church during that time, in the observation of Easter, and the administration of Baptism, different from, as was before observed, the Roman custom, but agreeing with the Asiatick churches. For it is altogether incredible, that the whole British church should so unanimously have dissented from Rome for so many hundred years together, if she had been subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman bishop, or that the Roman bishop all that time should suffer it, if he had had a patriarchal power over her. 2. The same is evident by the unanimous testimony of our historians, who tell us that when Austin the Monk came into Britain, as St. Gregory's Legate (which was after the sixth century was fully compleat and ended) and required submission from our church to the Bishop of Rome, as her patriarch, the proposal was rejected, as of a new and strange thing never heard of before. The answer of Dinothus, the learned Abbot of Bangor, in the name of all the Britons, is famous, viz. "That they knew no "obedience due to him, whom they called the 66 Pope, but the obedience of love, and that under "God they were governed by the Bishop of Caer"leon." Under God, i. e. immediately, without any foreign prelate or patriarch intervening, they were to be governed by the Bishop of Caerleon, as their only primate and patriarch. Which privilege continued to the succeeding bishops of that see for several ages, saving that the archiepiscopal chair was afterwards removed from Caerleon to St. David's. And that this was indeed the sense not only of Dinothus, but of all the whole body of our British clergy at that time, all our historians tell us, witnessing the absolute and unanimous resolution of the British clergy, both bishops and priests, synodically met together, not to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. Vide Spel. Conc. Gual. Mon. lib. 2. cap. 12. Bedam omnesque alios. This being the antient privilege of the British church, we have an undoubted right of exemption from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, by the antient canons of the Catholick church: particularly by the sixth canon of the great Nicene Council above-mentioned, by which it was decreed, That the antient customs should every where obtain, and that the then privileges of every province should be preserved inviolate. But this is most evident from the eighth canon of the Council of Ephesus, occasioned by the famous case of the Cyprian bishops, which was this: the Metropolitan of Cyprus being dead (Troilus, the Bishop of Constance), the Bishop of Antioch pretended that it belonged to him to ordain their metropolitan, because Cyprus was within the civil jurisdiction of the diocese of Antioch. Upon this, the Cyprian bishops made their complaint to the General Council at Ephesus, grounding it upon the Nicene canon, and pleading that their metropolitan had been of antient time exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch, and was ordained by a synod of Cyprian bishops; which privilege was not only confirmed to them by the Ephesine Council, but a general de cree passed, That the rights of every province should be preserved whole and inviolate, which it had of old, according to the antient custom. And it is to be observed that the Bishop of Antioch had a more colourable pretence to a jurisdiction over the Cyprian bishops, than Gregory could have to a jurisdiction over our British churches: for Cyprus was indeed within the civil jurisdiction of Antioch, but our Britain was originally itself a distinct diocese of the empire. Yet the Ephesine Fathers judged, that antient custom should prevail in the case of the Cyprian bishops: how much more then should it in ours? Certainly Pope Gregory, when by his legate Austin, he challenged to himself a jurisdiction over our British church, was ignorant of, or had forgotten, or else regarded not the canons of the Nicene and Ephesine Councils. If it be objected, that our British church afterward submitted herself to the Bishop of Rome as her Patriarch, which power he enjoyed for many ages, and that therefore our first reformers cannot be excused from schism, in casting off that power which by so long prescription he was possessed of; we answer, we did indeed yield ourselves to the Roman usurpation, but it was because we could not help it: we were at first forced, awed, and affrighted into this submission. For, who hath not heard of the barbarous massacre of the poor innocent Monks of Bangor, to the number of twelve hundred, for refusing Austin's proposal, and asserting the antient rights and privileges of the Britannick churches? When this force ceased, and we were left to our liberty and freedom of resuming our primitive rights, why might we not do it, as we saw occasion, without the imputation of schism? This is not only our just plea, but it is ingenuously confessed by Father Barns our learned countryman, and of the Roman communion. His words are these: "*The island of "Britain anciently enjoyed the same privilege with "that of Cyprus, that is to say, of being in subjection to the laws of no Patriarch: which pri 66 66 vilege, though heretofore abolished by tumults " and force of war, yet being recovered by consent "of the whole kingdom, in Henry the Eighth's "reign, seems for peace-sake most proper to be "retained, so it be done without breach of Catho"lick unity, or incurring the charge of schism." Indeed, we had very great reason to resume our primitive right, and privilege of exemption from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, when by means thereof, he lorded it over our faith, and imposed manifest and gross corruptions both in doctrine and worship upon our consciences. But this by the way. We return to the article of the Trent Creed now before us. Concerning which, it is farther to be observed, that it founds the Universal Pastorship of the Bishop of Rome upon a divine right. It says, the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Jesus Christ; i. e. under Christ the head and governor of the universal church. Quo jure? He is St. Peter's Successor. VOL. II. . Cath. Rom. Pacif. Sect. 3. Р What then? Why St. Peter was constituted by Christ the Prince of the Apostles, i. e. (if there be any connexion of parts in the article) he had by Christ committed to him authority and jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles, and consequently over the whole church. But the falsehood and folly of this pretence hath been manifestly exposed by very many writers of our church :* particularly that great man Dr. Bramhall, Primate of Ireland, hath sufficiently refuted it in these few words. "Let us consider," saith he: "First, That all the twelve Apostles were equal "in mission, equal in commission, equal in power, equal in honour, equal in all things, except priority in order, without which no society can well "subsist. "So much Bellarmin confesseth, that by these "words, As my Father sent me, so send I you, our "Saviour endowed them with all the fulness of power that mortal men were capable of. And "therefore no single Apostle had jurisdiction over "the rest. Equals have no power over each other; "but the whole College of Apostles, to which the supreme managery of Ecclesiastical affairs did "belong in common: Whether a new Apostle was "to be ordained, or the office of Deaconship was "to be erected; or fit persons were to be delegated "for the ordering of the church, as Peter and * Davenant Determ. Q. 47. De Pont. lib. 4. cap. 22. Acts 1. c. 6. c. 8. c. 15. |