law was made, and not Altered by it: 'twas a Law of King Alured. Si quis Dei rectitudines aliquas deforciat, reddat lathlite cum Dacis, witam cum Anglis: And the same is afterwards confirmed and renewed by Canutus and other Kings: whereby it appeareth, that long before the Conquest the Authority and Jurisdiction of the Church was maintained by the settled Laws of the Kingdom; and that Ecclesiastical Judges had power so anciently to Excommunicate; and had the help of the King and the Sheriff to proceed against the obstinate.  
2. 'Tis yet very remarkable, that for the form and manner of their Spiritual Courts and proceed before the Conquest, it was not here in England as it was at Rome; and therefore our most Ancient Church-Government was not derived or Received from Rome: This Law observes, that before the Conqueror, the Precepts of holy Canons, as to distinct Jurisdictions, were not observed in England; that is, the Canons of the Imperial Church, for six or seven Hundred years before the Jurisdiction of that Church was divided from the Civil, even by the Emperor Constantine himself; but for so many hundred years before the Conquest, our Jurisdictions were exercised together in Hundret, as the Law acknowledgeth, and is confessed.  
3. We here see a plain Establishment of our Spiritual Courts, with power of Excommunication, for non-appearance, in the letter of this Ancient Law, under the King's defence, and enforced with the Secular Arm; and 'tis observable, that the distinction of the Ecclesiastical front the Civil Courts, was made in the Kings own Name, and not the Pope's, by the King's power and none other; with the Counsel of his own Subjects only, and not of Rome that we read of; and only with respect, and not in any obedience to the ancient Canons or foreign methods: And thus the Jurisdiction in our Courts Ecclesiastical as distinct from the Civil, is as far from being Popish in their Original, as it was when they were conjoined; and therein so unlike to the distinct proceed of the Spiritual power beyond the Seas so many hundred years before: And thus our Spiritual Courts, both before they were divided, and when they came to be divided from our Civil Courts, stand firm in the Ancient Laws of this Land.  
4. There are certain great Epoche's of the Legal Establishment of the Church's power, which I shall but touch; 1. It was received with Christianity, and grew and flourished by our Ancient Laws before the Conquest. 2. In the beginning of our Norman Constitution, it was thus distinguished and established by the Conqueror. So it was in Magna Charta, the first Statute. 3. Upon the Reformation in Hen. 8. it was re-established. 4. So it was upon the Return of Reformation after Queen Mary by Queen Eliz. And 5. so likewise upon the Return of our present gracious Sovereign King Charles II.  
5. Further, I hence observe, that some Alterations in Ecclesiastical proceed may be made by Law, without any prejudice to the Church's power: 'Tis observed out of Spelman before, that by this Law the Conqueror did not lessen the Church's power: indeed some Inconveniences are usually consequent to public changes; and 'tis thought by our Civilians, that the many prohibitions which interrupt our Ecclesiastical Courts are occasioned by their being divided from the Temporal: but may not that inconvenience be accidental to that Division? Or if at any time there be just cause for the Church to complain in that respect, is it not rather of the Judges than the Laws or the Constitution?  
But to the matter before us; admit, for Instance, that after Summary hearing and Sentence of the Judge, in Cases of small Tithes, Church rates, and such trivial matters, a Justice of the Peace, or some other person being legally certified, were impowered and obliged to grant Warrants of Distress: It seems to me a greater inconvenience in exposing Excommunication in such light Causes would be hereby removed, than any contracted by such an Alteration; and methinks no one should disdain the new Office, seeing the Superior Judge hath been ever bound to issue out the Writ de Excom. Cap. and the Sheriff to imprison the party, upon a Certificate from the Bishop.  
But I must humbly leave such things to wiser Judges.   

THE CONTENTS OF THE CHAPTERS and SECTIONS.  

CHAP. I. 

THE general Proposition.  
The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, as now Exercised in the Church of England, is Allowed and Established by the Laws of the Land.  
Sect. 1. An Account of the Method. Page 1.  
Sect. 2. Mr. Hickeringill ' s Reasoning Noted and Resolved. p. 2.  
Sect. 3. The Propositions suggested by M. Hickeringill are these following. p. 4.    
CHAP. II. 

Our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England was not derived from the Pope, but from the Crown before the Reformation by Henry the Eighth. p. 5.  
Proof against this Popish principle.  
Sect. 1. From the root and branches of Ecclesiastical Power, Donation, Investiture, Laws. p. 6.  
Sect. 2. Jurisdictions. p. 7.  
Sect. 3, 4, 5. p. 9▪ 11, 12.    
CHAP. III. 

King Hen. 8. did not by renouncing the Power pretended by the Pope, make 〈◊〉 the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: neither was it void before it was restored by Edw. 6. 2. p. 13.  
Sect. 2, 3. p. 16, 20.    
CHAP. IU. 

Ecclesiastical Jurisdictition is lawfully exercised, without the King's Name or Style in Processes, etc. notwithstanding the 1 Edw. 6. 2. p. 22.  
Sect. 1, 2, 3. p. 23, 24, 26.  
Sect. 4. 1 Edw. 6. 2. Repealed, appears from practice. p. 28.  
Sect. 5. 1 Edw. 6. 2. Repealed in the Judgement of all the Judges, the King and Council. p. 31.  
Sect. 6. Mr. H. Cary ' s Reason to the contrary considered. p. 36.    
CHAP. V. 

The Act of 1 Eliz. 1. Establishing the High-Commission Court, was not the foundation of Ordinary Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England, against Mr. Hickeringill. p. 41.    
CHAP. VI 

How our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England came at first, and is at present Established by Law. p. 46.  
Sect. 1. Jurisdiction of the Church in Common Law. p. 51.  
Sect. 2. The Government Ecclesiastical is Established in the Statutes of this Realm. p. 54.    
CHAP. VII. 

Of Canons and Convocations. p. 60.  
The Conclusion. p. 64.  
The Postscript. p. 67.      

The Bookseller to the Reader.  
THE absence of the Author, and his inconvenient distance from London, hath occasioned some small Erratas to escape the Press. The Printer thinks it the best instance of pardon, if his Escapes be not laid upon the Author, and he hopes they are no greater than an ordinary understanding may amend, and a little charity may forgive.  
R. Royston.   


CHAP. I.  
The General Proposition. THE Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, As now Exercised in the Church of England, is Allowed and Established by the Laws of the Land.  

SECT. I.  
An Account of the Method.  
AFTER so many hundred years' confirmation, both by Law and Practice, 'tis a marvellous thing this should be a question: yet, of late two worthy Gentlemen, treading in the steps of some former Malcontents, have ventured to make it one. Mr. Edmond Hickeringill, and Mr. H. Cary: the first, in his Book called Naked Truth, the Second part: the other, in his, modestly styled, The Law of England: And it is to be observed, they were both Printed very seasonably for the settling our distractions through the fears and danger of Popery.  
I shall note what they say, discover their gross and dangerous mistakes, answer and remove their pitiful Objections, and then endeavour to satisfy ordinary and honest enquirers both that, and how our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction stands firm and unshaken upon the basis of our English Laws.   

SECT. II.  
Mr. Hickeringill's Reasoning Noted and Resolved.  
Mr. Hickeringill is pleased to say, that upon the Stat. 1 Eliz. 1. was built the High Commission Court, and the Authority of all Canon-makers Synodical; but down came the Fabric, when that Act was Repealed by 17 Car. 1. 11. and 13. Car. 2. 12.  
Where provision was made by striking at the foundation 1 Eliz. 1. that no more Commissions of that nature be granted any more; only the Spiritual Courts by 1● Ca●. 2. 12. were to be in Statu quo, wherein they were 1639. What state? no great I'll warrant you, if the Basis, on which their Star-Chamber and High-Commission-Court were built, be taken away.  
All Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions till Hen. 8. were derived from the Pope, as Supreme of the Church ● this Head being beheaded, the Supremacy was invested in the Crown.  
But 1 Edw. 6. 2. Enacts, that all Process Ecclesiastical should be in the Name and with the stile of the King, etc. So that if there be any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England distinct from his Majesty's Day Courts, all their Processes must be in the King's Name, etc.  
'Tis true 1 Edw. 6. 2. is repealed by the 1 Mar. 2. but I care not for that, for 'tis revived by the Act of repeal 1 Jac. 25.  
The Clergy in Convocation acknowledged in their Petition, that their Ecclesiastical power was at that time taken away.  
So that their present Jurisdiction (being not from God; that's certain) 'tis not from Man, because his Majesty has promised 13 Car. 2. 12. never to empower them with any more Commissions to the world's end.  
But this I do not peremptorily assert.  
I here protest, I know not by what Authority we do these things, considering the premises, and the repealing of 1 Eliz. 1.  
By the Statute of Hen. 8. all these Ordinary Jurisdictions were cut off, and were revived by 1 Edw. 6: upon Conditions only.  
This is the very Naked Truth, under his first Query, and in his Conclusion, and up and down this worthy Book; that is, such a shabby lawless Logic; such a rude and shattered way of reasoning, as deserves to be reduced with a rod, and lashed into method and sense, and better manners.  
Especially if you single out his false and study begging Propositions; fraught with a wretched design of robbing his own Mother, in the King's high way, with which he challenges passage to cheat and abuse the Country.  
My business is only to apprehend the Vagabonds, and commit them to the justice of some more severe and smarter hand.   

SECT. III.  
The Propositions suggested by Mr. Hickeringill are these following.  
I. That before Hen. 8. all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England was derived from the Pope: as Mr. Cary, p. 6.  
II. That Hen. 8. when he annexed the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Crown, he took it wholly away from our Ecclesiastical Ministers.  
III. That the Church had no Jurisdiction after Hen. 8. had annexed it to the Crown, till 1 Edw. 6. 2.  
iv That if there be any Ecclesiastical Power in our Church, it cannot be executed, but in the Name and with the Style, etc. of the King, according to 1 Edw. 6. 2.  
V That all our Ecclesiastical Power was lately founded in 1 Eliz. 1. as it established the High-Commission-Court; and that Act being Repealed, all Ecclesiastical Power was taken away with the Power of that High Commission.  
On a Rock consisting of these Sands, stands our mighty Champion, triumphing with his Naked Truth; but we come now to sift them.    

CHAP. II.  
Our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England was not derived from the Pope, but from the Crown before the Reformation by Henry the Eighth.  
DARE any Protestant stand to the contrary? had the Pope really Authority here before Henry the Eighth? did our Bishops indeed receive all their power, exercised so many hundred years together, originally from the Pope? was not their Political Jurisdiction derived from and depending on the Crown Imperial? and founded in our own Laws, the Customs and Statutes of the Realm? are these the Pope's Laws, and not the Kings? was there not Ecclesiastical power in England, both for Legislation and Execution ab origine, before the Papal Usurpation? was not Popery at first, and all along, till Hen. 8. an illegal usurpation upon our more Ancient Government, never owned much less established in the true & Ancient Laws of England, and under that very Notion rejected and expelled by him?  
How then did our Bishops, etc. derive all their power from the Pope before Hen. 8. to say so, is not more like an Hobbist than a Papist. I thought I had caught an Hobby, but War-Hawk.  

Proof against this Popish principle. SECT. I.  
From the root and branches of Ecclesiastical Power, Donation, Investiture, Laws.  
I. It was a known Law long before Hen. 8. that the Church of England was founded 
●5 Edw. 3. 25 Edw. 1.  in Episcopacy by our Kings, etc. and not in the Papacy.  
II. The Collaetion and Donation of Bishoprics, and Nomination of Bishops did always belong to the King; yea all the Bishoprics in this Realm are of the King's Foundation: and the full Right of Investiture was ever in the Crown. Coke 1. Inst. 2. S. 648. to deny it may be a praemunire.  
III. When once the Bishops are legally invested, their proper Jurisdiction came into 
●5 Hen. 8. 20.  their hands, by the Laws, without any power derived from the Pope: Who saith otherwise, knows nothing, or means ill.  
iv It was acknowledged, That Convocations are, always have been, and aught to be Assembled by the Kings Writ only: 'tis Law, 35 Hen. 8. 19  
V As the power to make Laws for the Church was ever in the King, so the Laws themselves must be his, and none other bind us. This Realm Recognising no Superior 
35 Hen. 8. 21. As 16 Rich. 2. 5.  under God but the King, hath been, and is free from any Laws, but such as have been devised within this Realm, or at our Liberty, have been consented to, and made custom by use, and not by any foreign power.   

SECT. II.  
Jurisdiction.  
THUS our Ancient Ecclesiastical Governors and Laws depended upon the Crown, and not upon the Pope, by the Laws of England, and in the Judgement of all the States of the Kingdom before Hen. 8. and so did also the execution of those Laws by those Governors in the same public Judgement: a little better than Mr. Hickeringill's Popish opinion.  
2. In sundry old Authentic Histories and Chronicles, it is manifest, that this Realm is an Empire, having an Imperial Crown, to which belongs a body Politic, compacted of Spiritualty and Temporalty: furnished thus, with— Jurisdiction to yield Justice in all causes without restraint from any foreign Prince.  
The body Spiritual having power, when any Cause of Divine Law happened to come in question, the English Church, called the Spiritualty, which always hath been reputed, and also found of that sort, for knowledge, etc. (without any exterior person) to declare and determine all such doubts, and to administer all such offices as appertain to them: for the due administration whereof the Kings of this Realm have endowed the said Church both with honour and possessions▪ both these Authorities and Jurisdictions do conjoin in the due Administration of Justice the one to help the other.  
And whereas the King his most noble Progenitors, and the Nobility and Commons of this Realm at divers and sundry Parliaments, as well in the time of King Edw. 1. Edw. 3. Rich. 2. Hen. 4. (all which were certainly before Hen. 8.) and other noble Kings made sundry Ordinances, Laws, Statutes, and provisions for the entire and sure preservation of the Prerogatives and Jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal of the said Imperial Crown, from the annoyance and Authority of the See of Rome from time to time, as often as any such attempt might be known or espied. Vid. 25 Hen. 8. 12.  
These things plainly show, that the whole State in Hen. 8's. time was not of Mr. Hickeringill's mind; but that before that time, the whole power of the Church was independent on the Pope, and not derived from him, but originally inherent in the Crown and Laws of England, whatever he blatters to the contrary. Vid. 25 Edw. 3. Stat. 4. cap. 22. pag. 123. Sect. 3. 27 Edw. 3. cap. 1. & 38 Edw. 3. c. 4. & Stat. 2. c. 1. 2 Rich. 2. cap. 6. 3 Rich. 2. c. 3. S. 2. 12 Rich. 2. c. 15. & 13 Rich. 2. Stat. 2. c. 2. 16 Rich. 2. c. 5. 2 Hen. 4. c. 3, & 4. 7 Hen. 4. c. 6. 9 Hen. 4. c. 8. 1 Hen. 5. 7. 3 Hen. 5. Stat. 2. c. 4. Add to these Mr. Cawdries Case in my Lord Coke, and he must be unreasonably ill affected to the Church of England, that is not more than satisfied, that the chief and Supreme Governors thereof, were the Kings of England, and not the Pope, before the Reign of Hen. 8.  
3. Also it was the sense of the whole Kingdom, that the Pope's power and Jurisdiction here, was usurped and illegal; contrary to God's Laws, the Laws and Statutes of this Realm; and in derogation of the Imperial Crown thereof: and that it was timorously and ignorantly submitted unto, before Hen. 8. as the words of that Statute are, 28 Hen. 8. cap. 16.   

SECT. III.  
BUT if our Gentleman be wiser than to believe their words; the matter is evident in our ancient Laws, and constant practice accordingly, before Hen. 8. his time: Indeed all the Statutes of provision against foreign powers, are to own and defend the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction at home, under this Crown. Yea all the Statutes made on purpose, to restrain and limit the Spiritual Jurisdiction in certain cases, and respects, do allow and establish it in others, exceptio confirmat Regulam in non exceptis.  
2. Much plainer, all the Statutes that prohibit the King's Civil Courts to interrupt the Ecclesiastical proceed, but in such cases, and the Statutes granting consultations in such cases; and the Statutes directing appeals in the Spiritual Courts, and appeals to the Chancery itself, and the Laws ratifying and effectually binding their Sentence by the Writ de exc. cap. much more plainly do these establish the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the laws of the Land, before Hen. 8.  
3. By this time 'tis vain to mention the Statutes which of old did specify and allow particular matters to be tried only in the Ecclesiastical Courts: such as Tithes, 18 Edw. 3. 7. the offences of Ecclesiastical persons, 1 Hen. 7. c. 4. causes Testamentary, 18 Edw. 3. 6. Synodals and procurations, and pensions, etc. 15 Hen. 8. 19 Defamations, 9 Edw. 2. 3. 1 Edw. 3. c. 11, etc. all which are clear evidences that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was established by the Statute-laws of this Realm, and consequently, did not depend upon, was not derived from any foreign power before the 20 of Hen. 8.   

SECT. iv  
TO seek for the Original of our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Courts, in the Statute-book, is more than ridiculous; seeing they both stood in a flourishing estate long before the beginning of that book: and are among the number of the great things, which were then, secundum consuetudinem & leges Angliae, and are plainly established in the Common Law of the Land: by which they have stood and been practised, ever since (as we shall prove more fully anon.)  
2. Magna Charta, which is found first in the book of Statutes, and is said by Lawyers to be Common Law (i. e. shows us what is Common Law) in this Kingdom; gins thus, We have granted and confirmed for us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free; and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties Inviolable. Reserving to all Archbishops and Bishops, and all persons as well Spiritual as Temporal all their Free Liberties and free Customs, which they have had in times past, and which we have granted to be holden within this Realm; and all men of this Realm, as well Spiritual as Temporal, shall observe the same against all persons.  
3. Now what can any man, that knows the practice of the Spiritual Courts, before that time, at that time, and ever since, imagine what is meant by the Liberties and Customs of the Church, (i. e. in the sense of Mr. Hickeringill) and the words of Magna Charta, Archbishops, Bishops, and all Spiritual men, but the Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in the first and chief place? And these, by the great Charter, are confirmed for ever; and the like confirmation hath been made by the many succeeding Kings and Parliaments, in their confirmation of Magna Charta.  
4. Therefore I cannot but conclude, that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction being founded in the Common Law, Magna Charta, and the Statutes, by so long practice beyond all Records, is in the very Constitution of the Kingdom: The great men of the Church having always had authority in the very making of Laws as they had before Magna Charta, and been reputed (as in the Statute of Eliz.) one of the three States in Parliament; and the Execution also of the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Church of England.   

SECT. V  
LASTLY, All this is plainly confirmed by ancient Ecclesiastical Canons (which seems to be an Argument of great weight with Mr. Hickeringill) as well as by the Ancient Laws and Customs of the Land.  
In the Apostles Canons 'tis ordained, that every National Church should have its own chief or head, and thence derive all Power under the Crown: 'Tis acknowledged, against the Papists, that we had our Archbishops and Bishops before the Usurpation of the Pope: We were anciently a Patriarchate independent upon Rome: The four first Councils confirmed the Apostles Canons; and established our ancient Cyprian privilege: Let after- encroachments of the Pope be accordingly renounced as lawless Usurpations: Let us quietly enjoy our restored ancient privileges; and let ancient Custom prevail, according to the Sentence of the ancient Councils, in spite of all Papists and Hobbists.    

CHAP. III.  
King Hen. 8. did not, by renouncing the Power pretended by the Pope, make void the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: neither was it void before it was restored by 1 Edw. 6. 2.  
IT's somewhat difficult to make this Proposition than it is in its self more plain: pray Mr. Wiseman, where and by what words did Hen. 8. cut off, as you say, all those ordinary Jurisdictions? Did that great Prince and his Parliament intent by any Statute then made, to cut them off, or not? If they did intent it, how came it to pass that they continued in their usual course of power and proceed all the rest of his Reign? which may be presumed to be near ten years? Was that watchful Prince so asleep? was the whole Kingdom so stupid, so long a time, to suffer such oppression, by invasion of the Crown and the people's Liberties, by a company of Churchmen, now deprived of the Pope's assistance, and without any power at all? or were the Ecclesiastical Governors so desperate or careless, as to lie under so much danger of praemunire, neither desisting to act without power, nor to sue for it?  
2. But perhaps, though the King and Parliament did not intent it, yet the words of the Statute express enough to dissolve and cut off all those ordinary Jurisdictions: and no body could see through this millstone, or tumble it upon the Church's head, before Mr. Hickeringill was inspired to do it in a lucky time. I will answer him with a story; There was a certain Lord laid claim to a Manor that was in another Lord's possession: upon Trial it was found, that the Plaintiff had the Right of it; and he that had had possession was thrown out, and the other (the Right Owner) was, as he ought to be, put into the possession of the said Manor; but it was observed, that, though the Lords were changed, yet the Customs, and Courts, and Officers were not changed at all, but all things proceeded as before.  
3. Thus King Hen. 8. and his Parliament expressed themselves as if on purpose to our present case; only that the Pope's power than was rather in a pretended claim, than in possession; as is evident from that notable Statute 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. where we have the King's Supremacy first asserted, with a body Politic of the Spiritualty and Temporalty, every way furnished with Authorities and Jurisdictions, to administer Justice to the whole Realm. Thus the Imperial Crown fully accomplished, throws off the pretence of the Pope, as King Edw. Rich. and Hen. 4. had done before, yet as they also did, reserves as well the Spiritualty and its Jurisdiction, as the Temporalty and its Jurisdiction. Afterwards  
4. The King doth by his Royal assent, and by the assents of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons Assembled, and by the Authority of the same, Enact, Establish and Ordain, that all Causes Testamentary, Causes of Matrimony and Divorces, rights of Tithes, Oblations and Obventions, the knowledge whereof, by the goodness of Princes of this Realm, and by the Laws and Customs of the same, appertaineth to the Spiritual Jurisdiction of this Realm, shall be from henceforth heard, examined, discussed, clearly, finally and definitively adjudged and determined in such Courts, Spiritual and Temporal, as the natures of the controversy shall require.  
5. 'Tis plain therefore, that though Hen. 8. did cut off the Pope's pretence, which is the great intention of that excellent Law, yet the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was not dissolved, but annexed or declared to be annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm, and to continue to exercise its power in the Spiritual Courts, as before, according to the Laws and Customs of the Land. Read the Statute, and you will not only see a continuance of the Spiritual Courts supposed and allowed, but special directions touching proceed and Appeals therein.  

SECT. II.  
IF King Hen. 8. did take away the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Church of England, he did either remove the Officers, or deny their power to make Canons, or destroy their Courts, and the exercise of their Jurisdiction; but he did do neither, but rather by Acts of Parliament established them all.  
I. For the first, touching the Governors of the Church, consult Statute 31 Hen. 8. 3. that it may be Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament, that all Archbishops and Bishops of this Realm, may, by Authority of this present Parliament, and not by any provision, or other foreign Authority, enjoy and retain their Archbishoprics and Bishoprics in as large and ample manner, as if they had been promoted, elected, confirmed and Consecrated according to the due course of the Laws of this Realm: And that every Archbishop and Bishop of this Realm may minister, use and exercise all and every thing and things pertaining to the Office or Order of any Archbishop or Bishop, with all Tokens, Ensigns and Ceremonies thereunto lawfully belonging.  
Further, that all Ecclesiastical persons of the King's Realm, all Archdeacon's, Deans, and other having Offices, may by Authority of this Act (and not &c.) administer, use and exercise all things appertaining to their Dignities and Offices, so it be not expressly against the Laws of God and this Realm.  
II. Neither did King Hen. 8. take away the power of the Bishops and others, to make Canons in Convocation, as appears by the Statute of the 25 of Hen. 8. 19 In that Statute, among other things, upon the Petition of the Clergy, two things are granted to our purpose, touching Ecclesiastical Canons.  
1. The old ones; 'tis provided that such Canons being already made, which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the Laws, Statutes and Customs of this Realm, nor to the damage of the King's prerogative Royal, shall now be used and exercised as they were before the making of this Act, till such time as they be viewed by the said Thirty two persons, according to the Tenor of this Act, which was never done; therefore such old Canons are yet of force by this Act. Vid. Sect. 6.  
2. For the making of new Canons; the Convocation hath power reserved by this same Act, provided the Convocation be called by the King's Writ; and that they have the Royal assent and licence to make, promulgate, and execute such Canons: as you may read Sect. 1. of the said Statute. Indeed the Convocation used a larger power in making Canons before, as is there noted, which, they say, they will not henceforth presume to do: but it therefore follows, that they may still use their power, so limited and derived from the Crown; which is the evident intention of the Act. For by restraining the Clergy thus to proceed in making Canons, the Law allows them the power so to do; and by making the exceptions and limitations confirms their Authority so far as it is not excepted against.  
III. Neither, lastly, did King Hen. 8. take away the ordinary Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Governors as exercised in the Spiritual Courts, according to the Laws and Canons of this Church: but indeed established them by Acts of Parliament, as is plainly to be seen in the 37 Hen. 8. c. 16. Sect. 4. in these words: May it therefore please your Highness, that it may be Enacted, that all singular persons which shall be made— deputed to be any Chancellor, Vicar-general, Commissary, Official, Scribe or Register, by your Majesty or any of your Heirs or Successors, or by any Archbishop, Bishop, Archdeacon or other person whatsoever, having Authority under your Majesty, your Heirs and Successors, to make any Chancellor, Vicar-general, Commissary, Official or Register, may lawfully execute all manner of Jurisdiction, commonly called Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction: and all Censures and Coertions appertaining unto the same, etc.  
2. 'Tis acknowledged, that in the Sect. 2. of this Statute, it seems as if the Parliament concluded, that by the 25 of Hen. 8. 19 the ancient Canons were abrogated, which I wonder Mr. Hickeringill his sagacity had not discovered: yet 'tis plain enough, that wise Parliament did not thereby reflect upon or intent all the Canons; but such Canons, as the present matter before them was concerned in; that is, such Canons as forbade Ecclesiastical Officers to marry; as the words Sect. 1. are, that no Lay or married man should or might exercise any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, etc. directly repugnant to your Majesty's as Supreme Head, your Grace being a Layman: than it follows in the next words, And albeit the said Decrees, viz. being contrary to the Royal prerogative as supreme Head of the Church, be in the 25 year of your most Noble Reign utterly abolished.  
That this is the meaning of that clause is reasonable to believe, because they take no further care to correct the matter, but only by enacting persons lawfully deputed, though they be Lay persons, though married or unmarried, shall have power, and may exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, notwithstanding any Law or Constitution to the contrary, as the Statute is concluded.  
3. Besides, we are assured, that all the ancient Canons, that were not repugnant to the King's Prerogative, or the Laws and Customs of this Realm were not abrogated; but declared to be of force, i. e. to be executed in the Spiritual Courts, as was noted in the very letter of that Statute 25 Hen. 8. 19 and that this clause, speaking only of such Canons as were abrogated by that Statute, abrogates nothing that was not so, by the Act referred to.  
4. And thus the Jurisdiction and Canons of the Church stood in force, at the latter end of the Reign of Hen. 8. this Statute being made in the last year, wherein any were made by that great Prince.  
5. Thus we have found in the time of King Hen. 8. an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction exercised in England, without any dependence on the Pope, and other Authority for Canon-makers Synodical (as Mr. Hickeringill cants) besides the Statute for the High Commission 1 Eliz. upon which Statute of Eliz. Mr. Hickeringill very learnedly asserts the Authority of all Canon-makers Synodical was built: qu. Naked Truth.   

SECT. III.  
NO more is needful under this Head, but to show my respect to Mr. Hickeringill his doughty and only Argument, taken out of the Petition of the Clergy to Queen Mary; whereby he would fain prove, that the extinguishing Act of Hen. 8. took away all ordinary Jurisdiction from the Church of England, and that there was no such thing till she revived it.  
2. The words of the Petition, from whence he thus argues, you shall have in his own Translation, in this manner: they pray that her Majesty would make such provision, that those things which belong to our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Liberties (without which we cannot duly discharge, etc.) and taken from us lately by the Iniquity of the times, may be again restored; and that all Laws which have taken away, or do any ways hinder our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and liberties, may be made null and void. Hence he concludes, that in the judgement of the Convocation at that time, their Jurisdiction and Liberties were taken away. Is this proof sufficient against all the laws and practice of the Kingdom during the Reign of Hen. 8. after the extinguishing Act? or do they say that Hen. 8. took away the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction? how can Mr. Hickeringill divine that it was not the renouncing the Pope as Head of their Jurisdiction and Liberties, that was the very grievance that they complained of?  
3. This is certain, that Queen Mary succeeded Edw. 6. that Edw. 6. did require more express Testimonies of the clergy's Recognition of the Crown, in the exercise of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by the Statute (of which we shall take more notice presently) than Hen. 8. did; and 'tis past Mr. Hickeringill his skill to prove, that the Convocation in their said Petition, did not principally, if not only intent that severe Act of Edw. 6. However that pass, Mr. Hickeringill his argument, deserves not the strength of a Convocation to confute it.  
4. I leave it to Mr. Hickeringill himself; for if he think, that that Convocation spoke that which was not true, he hath said nothing to the purpose: but if he think they did speak truth, than he thinks, that the Jurisdiction of the Church of England, as derived from the King, according to the Statute of Edw. 6. or in Hen. 8's time, was no lawful Jurisdiction, that is, Mr. Hickeringill thinks as the Papists think; War Hawk again Mr. Hickeringill, and a praemunire too.  
But this brings us to consider the Statute of Edw. 6.    

CHAP. IU.  
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is lawfully exercised, without the King's Name or Style in Processes, etc. notwithstanding the 1 Edw. 6. 2.  
THat all Ecclesiastical Processes should be in the Name and Style of the King, etc. according to the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. 2. is the great and old Objection, not only of Mr. Hickeringill, but several others.  

SECT. I.  
Answ. But first, if this Statute were not repealed (as indeed it is) there are several things in the body of it very considerable against Mr. Hickeringill, and to our advantage.  
1. The Statute observes in the very foundation of it, that it's justly acknowledged by the Clergy of the Realm, that all Courts Ecclesiastical within the Realms of England and Ireland, be kept by no other Power or Authority, but by the Authority of the King; which, it seems, was then known without the Testimonies thereof, then to be required; and indeed is so still by the Oaths which all Ecclesiastical persons cheerfully take before their Instalment.  
2. That there was such a thing in practice before the making this Act, as Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Church of England: for the Statute saith, that Archbishops, etc. do use to make and send out their Summons, etc. in their own names at that time, who yet acknowledged all their Authority from the Crown, Sect. 3.  
3. The Statute allows the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction itself; and that the Archbishops and Bishops shall make, admit, etc. their Chancellors, and other Officers and Substitutes, which supposeth the Constitution of the Spiritual Courts, under their own names, and with their own Seals, Sect. 6.  
4. This Statute also allows, that some things are limited by the Laws and Customs of this Realm, and if such things are depending in the King's Courts of Record at Common Law, are to be remitted to the Spiritual Courts to try the same, Sect. 7.  
5. But what is the penalty if they do not use the King's Name and Style, and put the King's Arms into their Seals of Office? This is considerable. 'Tis well the Statute provided 
Sect. 4.  a better hand to punish the delinquents than Mr. Hickeringill, and a milder punishment than he interprets the Law to do: the punishment is the King's displeasure, and imprisonment during his pleasure; not the voiding the Jurisdiction, as Mr. Hickeringill would have it: And while the King knows the Statute is repealed, as shall next appear, we fear not but his Majesty is pleased with, and will defend our Jurisdictions, while we humbly acknowledge their dependency on the Crown, and exercise the same, according to his Laws, though we presume not to use his Name, and Style, and Arms, without the warrant of Law.   

SECT. II.  
1. FOR that Statute of 1 Edw. 6. 2. was repealed by the first and second of Philip and Mary, c. 8. wherein we have these plain words; The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Archbishops and Ordinaries (are declared) to be in the same state for process of suits, punishment of crimes, and execution of the Censures of the Church, with knowledge of causes belonging to the same; and as large in these points, as the said Jurisdiction was the said twentieth year of Hen. 8. whereby that Statute is also revived, as my L. Coke affirmeth.  
Thus, by Act of Parliament, of which that Queen was the undoubted Head, (and by the power of the Crown of England, and not the Pope) the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of this Realm was established by our own Law is the same state wherein it stood before the twentieth of Hen. 8. and then, we find, that by our ancient Laws and Customs, it was dependent on the Crown, whatever some Churchmen thought to the contrary.  
2. I have read, that this same Queen Mary wore the Title of Head of the Church of England herself; though in other points too too zealous for Popery: and by this very Statute it is Enacted, That nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish the Liberties, Prerogatives, or Jurisdictions, or any part thereof, which were in the Imperial Crown of this Realm the twentieth year of Hen. 8. or any other the Queen's progenitors before: And we have found, that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of this Kingdom was subject to, and dependent on the Imperial Crown, secundum consuetudinem & legem Angliae in her Ancestors time: We have found also, that this was the undoubted Judgement of the whole Kingdom in the Statutes of Hen. 8. Edw. 6. Queen Eliz. King James, etc.  
Now let it be shown, that this clause of the Statute of Queen Mary is repealed, which is so agreeable to the ancient Customs and Rights of the Crown; let this be shown, and you do something: This Statute of my Lord Coke's is not repealed by the 1 of Eliz. or King James, though the 1 of Mary should be granted to be so. Also the 25 Hen. 8. 20. being contrary to 1 Edw. 6. 2. is revived by 1 Eliz. and never repealed. Rep. Coke 12. p. 9  
I. Mr. Hickeringill indeed is bold enough, but I find Mr. Cary timorous in the point, though against the hair: for though he toll on his weak and prejudiced readers, to their great hazard, in putting their whole case upon this one point, whether the Court can show the broad Seal, etc. yet when he comes home to the matter, he tells them, that the aforesaid Statute of Edw. 6. not being mentioned by King James' Act of repeal, and expressly revived, is thought not to be of force; so that a citation in the Bishops own name, may, at this day, be good in Law. Law of Engl. c. 2. p. 12. Mr. Hickeringill should have taken the advice of this his friend, a great Lawyer certainly, that entitles his minute and thin piece, the Law of England.   

SECT. III.  
Mr. CARY indeed mistakes the Statute; for it is the first of King James 25. not the fourth: yet we have his learned opinion, that Citations in the Bishops own name, may, at this day, be good in Law; and for aught I know, his reason for it may be good too, viz. because the Statute of Queen Mary, especially that of the first and second of Phil. and Mar. c. 8. is not in the said Act of repeal expressly revived, according to the express words of the Act, vid. 1 Eliz. sect. 13. But, O Mr. Cary! though we have here your opinion and your reason, where was your Conscience? where was your kindness to your beloved dissenting Clients? when you dared to betray them to the Devil and the Gaoler (to speak in Mr. Hickeringill's language▪) (a far heavier sentence than Curse ye Meroz) and that upon no other ground, that I can find, in your English Law, but this Statute only; which yet for the reason aforesaid, you say, is thought not to be of force; and though, you say, the Bishops may at this day send forth Citations in their own names by Law; yet your grave advice to those friends is this; When you are Cited, appear and demand, whether they have any Patent from the King for the same, and under his great Seal or no; if they will not show you by what Authority— protest against their proceed, and go your way, i. e. the way of disobedience, contempt the way to the Gaol and the Devil; but that's no matter, he hath showed his spite to Ecclesiastical Authority against his own Law and Conscience: he was not to satisfy a doubt, but a lust; and his confidence is as able to secure the deluded people from the danger of contempt of the King's Ecclesiastical Courts, as his wise Notion of Magna Charta, c. 14. from paying their Tithes. See this point excellently and fully argued on both sides, and the Judges, etc. Opinion and Reasons silencing this Objection in King James' time, Coke Rep. 12. p. 7, 8, 9   

SECT. iv  
1 Edw. 6. 2. repealed appears from practice.  
II. A further Argument, that the Stat. 1 Edw. 6. 2. is repealed is taken from the uninterrupted practice, both of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and the Kings of England, and their own immediate Courts, contrary to it: and I think it is a rule in Law, that in doubtful cases, Lex currit cum praxi.  
1. The Ecclesiastical Judges have, ever since the Repealing Act of Queen Mary, before and since the Statute of Queen Eliz. and King James, called Statutes of repeal, uncontrollably proceeded in their own names, and not expressly in the name or stile of the King (let one instance be shown to the contrary) than who can imagine without a fancy possessed, that the Crown and States of the Realm should intent so great an alteration in the Ecclesiastical government; and that in the behalf of the supremacy, and for the Rights of the Crown, as is pretended, by reviving that Act of 1 Edw. 6 and yet, neither then, not even since, expect a conformity to, and observance of it? Were Queen Eliz. and King James so easy and careless of their Crowns as this would make them? were all the Bishops, who were concerned in making those Acts of Repeal, and all Ecclesiastical Judges ever since, so dull and stupid, as not to know the force of those Acts; not to mind either their duty, or their safety, in so great and hazardous a point, as some would have it of a praemunire? or so foolhardy, as to bear against the Crown itself, on which alone they know they depend against plain Acts of Parliament, in the midst of froward and watching enemies on every side them? who can think it? I must conclude, that if it be possible that the Act of Queen Mary should be repealed in this point, either by Queen Eliz. or King James, 'tis more than ever the Lawmakers themselves thought of, understood or intended.  
2. For secondly, the practice of the Crown that was in the first place highly concerned in that Stat. 1 Edw. 6. 2. hath been ever since the Act of Queen Mary that repealed it, directly contrary to it; and, in a very great point or flower of the supremacy, managed itself ever since, just as it did before that Act of Edw. 6. and, as I said, directly contrary to it: therefore 'tis past all doubt but that the sense of the Queen and Kings of England, and the sense of those great Lawyers and Statesmen, that direct the Crown in such great affairs, is evident, that the Statute of Edw. 6. stands repealed, and is not revived; for in that Stat. 1 Edw. 6. 2. 'tis expressly enacted, that whereas elections of Bishops by Deans and Chapters upon a Writ of Congee d'eslire— seeming derogatory and prejudicial to the King's prerogative Royal; for a due reformation thereof, be it enacted, that from henceforth no such Congee d'eslire be granted, not election made, but, etc. yet ever since Congee d'eslires have been granted, and such elections thereupon have been returned and accepted.  
3. The King's immediate Courts, so far as they have been concerned with Jurisdiction of the Church, and the King's Civil Judges therein, have ever since owned, and as occasion hath required, ratified, fortified, and made effectual all our Ecclesiastical proceed ever since, though not acted in the King's name, contrary to the said Statute; though 'tis a great part of their places and offices to secure the Prerogative against all Invasion, especially of the Church: thus by their constant practice it appears, that they never understood that Statute of Edw. 6. to be in force, since Queen Mary repealed it: Was the whole Kingdom so long, and in so deep a sleep, to be awakened by such impertinent and little barkings?   

SECT. V  
1 Edw. 6. 2. Repealed in the Judgement of all the Judges, the King and Council.  
THE objection from the 1 Edw. 6. is no new light of Mr. Hickeringill's, we find it busy in the time of King Charles the first, Anno 1637. and by the King's Proclamation it seems it had troubled the Kingdom before, as indeed it had in the Fourth of King James. In that year 1637. upon an order out of the Star-chamber, the learned Judges were commanded to give their opinion in this matter: and they all met together, and deliberately, and distinctly, and fully declared, that the 1 Edw. 6. 2. is repealed, and is not in force; and that the Ecclesiastical Judges did (in all the points called in question) act legally, and as they ought to do; hereupon the King and Council being satisfied, issued forth the said Proclamation to silence and prevent all such objections against Ecclesiastical Judges, Courts and proceed for the future; and the judgement of the Judges under their hands, was enrolled in the Courts of Exchequer, King's Bench, Common Pleas, etc. as Law; where any one may find it that desires to be further satisfied in the truth of it.  
2. Hence I argue, that that Statute of 1 Edw. 6. is repealed in Law; at least that the subjects ought so to esteem it, until they have the judgement of the Judges declared otherwise; yea, though those Judges (which is profane to imagine) did err in that their Declaration through ignorance or fear of the High Commission, as Mr. Hickeringill meekly insinuates, p. ult.  
For the Law is known to the subject, either by the letter or by the Interpretation of it: and if the letter of the Law be not plain, or be doubtful, we take the Interpretation of it from such as by law are of right to make the Interpretation, to be the law; and this I think is the Common Law of England, and believe that Mr. Cary himself thinks so too.  
3. Now, who is or can be thought to be the most proper Interpreter of a doubtful Law, but the King with his Council, by all the Judges of the Land? especially if that law concern Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of the Crown, as the law in question plainly doth. But the King himself with his Council, by all the Judges of the Land, hath solemnly declared, that the 1 Edw. 6. 2. is repealed, and not of force; this is a legal interpretation of the law; this is law, and aught so to be taken, rebus sic stantibus, by all the subjects of England, whatever little men that talk of the law in their own narrow and private sentiments presume to vent, to the scandal of the people, the trouble of the Kingdom and slander of the Church, and Ecclesiastical proceed: and indeed it would be an insufferable sauciness, to say no worse, for any Ecclesiastical Judge to act by a law that is none, against the so solemn declaration of the King, the Council, and all the Judges of the Land, and this is the case.  
I shall therefore trouble, if not pleasure, my reader with the Declaration of the Judges, and the sense of the King and Council of it.  

Primo Julii 1637.  
The Judge's Certificate concerning Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.  
May it please your Lordships,  
ACcording to your Lordship's Order made in his Majesty's Court of Star-Chamber the Twelfth of May last, we have taken consideration of the particulars, wherein our Opinions are required by the said Order, and we have all agreed:  
That Processes may issue out of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and that a Patent under the great Seal is not necessary for the keeping of the said Ecclesiastical Courts, or for the enabling of Citations, Suspensions, Excommunications, or other Censures of the Church; and that it is not necessary that Summons, Citations, or other Processes' Ecclesiastical in the said Courts, or Institutions, or Inductions to Benefices, or Correction of Ecclesiastical Offences by Censure in those Courts, be in the Name or with the Style of the King, or under the King's Seal; or that their Seals of Office have in them the Kings Arms. And that the Statute of primo Edvardi Sexti c. 2 which Enacted the Contrary, is not now in force.  
We are also of Opinion, that the Bishops, Archdeacon's, and other Ecclesiastical Persons may keep their Visitations as usually they have done, without Commission under the great Seal of England so to do.  


John Brampstone,  
John Finch,  
Humph. Davenport,  
Will. Jones,  
Jo. Dinham,  
Ri. Hutton,  
George Crook,  
Tho. Trevor,  
George Vernon,  
Ro. Berkley,  
Fr. Crawly,  
Ri. Weston.     
Enrolled in the Courts of Exchequer, King's Bench, Common Pleas; and Registered in the Courts of High Commission and Star-Chamber.  
Hereupon followed the King's Proclamation, declaring that the proceed of his Majesty's Ecclesiastical Courts and Ministers are according to the Law of the Land; as are the words of the Title. I shall only transcribe the Conclusion of the Proclamation, which you have faithfully in these words.  

AND his Royal Majesty hath thought fit, with the Advice of his Council, that a public Declaration of these Opinions and Resolutions of his Reverend and Learned judges, being agreeable to the Judgement and Resolutions of former times, should be made known to all his Subjects, as well to Vindicate the legal proceed of his Ecclesiastical Courts and Ministers, from the unjust and Scandalous imputation of invading or entrenching on his Royal Prerogative, as to settle the minds, and stop the mouths of all unquiet Spirits; that for the future they presume not to censure his Ecclesiastical Courts and Ministers in these their Just and Warranted proceed: And hereof his Majesty admonisheth all his Subjects to take Warning, as they shall answer the Contrary at their Perils:  
Given at the Court at Lindhurst, Aug. 18. in the Thirteenth Year of his Majesty's Reign.  
God save the King.   
You may see the Case fully, the Reasons on both sides, and the Judge's determination the Fourth of King James, to which this Proclamation may refer, Coke Rep. 12. p. 7, 8.  
Now I could almost submit it to Mr. Cary or Mr. Hickeringill himself, whether it be fit or safer for Ecclesiastical Judges to proceed in their Courts as they now do; or altar their proceed, and presume upon the King, by using his Royal Name, and Style, and Arms, contrary to all this Evidence, and Reason, and Law.   

SECT. VI  
Mr. H. Cary's Reason to the contrary considered.  
BUT Mr. Cary saith, He seethe not a drachm of Reason, why the Spiritual Courts should not make their Process in the King's name, as well as the Temporal Courts, since those, as well as these, are the King's Courts.  
He seems to talk Apothecary, without so much as a drachm of Reason; the usage of the Courts, and the evidence aforesaid, is better Law than his pitiful guesses. Neither is there colour of Reason in what he saith, if these two things appear.  
1. That the Ecclesiastical Ministers do sufficiently and openly acknowledge the dependence of their Courts upon the Crown without using his Majesty's Name, or Style, or Arms.  
2. That there is not the same reason that the Spiritual Courts should use the King's Name, etc. that there is for the Temporal.  
1. For the first, the Ecclesiastical Judges accept their places thankfully as the King's donation, and not the Popes: then they readily grant they depend upon the Crown, even for the exercise of their Spiritual function; and that they receive all coercive and external Jurisdiction immediately from the Crown and the Laws of the Land, and not from the Pope. Again, they all take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance before their Instalment, which are the fence of the Crown against Popery. And then in all their public Prayers before their Sermons, the Bishops and Archdeacon's, &c. do Recognize the King's Supremacy in all Ecclesiastical things and causes as well as Civil. Again, they Take the late Test and the same Oaths at the public Sessions. And lastly, Mr. Cary himself confesseth, that they acknowledge the said Supremacy in their public Canons or Constitutions of the whole Church of England, as he notes p. 2. in Can. 1, 2, 1603. And are all these less significant to testify their dependence on and acknowledgement of their derivation from the Crown, than the King's Name, and Style, and Arms (which may be far enough from the Conscience) in a Process?  
2. For the second, that there is not the same reason to use the King's name in Ecclesiastical as in Civil Courts, is apparent from the true cause of using it in the Civil Courts, which being not known or well heeded, may be the cause of the exception: for Bishop Sanderson hath well observed the true reason of using the King's name in any Court, is not thereby to acknowledge the Emanation of the power or Jurisdiction of that Court from, or the subordination of that power unto the King's power or Authority, as the objector seems to suppose; but rather to show the same Court to be one of the Kings own immediate Courts, wherein the King himself is supposed (in the construction of the Law) either by his personal or virtual power to be present: and the not using the King's name in other Courts doth not signify, that they do not Act by the King's Authority, but only that the Judges in them are no immediate representatives of the King's person; nor have consequently, any allowance from him to use his Name in the execution of them.  
1. This difference is evident among the Common Law Courts of this Kingdom; for though all the immediate Courts of the King do act expressly in his Name, yet many other more distant Courts do not; as all Courts-Baron, Customary-Courts of Copyholders, etc. and such Courts as are held by the Kings grant, by Charter to Corporations, and the Universities: in all which Summons are issued out, and Judgements given, and all Acts and proceed made and done in the name of such persons as have chief Authority in the said Courts, and not in the Name of the King; thus their styles run; A. B. Major Civitatis Exon. N. M. Cancellarius Vniversitatis Oxon. and the like, and not Carolus Dei gratia.  
2. Once more a little nearer to our case; there are other Courts that are guided by the Civil (as distinguished from the Common) Law; as the Court-Marshal and the Court of Admiralty; the King's Name in these is no more used, than it is in the Courts Spiritual; but all Processes, Sentences, and Acts in these Courts, are in the Name of the Constable, Head Marshal, or Admiral, and not in the King's Name.  
3. I shall conclude this with those grave and weighty words of the same most admirable Bishop Sanderson, in his excellent Treatise, showing, that Episcopacy as Established by Law in England, is not prejudicial to Regal Power; worthy of every Englishman's reading: his words to our purpose are these; Which manner of proceeding, like that of the Spiritual Courts, constantly used in those several Courts before mentioned; sigh no man hath hitherto been found to interpret, as any diminution at all or disacknowledgment of the King's Sovereignty over the said Courts: it were not possible the same manner of proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts should be so confidently charged with so heinous a crime, did not the intervention of some wicked lust or other prevail with men of corrupt minds to become partial judges of evil thoughts, p. 68, 69.  
Mr. Hickeringill is one of those whom the Bishop describes, i. e. that so confidently chargeth the Ecclesiastical Courts with that heinous crime, and foundeth that confidence in the Statute of the 1 Eliz. 1. In charity to him, I shall give him such words out of that Statute, as do not only secure the Act of Queen Mary that repealed the Act of 1 Edw. 6. 2. (requiring the use of the King's Name in our proceed) from repeal in that particular; but directly and expressly ratifies and confirms the same, and our contrary proceed accordingly. So that our proceed in the Ecclesiastical Courts without using the King's Name, or Style, or Arms, according to 1 Edw. 6. 2. are allowed and established by this very Act of Queen Eliz. thus; Further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, that all other Laws and branches of any Act repealed by the said Act of repeal of Mar. and not in this Act specially mentioned and revived, shall stand and be repealed in such manner and form as they were before the making of this Act; any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding, 1 Eliz. 1. 13. but the Act of 2 Phil. and Mar was not specially mentioned in this Act of Repeal, nor any other: And the Learned Judges in 4 Jac. observe, that this Act of 1 Eliz. revives an Act of Hen. 8. repealed by Queen Mary, and in both these Statutes 1 Edw. 6. 2. is made void; and the present proceeding of Spiritual Courts without the King's Name, etc. plainly confirmed; but vid. Coke Rep. 12. p. 7.    

CHAP. V.  
The Act of 1 Eliz. 1. Establishing the High-Commission Court, was not the foundation of ordinary Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England, against Mr. Hickeringill.  
THE worthy Gentleman, though he useth much Modesty, and will not peremptorily assert; and hath only fitted the matter for the consideration of wiser men (if he can think there be any such) reason's wonderfully after this new and unheard of manner, or to this purpose, if at all.  
The Statute of Eliz. for the High-Commission Court was the only Basis of all Ecclesiastical power; this continued indeed during her time, and King James'; but being repealed by 17 Car. 1. 11. and 13 Car. 2. 12. down came the Fabric; their great foundation thus torn up, now they have neither power from God nor man, nor ever shall; for his Majesty hath by Statute Enacted never to empower them with any more Commissions to the world's end. Now their basis is taken away, I cannot discern where their Authority lies, Nak. T. q. 1. p. 4, 5, 6. This is the Spirit of his Reason, which he confesseth is not infallible; for he saith as before, he doth not peremptorily assert it.  
But can a man have the face to write this first, and then to say he is not peremptory? Would a man in his wits expose himself in this manner in Print, and blunder out so much prejudice, envy, spite and wrath against Government? and talk such pitiful unadvised stuff about Law? and think to shake the Fabric of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, that hath stood firm so long in the midst of all its enemies, with shadows of straws? Had he advised with the learned Sage, his Friend Mr. Cary, who is the Author of the Law of England, certainly he could never have talked so idly and impertinently, but would have put some colours at least upon his honest designs, as Mr. Cary himself hath done.  
But what if this wise Mr. Hickeringill err fundamentally all this while? and the clause of 1 Eliz. and consequently the Stat. of Car. 1. and 2. touch not, concern not the ordinary Jurisdiction of the Church at all? as certainly they do not; and the only wonder is, so wise a man should not see it: A man of so great, and long experience, and practice in the Jurisdiction and Laws of the Church: So diligent and accurate in his writings, and especially of Naked Truth; wherein he assures us, nothing is presented crude or immature, but well digested; as a few of those things that his head and heart, that is, his stomach have been long full of; as he saith, if you will believe him, p. ult.  
But doth not that clause that establisheth the High-Commission affect our ordinary Jurisdictions at all? what pity 'tis, that so excellent a Book as this second part of Naked Truth is, should miscarry in its main project, and in the very foundation too: the fundamental supposition, on which all its strength is built; and in a maxim peculiar to the Author's invention, and singularly his own, for aught I know; and wherein he seems to place his glory, especially seeing, as he tells us, p. ult. he has no pique, private interest, or revenge to gratify: and writes only to cure old Ulcers; and with such hearty wishes that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, which is his Interest as well as others, were of force, strength and virtue, and not so disorderly uncertain and precarious; as he proves it to be, without one Argument, if this beloved one, taken from the High-Commission, fail him.  
And yet alas! it will fail him do what we can: for the clause in the Stat. 1 Eliz. 1. 18. granted a power to the Crown to establish the High-Commission Court, as a Court extraordinary; consisting of extraordinary and choice Ministers, not restrained to ordinary Ecclesiastical Officers: and the ordinary Jurisdiction did never derive from it, was never disturbed or altered by it; but was ever from the beginning of it, consistent with and subordinate to it; therefore was it called the High-Commission. This is evident, as from the concurrence of both Jurisdictions all a long; so from the letter of the Statute itself, and clearly declared to be so by my Lord Coke.  
This clause (saith he) divideth itself into two branches, the first concerning the Visitation of the Ecclesiastical state and persons; this branch was Enacted out of necessity, for that all Bishops and most of the Clergy of England, being then Popish, it was Necessary to raise a Commission to deprive them that would not deprive themselves: and in case of Restitution of Religion, to have a more Summary proceeding than by the ordinary and prolix course of Law is required. This branch concerns only Ecclesiastical persons: so that, as Necessity did cause this Commission, so it should be exercised but upon Necessity; for it was never intended that it should be a continual standing Commission; for that should prejudice all the Bishops in their Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions, and be grievous to the Subject, to be drawn up from all the remote parts of the Realm, where before their own Diocesan they might receive Justice at their own doors.  
So that this power of the High-Commission, neither granted any new power to the ordinary Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, nor took away any of the old. Yea, it plainly supposeth the preexistence and exercise of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in an ordinary way, and meddles no further with it than to take its measures from it, which by consequence allows it in itself, as well as for a Rule of its own proceed, as my Lord Coke observes in these words.  
That your Highness— shall name— to execute under your Highness— all manner of Jurisdiction, etc. and to visit and reform, etc. all errors, etc. which by any manner Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power— can or may lawfully be reform, etc.  
Now if the ordinary Jurisdiction by Bishops, etc. did not derive from, or depend on that High-Commission, the repealing the Statute (I mean the clause) that empowered the High-Commission can no wise affect, much less destroy that ordinary Jurisdiction; and Mr. Hickeringill's foot is gone from his ground, and the ordinary Jurisdiction of the Church of England stands fixed upon its ancient Bottom, on which it stood before the High-Commission, and ever since, notwithstanding the High-Commission is taken away, and should never be granted more.  
Now I cannot but observe, that Mr. Hickeringill hath the ill luck to cut his own fingers with every tool he meddles with. The Stat. of 13 Car. 2. 12. which continues the repeat of the clause in 1 Eliz. for the High-Commission by the 17 of Car. 1. which also took away our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; I say this Stat. 13. Car. 2. 12. restores the ordinary Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, and excludes the power of the High-Commission.  
Whence it is plain, that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction does not Essentially depend on, but may and doth now stand by Act of Parliament without the High-Commission.  
Again, whereas 'tis provided that the Jurisdiction so restored shall not exceed in power, what it was in 1639. it is clear, that the Church had a lawful Jurisdiction before the Wars, otherwise nothing is restored: yea, 'tis nonsense, or a delusion unworthy of a Parliament, if they that made that Act did not suppose and allow, that the ordinary exercise of Jurisdiction in the Spiritual Courts in 1639. was according to Law; and I am sure that was just such as is now exercised.   

CHAP. VI  
How our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England came at first, and is at present Established by Law.  
TO show how the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction came at first to be Established by Law, is a point not so difficult as much desired.  
'Tis agreed, I hope, that all Kindred's, Tongues and Nations own their Obedience to the Gospel, when and wheresoever it comes: and that England was one of the first of the Nations that embraced it, and became a Church of Christ; then we were a rude unpolished and Barbarous people, and knew little of Civil Policy or order of Government; but by the gracious Ministry of Holy men sent from God, our manners began to be softened, and our minds sweetened and enlightened, and our Princes became early nourishers and honourers of Religion and Religious persons; and good nursing Fathers and nursing Mothers to the Church then planting among us; and began to endow it with wealth and power.  
Arviragus, Marius, Coilus (as the three Kings in Malmesb. are named by Capgravius) entertained Christians exploded from all parts of the World, in this Kingdom: and gave them peace, and provided them a Country to dwell in; and first gave liberty to build and defend Churches in public. Lucius the first Christian King, built Churches at his own charge; first constituted Bishops Seats, and built dwellings for Priests, and much enriched all things of that nature: and that Religious men might with more safety enjoy what they had given them, amplis munivit privilegiis, fortified them with large privileges.  
Here was born also (as Baronius confesseth) Constantine the Great, who brought peace to the whole Church; who was the first Christian Emperor; and likewise the first Christian Queen, his Mother Helen.  
If we come to the Kings of the Ages following, quis non stupeat, as Spelman saith, who can choose but be astonished at the eximious Piety, incredible Zeal (Ardorem) extraordinary (Insignes) Alms, manifold works of mercy, munificence towards God's Ministers, and their magnificent and wonderful (profusionem) liberality and expense in building, adorning, enriching Churches, insomuch, as one saith, Mirum tunc fuer at Regem videre non sanctum: And as another, There were more holy Kings found in England than in any one, though the most populous Province in the World.  
The day would fail (that worthy Antiquary adds in his most excellent Epistle before his Councils, enough to inflame the coldest Age with zeal for Religion) The day would fail me, saith he, should I speak of Edwin, Ina, Offa, Ethered, Edmund, Ethelstan, Canute, Edward the Confessor, and many others; seeing among all the Illustrious Kings, who were Westsaxons, the third is scarce found, qui Ecclesiam Dei, in Aliquibus, non Ornaverit, Auxerit, Ditaverit, who did not Adorn, Augment and Enrich the Church of God.  
In these early times of Zeal and Piety among the Kings of England, the Jurisdiction and Authority of the Church took root, and began and proceeded to flourish; now, no doubt, but Religion sincerely managed by good and meek Churchmen, was a great mean to move the Nation towards a better Order in the Civil State, both in Government and Law. Now I say (to use Spelman's words) when Os Sacerdotis Oraculum esset plebis, Os Episcopi, Oraculum Regis & Reipublicae, The mouth of the Priest was an Oracle to the People, and the mouth of the Bishop was an Oracle to the King and the Commonwealth. In the time of Ethelbert, the first Christian King of the Saxons, we find a Convention at Canterbury of Bishops and Lords, to settle the affairs of Church and State. In the time of the Heptarchy Summons was, Ad Episcopos, Principes, etc. Decrees were made afterward, Cum Concilio Episcoporum, thus during the time of the Saxons, etc. and until the Pope got footing here by the Conqueror, Ecclesiastical Authority went on apace: Yea 'tis evident, that it went on step by step with the progress of the Civil, and was gradually owned, enlarged and established in the very Essence and degrees, and together with the Establishment of the Civil State.  
Insomuch, that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was so twisted and Interwoven, and, as it were, wrapped in the very Bowels of the Civil; and the Ecclesiastical Law so concerned and intimately wrought into the Temporal Law and Government, that 'twas hard to make the separation, or indeed clearly to assign the distinction betwixt them; which hath taken up the care, both of Lawyers and Statutes to do it effectually and throughly; and perhaps may be in some measure a Reason of many Prohibitions against Ecclesiastical Prohibitions to this day.  
Hence also it was, that beyond all known time of Christianity in England, our great Churchmen have had no small hand in making all our Laws, both Ecclesiastical and Civil: and also sat many hundred years together with our Temporal Judges in all places of public Judicature. Primi igitur sedebant in omnibus Regni Comitiis & Tribunalibus Episcopi: In Regali quidem palatio cum Regni magnatibus: in Comitat●s unà cum Comite & Justitiario Comitatus: in Turno Vicecomitis cum Vicecomite: in Hundredro cum Domino Hundredi. So that in promoting Justice every where the sword might aid the sword, & nihil inconsulto Sacerdote (qui velut suburra in Navi fuit) ageretur, Sp. Epis. Conc.  
Yet we must remember, and 'tis carefully minded in our Statutes before mentioned, that our Kings were the true and acknowledged fountains of the beginning and increase of that wealth, and honour, and power, which the Church and Churchmen then enjoyed; and that the Kings of England were ever Supreme over this Church, and all its Ministers; and not the Pope, or any foreign power; the Pope's Collector or Minister (so say our ancient Books) had no Jurisdiction in this Land, Lord Coke of Courts, p. 321.  
In our Law before the Conquest, the King was the Vicar of the highest King, ordained to this end, that he should above all govern the Church, Edw. Laws, c. 19 and this hath been carefully maintained by our Laws ever since. See Cawdries Case.  

SECT. I.  
Jurisdiction of the Church in Common Law.  
THUS the power and Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical grew up with and received much perfection by and in Common Law.  
By Common Law, I mean, long and general use in the whole Land; for as I take it, my Lord Coke saith, That time and use make a Custom: when that's general in England, it's called Common Law; that is my meaning; whether my Notion be right, I weigh not, if the matter and Argument prove and express the manner of the Churches ancient Authority and Jurisdiction before the Statutes.  
'Tis most evident, William the Conqueror found the Bishops and other Ecclesiastical Ministers in great power and with large Jurisdiction, which they had long enjoyed, according to the Law and Custom of the Realm. Call that Law what you will, by that they enjoyed their ancient Rights and government, and that's enough.  
'Tis true indeed, William changed the ancient Custom we spoke of, and distinguished the Tribunals one from the other: but saith Spelman, Secrevit, non diminuit Jurisdictionem Cleri, he did not lessen the Jurisdiction of the Clergy: Yea, by swearing, he confirmed the Laws of holy Church, Quoniam per eam. Rex & Regnum solidum subsistendi sistendi habent fundamentum. Prooemium ll. suarum, ut Spel. Epis. because, by the Church both King and Kingdom have a solid foundation of subsisting. Thus the Church's Rights, in being before, were confirmed by the Conqueror.  
My Lord Coke notes two excellent Rules of Common Law to our purpose.  
1. The Law doth appoint every thing to be done by those unto whose office it properly appertaineth.  
2. 'Tis a Maxim of the Common Law, that where the Right is Spiritual, and the Remedy thereof only by the Ecclesiastical Law, the Connusance thereof doth belong to the Spiritual Court, Coke Instit. p. 1.  
3. Hence it follows, that there being many Cases in which there is no remedy any other way provided, by Common Law 
Vid. Cawdries Case, Answ. to Object. 4.  they belong to the Spiritual Courts, and the Common Law both empowers and requires those Courts to give Remedy in those Cases.  
Thus stood Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in England by Common Law before our Statutes took so much notice of it; and our Statutes since, whenever they mention it, do generally mention it, as a Government supposed, upon grounds good and firm in Law to have existed before, and also then to be in use, and to flourish in its present exercise, and proceed in its proper course and Courts.  
'Tis as idle a thing to look in the Statute-books for the beginning of Ecclesiastical Power and its Courts, as for the Beginning of Courts-Baron, which are such by Common Law, as Coke saith, or the Court of Marshalsea, which, as Coke's words are, hath its foundation in Common Law; or Courts of Copyholders, which are such by Custom: And for the same reason to question the lawfulness of these Courts, because, in their original, they were not Established by Act of Parliament, as well as the legality of the Courts Spiritual; these being equally founded in the Ancient usage, Custom and Law of England; and all taken care for in Magna Charta, that ancient Authentic account of our Common Law.  
And why are Ecclesiastical Judges (I mean not Bishops only, whom Mr. Hickeringill finds in Scripture, but) Archdeacon's, Chancellors, Officials, etc. as well Established in their proper power, as Coroners, High-Constables, etc. that have the Origine of their Offices before Statutes? Have not Ecclesiastical Officers, when lawfully invested, power, as well as they, to Act in their proper Jurisdictions, by the same Common Law? by long, ancient and established Custom; or as the usual word in our Statutes in this very Case is, secundum Consuetudines & Leges Angliae?  
My Lord Coke saith, The King's Prerogative is a principal part of the Common Law, which also flourisheth in this part of it, the Ecclesiastical Power and Jurisdiction, as well as in the Civil State and Government. Thus we acknowledge, the Ecclesiastical State, and External, and Coercive Jurisdiction derives from and depends upon the Crown of England by Common Law: And I am bold to add, that the former cannot easily be Abolished and destroyed (I do not say altered) without threatening the latter, I mean the Crown (at least some prejudice to it) on which it depends.  
Thus Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction stands by Common Law, on which also most of our Civil Rights depend; but we confess it is bounded (as my Lord Coke) by the same Common Law; and in all reason it must be so, it being subordinate to the King as Supreme, who is supposed to be personally or virtually present in his great Courts of Common Law; and is so declared to be by Acts of Parliament. Instit. p. 1. pag. 344. of my Lord Coke.   

SECT. II.  
The Government Ecclesiastical is Established in the Statutes of this Realm.  
THE Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction being thus found Established by Law before the Statute-books were made, the Statutes do Establish it as much as any reasonable unprejudiced man can expect or desire.  
We shall begin with Magna Charta, which is Statute as well as Common Law, and seems to unite and tie them together; This stands at the beginning of our Statute-book; and the first thing in this, is a grant and establishment for ever of the Rights and Liberties of the Church; that must be understood of the Rights and Liberties then in being; and among the rest, sure the great Right and Liberty of the Church's Power, and the free use of her Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction.  
Magna Charta itself expounds what it means by holy Church, i. e. the Bishops and Ministers of it, which King Hen. 8. in the Statute saith is commonly called the Spiritualty: and Mr. HIckeringill, for all his scoffing, knows that the Church of England allows a larger sense of the word [Church] viz. the Congregation of all faithful men, etc. And when we call the Clergy, or the Governing-part of the Church, the Church, we use it in a Law-sence, and as a term of Law, as Acts of Parliament as well as the Civil or Canon-Law do: But this by the way.  
2. When the subsequent Acts of Parliament do so frequently mention the Spiritual Courts, and their Jurisdiction; this to me is a legal allowance of them; and indeed a Tacit or implicit acknowledgement of their more ancient antecedent Power and Common right and liberty, by the undoubted Custom, i. e. the Common Laws of the Land. Yea those very Statutes that look at least obliquely upon them; that say they are bounded by the Common Law; that do of themselves limit and prohibit the Ecclesiastical Courts in some cases, seem plainly to acknowledge them in other cases not excepted from their Jurisdiction. But,  
3. More plainly and directly, those Acts of Parliament that appear in the behalf of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in times of its trial and danger, and vindicate its Rights, and preserve and maintain its Liberties when most in question: there have happened such occasions, wherein the Statutes have rescued and replevied the Ecclesiastical Power; in all which the Statutes have been thus favourable to it; three of late, not to mention many formerly.  
1. Thus, when some might imagine, that by the alteration made by King Hen. 8. the Bishops and their Power was shaken: the Statutes made in his time assure us, that it was but to restore the ancient Jurisdiction, and not to destroy it; that Bishops should be elected and act as formerly; especially as Coke noteth, by the 25 Hen. 8. c. 20. it is Enacted, That every person chosen, invested, Consecrated, Archbishop or Bishop, according to this Act, shall do and execute every thing and things as any Archbishop or Bishop of this Realm, without offending of the Prerogative Royal of the Crown, and the Laws and Customs of the Realm at any time heretofore have done.  
Note, that this Statute, contrary to the 1 Edw. 6. 2. was revived by Queen Eliz. 1. cap. 1. which the Judges thought and judged a full answer to all the Objections against the Churches proceed contrary to the 1 Edw. 6. 2. and by this very Statute 1 Edw. 6. 2. stands clearly repealed, as my Lord Coke observes Rep. 12. 8, 9 which caused me to make choice of it for my present purpose.  
2. The second is observed in the time of Phil. and Mar. when the manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction had been altered by the 1 Edw. 6. the Statute establisheth the same as it was before in these words: And the Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions of the Archbishops, Bishops, and (other) Ordinaries, to be in the same estate for Process of Suits, punishment of crimes, and execution of Censures of the Church, and knowledge of causes belonging to the same; and as large in those points, as the said Jurisdiction was the 20 Hen. 8. which Statute of Phil. and Mar repealed the 1 Edw. 6. 2. and was never repealed since, as the Judges resolved in the foresaid Case 4 Jac. but evidently revived by 1 Eliz. 1. Sect. 13.  
3. When thirdly, the long Parl. 17 Car. 1. had disabled the Jurisdiction of the Courts Ecclesiastical, it was very carefully restored and established by the Stat. 13. Car. 2. in these words; Neither this Act— shall take away any ordinary Jurisdiction from the said Archbishops, etc. but that they, and every of them, may proceed— in all manner of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction; and in all Censures and Coertions belonging to the same, as they did and might lawfully have done before the making of the said Act. Vid. 17 Car. 1.  
4. 'Tis sufficient, yet I cannot but subjoin one notable way more Argumentative enough, alone by itself, to prove the Ecclesiastical Courts to be allowed and confirmed by Statute, viz. when the Statutes direct such particulars to be tried in these Courts; and require these Spiritual Courts to use their power for the punishment of offenders, and the doing Justice: And I think there cannot be a better medium or clearer evidence than we have in this matter.  
For if the Spiritual Courts have no power to try such matters, and pass Judgement, and punish in such cases, why do the Statutes direct and remit such matters to them? and why do the Statutes enjoin them to take Connusance and proceed accordingly? that so they do, is plain.  
In the 18 of Edw. 3. 6. 'tis said, that Process in Causes Testamentary notoriously appertaineth to holy Church. We must not blemish the Franchize of Holy Church: And in the 18 of Edw. 3. 6. parties are to be dismissed from Secular Judges in Cause of Tithes, and left to the Church: Ordinaries have power to punish Ministers and Priests; as in 1 Hen. 7. c. 4.  
Synodals, Proxies, Pensions, etc. are to be recovered in the Spiritual Courts. Vid. 15 Hen. 8. c. 7. Sect. 7.  
The like is known touching Causes Matrimonial and Defamations, etc. I shall only instance one more, viz. in the great Cause of Nonconformity; and that in an Act that is nearer to us, and of unquestionable Authority, which both directs what we should punish, and most solemnly requires by its own Authority to exercise our Ecclesiastical Power, by the very rules and proper methods of our Spiritual Courts; in these words, 1 Eliz. before the Common Prayer: Provided always, and be it Ordained and Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all and singular Archbishops and Bishops, and every of their Chancellors, Commissaries, Archdeacon's, and other Ordinaries, having any peculiar Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, shall have full power and Authority by virtue of this Act, as well to inquire in their Visitatiions, Synods, and elsewhere, within their Jurisdiction, at any other time or place, to take accusation and informations of all and every the things above mentioned, done, committed or perpetrated within the limits of their Jurisdictions and Authority, as to punish the same, by Admonition, Excommunication, Sequestration, or Deprivation, and other Censures and Process, in like form as heretofore hath been used in like cases, by the Queen's Ecclesiastical Laws. This doubtless is very plain.  
And hereupon, 'tis solemnly required in these words a little-before: For the due execution hereof, they do in God's name earnestly require and charge all Archbishops, Bishops, and other Ordinaries, that they shall endeavour themselves to the utmost of their knowledges, that the due and true execution hereof may be had, throughout their Dioceses and Charges, as they will answer before God for such evils and plagues, whereby Almighty God may justly punish his people for neglecting this good and wholesome Law.  
Now if in like cases it had not been lawful before this Act, for the Spiritual Courts so to proceed, why are the former Laws and use to be followed by these directions? Or if this Act cannot empower us, give us reason or Law against it. Or if any thing be a greater grievance to you in the Spiritual Courts, than the punishment provided for the crimes mentioned in this Act, say what it is, or say nothing.  
But if these cases be not sufficient, Mr. Cary can tell you of at least ten particular matters, upon which the Law is, to grant the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo: and according to a know Act of Parliament made after this, viz. 5 Eliz. 23. which sufficiently allows and confirms our Ecclesiastical proceed to the fences of too many, as some complain.    

CHAP. VII.  
Of Canons and Convocations.  
WE see what Reason Mr. Hickeringill had to keep such a pother about the force of Ecclesiastical Canons, and the Authority of Convocations. Especially,  
1. Seeing the late mentioned Act of 1 Eliz. supposeth the Ecclesiastical Laws, i. e. the Canons to be her own Laws; and requires Ecclesiastical Judges so severely to put them in execution.  
2. Seeing, since the Reformation, most of the matters of Canons are expressed and enjoined in Acts of Parliament; insomuch, that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction might stand and proceed well enough, had we no other Canon but Acts of Parliament, as Mr. Hickeringill insinuates: and 'tis worthy his observation, that the greatest complaints of Dissenters, since the King's happy return, have been upon the execution of Acts of Parliament, and that not so much by Ecclesiastical as Civil Ministers.  
Indeed the Statute of Car. 2. that restored the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, hath a Proviso, That by virtue of that Act, the Canons of 1640. shall not be of force; and that no Canons are made of force by that Act that were not formerly confirmed by Acts of Parliament, or by the established Laws of the Land, as they stood in Ann. 1639.  
But 'tis evident enough, that by the 25 Hen. 8. c. 19 the old Canons, not against Law or Prerogative, are of force; and that the King with the Convocation, may make new ones, with the same Condition; and indeed, while the Convocation is so limited by that Act, their power seems not very formidable.  
My Lord Coke, who was not a Bigot for Spiritual Power, declares the Law in both those Cases; and tells us, That it was resolved by the Judges at a Committee of Lords, these restraints of the Convocation were grounded on that Statute.  
1. They cannot Assemble without the assent of the King.  
2. They cannot Constitute any Canons without his licence.  
3. Nor execute them without his Royal assent.  
4. Nor after his assent, but with these four limitations.  
1. That they be not against the King's Prerogative.  
2. Nor against Common Law.  
3. Nor against Statute Law.  
4. Nor against any Custom of the Kingdom, Rep. 12. p. 720. And my Lord Coke adds, That these restraints put upon the Convocation by the 25 Hen. 8. are but an affirmance of what was before the Statute; and, as he saith (in his book of Courts) are but declaratory of the old Common Law: 
Pag. 323.  consequently the Courts of Common Law are to bond and overrule all Ecclesiastical executions of Canons, and secure the Crown and the Laws against them.  
But what Acts of Parliament have abrogated the Authority of the Synod 1603. and quite annihilated the very beings of Convocations, I am yet to learn; though Mr. Hickeringill so boldly after his own way vents so wild a notion p. 3. & 12. or when that of 25 Hen. 8. 19 was repealed, or how they are made less than nothing at this day, than they were before, since that Statute of limitations, as he is pleased to insult?  
He saith, They are far from being the Representative Church of England; for that the people have not the least Vote in their Election. Pray, when was it otherwise than 'tis now? If the Law by Institution make the Clerk a guide to his flock in Spirituals; if the people do expressly make choice of him for such, or virtually consent in Law he should be so; and thereupon the Law allows this Clerk to elect members for the Convocation, and also reckons the Convocation to be the Representative Church of England; how comes it that Mr. Hickeringill who is so great a stickler for a Legal Religion should be so much wiser than the Law? and to scoff at its Constitutions?  
I wish Mr. Hickeringill to beware of touching Foundations with his rude and bold Fancies, and disturbing the frame of Government. I am sure he will not abide by his own Rule, if he be well advised of the manner of Electing the great Representative of the people of England: 'tis our duty to study to be quiet, but some study to be otherwise. The wisest word in his Naked Truth is this; If men once come to dispute Authority, and the wisdom of the Laws and Lawmakers, the next step is Confusion and Rebellion, p. 11.   

The Conclusion.  
THUS you have a Taste of the Spirit and Sense that runs through the Book called Naked Truth; his other little gross mistakes are not worthy observing, much less insisting on: such as these:  
1. First, That all Archdeaconries have Corpses annexed, which is certainly otherwise, in most Archdeaconries in some Dioceses.  
2. Then that Archdeacon's require Procurations when they do not Visit; which is not done in some, and I hope in no Diocese.  
3. Lastly, That Procurations and Synodals are against Law, and not to be recovered by Law or Conscience; when he himself confesseth that they are due by ancient Composition: That provision (notwithstanding his old Canons) in Visitations is due; for which the money, paid for Procurations, is paid for them by virtue of that Composition: and whereas, they are due by undoubted and long possession and Custom, which is as Law in England: And to conclude, are not only expressly allowed as due, but declared to be recoverable in the Ecclesiastical Courts, by the Statute of 34 Hen. 8. 19  
I have, at this time, done with his Materials; and for the Manner of his Writing, let the Sentence of every Reader reproach and shame him. I like not the office of Raking Kennels or emptying Jakes; and all the harm I return him, is to pray hearty for him, That God would give him Grace soberly to read over his own Books, and with tears to wash these dirty sheets, wherein he hath played the wanton; and indeed defiled himself more than his own Nest (whatever the unlucky Bird intended) and that with such a barbarous wit, and vile Raillery, as is justly offensive to God and Man: with such wild triumphs of scorn and contempt of his own Order and Office, his Betters and Superiors; with such a profligate neglect of Government and Peace; and of his own Conscience and Law (against which, he confesseth, he still acts) yea, against his own Interest, Safety, and his very Reputation.  
For all which Notorious and public Miscarriages, I wish he thought it fit to do public Penance in another new and cleaner Sheet.  
I have to do with two Adversaries, Mr. Hickeringill and Mr. Cary: the first wisheth the Church of England had more power than it now hath; the other, that it had less. I presume in the name of the true Sons of this Church, that we are very thankful for the power we have, by the favour of our gracious King and his good Laws.  
And as we do, and always shall acknowledge the Dependence of our Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction upon the Imperial Crown of this Realm: So whether it seem good to the King and his High Court of Parliament, to augment or lessen it, or to continue it as it is, we shall still maintain our Loyalty, and manifest our duty, and cheerfully submit ourselves. But, Lord, forgive our Enemies, Persecutors and Slanderers, and turn their hearts.    

THE POSTSCRIPT.  
I Have reserved a few Authorities for the satisfaction of such as have no mind or leisure to read the Book; which alone are sufficient to oppose and expose my Adversaries Objections.  

I.  
Episcopal Government in the Church of England is as Ancient as the Church; and at first was subordinate, under God, only to our Kings, without any relation to or▪ dependence on the Pope; and declared to be so, with the grounds and reasons thereof, very early by Edw. 1. and Edw. 3. and so Established by Acts of Parliament.  
Read 25 Edw. 3. the sum is thus.  
Here we have a Recital of the first Statute against Provisors, to this effect; Whereas the Holy Church of England was founded in the Estate of Prelacy by the Grandfather of this King and his Progenitors, etc. and by them endowed with great Possessions, etc. for them to inform the People in the Law of God; to keep Hospitality, etc. And whereas the King and other founders of the said Prelacies were the Rightful Adowers thereof; and upon Avoidance of such Ecclesiastical Promotions, had power to advance thereunto their Kinsmen, Friends, and other Learned men of the birth of this Realm; which being so advanced, became able and worthy to serve the King in Council, and other places in the Commonwealth: The Bishop of Rome Usurping the Seignory of such Possessions and Benefices, did give the same to Aliens,— as if he were Rightful Patron of those Benefices; whereas, by the Law of England, he never had the Right Patronage thereof: whereby in short time all the Spiritual Promotions in this Realm would be engrossed into the hands of strangers, Canonical Elections of Prelates would be abolished, works of Charity would cease, the Founders and true Patrons would be disinherited, the King's Council weakened, and the whole Kingdom impoverished, and the Laws and Rights of the Realm destroyed.  
Upon this complaint it was resolved in Parliament, That these Oppressions and grievances should not be suffered in any manner; and therefore it was Enacted, That the King and his Subjects should thenceforth enjoy their Rights of Patronage: that free Elections of Archbishops and Bishops, and other Prelates Elective should be made according to the Ancient Grants of the King's Progenitors and their Founders; and that No Provision from Rome should be put in Execution; but that those Provisors should be Attached, Fined and Ransomed at the Kings Will; and withal imprisoned, till they have renounced the benefit of their Bulls, satisfied the Party grieved, and given sureties not to commit the like offence again.   

II.  
Before this forementioned Act was made, the Spiritual Courts were in Being, and had Power by the Law of the Land, to try such Causes as were not to be tried by Common Law: so declared and Established by Acts of Parliament. Vid. in the time of Edw. 1. and Edw. 2. near four Hundred years since.  
Circumspect agatis, 13 Edw. 1. An. 1285.  
The King to his Judges sendeth greeting: Use yourselves circumspectly, in all matters concerning the Bishop of Norwich and his Clergy; not punishing them if they hold Plea in things as be mere Spiritual, as Penance enjoined by Prelates, Corporal or Pecuniary— for Fornication, Adultery, or such like: for Tithes and Oblations due and accustomed; Reparations of the Church and Church-yard; Mortuaries, Pensions, laying violent hands upon a Clerk, Causes of Defamation, Perjury: All such demands are to be made in the Spiritual Courts; and the Spiritual Judge shall have power to take knowledge of them notwithstanding the King's Prohibition.   

III.  
Hereupon a Consultation was to be granted 24 Edw. 1. as followeth.  
Whereas Ecclesiastical Judges have often surceased to proceed by force of the Kings Writ of Prohibition in Cases, whereas Remedy could not be had in the King's Courts— our Lord the King Willeth and Commandeth, That where Ecclesiastical Judges do surcease in the aforesaid Cases, by the King's Prohibition, that the Chancellor or the Chief Justice, upon sight of the Libel, at the instance of the Plaintiff (if they can see that the Case cannot be redressed by Writ out of Chancery, but that the Spiritual Court ought to determine the Matters) shall write to the Ecclesiastical Judge, that he proceed therein, notwithstanding the King's Prohibition.  
More particularly, Those Cases reserved by Law and Statute, against which no Prohibition can be legally granted, are enumerated in Articul. Cleri, 9 Edw. 2.   

iv  
Thus the proceed of the Spiritual Courts, and the Causes belonging to them were supposed, directed, allowed, and Established by these Ancient Statutes.  
And lest those Causes have not been sufficiently specified, no Prohibition shall be awarded out of Chancery, but in Case where we have the connusance, and of Right aught to have; as it is in the 18 of Edw. 3. provided.  
Whence 'tis a general Rule, both in Law and Statute, That such cases as have no remedy provided in the other Law, belong to the Spiritual Courts: and indeed, it hence appears they have ever done so; because we no where find in our Laws, that the Common Law did ever provide for them: and because the Kingdom of England is an entire Empire, where the King is furnished with a Temporalty and Spiritualty, sufficient to administer Justice to all persons, and in all Causes whatsoever: And consequently, what Causes are not in the connusance of the Common Law, belong to the Spiritual Jurisdiction, which is plainly implied in 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. and other Statutes.  
Upon the same ground in Law depend three great truths. 1. The Antiquity of Ecclesiastical Courts. 2. Their dependence upon the Crown. 3. The perfection of the Government, to administer Justice in all cases to all persons, from the Supreme Power exercised in the Temporal and Spiritual Courts; all which lie in the Preamble of that Statute according to our Ancient Laws.  
For, saith my Lord Coke in the conclusion of Cawdries Case, it hath appeared, as well by the ancient Common Laws of this Realm, by the Resolution of the Judges and Sages of the Laws of England in all succession of Ages, as by Authority of many Acts of Parliament, ancient and of latter times, That the Kingdom of England is an absolute Monarchy, and that the King is the only Supreme Governor, as well over Ecclesiastical persons, and in Ecclesiastical Causes, as Temporal: To the due observation of which Laws, both the King and the Subject are sworn.   

V  
IF you desire a more full and particular account of such Cases, as being not provided for at Common Law, are therefore, and have been ever under the Spiritual power, take this excellent Enumeration of my Lord 
Cawdries Case.  Coke.  
Observe (good Reader) seeing that the determination of Heresies, Schisms, and Errors in Religion, Ordering, Examination, Admission, Institution and Deprivation of men of the Church (which do concern God's true Religion and Service) of right of Matrimony, Divorces, and general Bastardy, (whereupon depend the strength of men's Descents and Inheritances) of Probate of Testaments, and Letters of Administration (without which no debt or duty due to any dead man can be recovered by the Common Law) Mortuaries, Pensions, Procurations, Reparations of Churches, Simony, Incest, Adultery, Fornication and Incontinency, and some others, doth not belong to the Common Law, how necessary it was for administration of Justice, that his majesty's Progenitors, Kings of this Realm, did by public Authority authorise Ecclesiastical Courts under them, to determine those great and important Causes Ecclesiastical (exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Common Law) by the King's Laws Ecclesiastical, which was done originally for two causes. 1. That Justice should be administered under the Kings of this Realm, within their own Kingdom, to all their Subjects, and in all causes. 2. That the Kings of England should be furnished upon all occasions, either foreign or domestical, with Learned Professors, as well of the Ecclesiastical as Temporal Laws.   

VI  
Ecclesiastical Laws are the King's Laws, though Process be not in the King's Name.  
Now, albeit the proceed and Process of the Ecclesiastical Courts be in the Name 
Coke, Cawdr. Case, latter end.  of the Bishops, etc. it followeth not therefore, that either the Court is not the Kings, or the Law, whereby they proceed, is not the King's Law. For taking one example for many, every Leet or View of Frankpledge holden by a Subject is kept in the Lords Name, and yet it is the King's Court, and all the proceed therein are directed by the King's Laws.   

VII.  
Spiritual Causes secured from Prohibitions, notwithstanding, by Acts of Parliament. Lord Coke, Cawdries Case in Edw. 2.  
Albeit, by the Ordinance of Circumspect agatis made in the 13 year of Edw. 1. and 
N. B.  by general allowance and usage, the Ecclesiastical Court held Plea of Tithes, Obventions, Oblations, Mortuaries, Redemptions of Penance, laying of violent hands upon a Clerk, Defamations, etc. yet did not the Clergy think themselves assured, nor quiet from Prohibitions purchased by Subjects, until that King Edw. the Second by his Letters Patents, under the Great Seal, in, and by consent of Parliament, upon the Petitions of the Clergy, had granted unto them to have Jurisdiction in those Cases. The King in a Parliament holden in the Ninth year of his Reign, after particular Answers made to their Petitions concerning the matters abovesaid, doth grant and give his Royal assent in these words.  
We desiring, as much of right as we may, to provide for the state of the Church of England, and the tranquillity and quiet of the Prelates of the said Clergy, to the honour of God, and the amendment of the state of the said Church, and of the Prelates and Clergy; ratifying and approving all and singular the said Answers which appear in the said Act; and all and singular things in the said Answers contained, We do for Us and Our Heirs grant and command, that the said be inviolably kept for ever: willing and granting for Us and Our Heirs, that the said Prelates and Clergy, and their Successors for ever, do exercise▪ Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Premises, according to the tenor of the said Answer.   

VIII.  
The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is a branch of the King's Supremacy; and he that denieth it, denieth the King to be a complete Monarch, and Head of the whole entire body of 
Cawdries Case.  the Realm, as my Lord Coke assures us, both from the Common Law and many Statutes in all Ages— made on purpose, from time to time, to vindicate the Crown and secure our own Church and its Jurisdiction under the Crown from the Pope, and his illegal Encroachments and Usurpations before, and more especially by Hen. 8. and since the Reformation; as is very amply proved by my Lord Coke, in his most excellent discourse on cawdry's Case, and since very learnedly and fully by Sir John Davis, Attorney General in Ireland, in his Case of Praemunire, called Lalor's Case; both which should be well read by all that desire satisfaction in this weighty point.  
Thus the Jurisdiction of this Church, in subordination to the Supreme Head of it, hath proceeded through all time, in the Laws and Statutes of our own Kingdom; and was never legally interrupted, till the 17 of Car. 1. but that Act repealed by the 13 of our present gracious King, it stands firm again, according to the letter of the said last Act, upon its ancient legal Basis.   

IX.  
The old Objection, that the Spiritual Courts do not Act in the King's Name, etc. is fully Answered in the Book; but, because it is only mentioned there, that the Case was resolved by the Judges in King James' time: I shall here set it 
L. Coke, Rep. 12. p. 7.  down, as abridged (for brevity) out of my Lord Coke by Manly.  
Pasch. 4 Jac. Regis.  
At this Parliament, it was strongly urged at a grand Committee of the Lords and Commons in the Painted Chamber; that such Bishops as were made after the first day of the Session, were not lawful Bishops.  
1. Admitting them Bishops, yet the Manner and Form of their Seals, Stiles, Process and proceed in their Ecclesiastical Courts, were not consonant to Law; because, by the Stat. 1 Edw. 6. 2. it is provided,  thenceforth Bishops should not be Elective, but Donative, by Letters Patents of the King; and for that, at this day, all Bishops were made by Election, not Donation of the King; therefore the said Bishops are not lawful.  
2. By the same Act it is provided, that all Summons, etc. and Process in Ecclesiastical Courts shall be made in the King's Name and Style, and their Seals engraven with the King's Arms, and Certificates made in the King's Name: it was therefore concluded, that the said Statute being still in force, by consequence all the Bishops made after the Act of 1 Jac. were not lawful Bishops; and the proceed being in the Name of the Bishop, makes them unlawful, quia non observata forma infertur adnullatio Actus.  
Upon consideration of these Objections, by the King's Commandment, it was Resolved by Popham Chief Justice of England, and Coke Attorney of the King, and after affirmed by the Chief Baron, and the other Justice's attendant to the Parliament, that the said Act of 1 Edw. 6. 2. is not now in force; being Repealed, Annulled and Annihilated by three several Acts of Parliament; any whereof being in force, it makes that Act of 1 Edw. 6. that it cannot stand, quia Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant: And by the Act of the 25 Hen. 8. c. 20. is set forth the manner of Election and Consecration of Archbishops and Bishops; and also for the making and Execution of all things which belong to their Authority: with which words the Style and Seal of their Courts, and the manner of their proceed are included: which Act of 25 Hen. 8. is Revived by 1 Eliz. c. 1. and consequently, that of 1 Edw. 6. c. 2. is Repealed.  
I advise the Reader to see it, as more at large, expressed; and the repealing Statutes particularly mentioned, and argued in my Lord Coke, 12 Rep. p. 7, 8, 9 and bid him farewel, and not be wiser than the Law.   
FINIS.   

A Catalogue of some Books lately Printed for Richard Royston.  
ROma Ruit: The Pillars of Rome, broken: wherein all the several Pleas for the Pope's Authority in England, with all the Material Defences of them, as they have been urged by Romanists from the beginning of our Reformation to this day, are Revised and Answered. By Fr. Fullwood, D. D. Archdeacon of Totnes in Devon.  
The New Distemper: Or the Dissenters Usual Pleas for Comprehension, Toleration, and the Renouncing the Covenant, Considered and Discussed; with some Reflections upon Mr. Baxter's and Mr. Alsop's late Pamphlets, published in Answer to the Reverend Dean of S. Paul's Sermon concerning Separation.  
The Lively Picture of Lewis du Moulin, drawn by an incomparable Hand. Together with his Last Words: Being his Retractation of all the Personal Reflections he had made on the Divines of the Church of England, (in several Books of his) Signed by himself on the Fifth and the Seventeenth of October, 1680.  
Christ's Counsel to his Church: In Two Sermons preached at the two last Fasts. By S. Patrick, Dean of Peterburgh, and Chaplain in Ordinary to his Majesty.  
THE END.