III. CHAP. for appeals in this order, from the bishop to the metropolitan, from the metropolitan to the ἔξαρχος or “ primate” of the diocese or province, as where there are more metropolitans than one, as was shewed of Ephesus in Asia, and elsewhere frequently, there some one is primate or patriarch among them, and to him lies the appeal in the last resort, and from him to no other; see Justinian, who speaking of this calls it an ancient decree. 25. That which we find in the eighth canon of the great council of Ephesus, shall conclude this matter. When upon some claim of the patriarch of Antioch for an interest in the ordaining of the patriarch of Cyprus, the bishops of Cyprus deny his claim, and deduce their privilege of αὐτοκεφαλία or "independence" from any foreign bishop, from the very Apostles' times, a sanctis Apostolis, say they, nunquam possunt ostendere, quod adfuerit Antiochenus et ordinaverit, vel communicaverit unquam insulæ ordinationis gratiam, neque alius quisquam; "from the very Apostles' times they can never shew that the patriarch of Antioch or any other was present and ordained, or (being absent) sent the grace of ordination to this island, but that the bishops of Constantia, the metropolis of that island, by name Troilus, Sabinus, and Epiphanius, θρόνον, καὶ ἐπ' αὐτῷ δικαζέσθω.—Synodi e τῶν μητροπόλεων πρώτη Ἔφεσος. Ulp. Observ. de Offic. Procons. [ap. Digest., lib. i. tit. 16. p. 85.] f [Tit. vi.] Novel. 123. cap. 22; and Cod., lib. i. tit. iv. leg. 30. 8 [πρᾶγμα παρὰ τοὺς ἐκκλησιαστι κούς θεσμούς καὶ τοὺς κανόνας τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων καινοτομούμενον, καὶ τῆς πάντων ἐλευθερίας ἁπτόμενον προςήγγειλεν ὁ θεοφιλέστατος συνεπίσκοπος Ρηγίνος καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ θεοφι λέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τῆς Κυπρίων ἐπαρχίας, Ζήνων καὶ Εὐάγριος, ὅθεν ἐπειδὴ τὰ κοινὰ πάθη μείζονος δεῖται τῆς θερα πείας, ὡς καὶ μείζονα τὴν βλάβην φέροντα, εἰ μηδὲ ἔθος ἀρχαῖον παρηκολούθησεν ὥστε τὸν ἐπίσκοπον τῆς ̓Αντιοχέων πόλεως, τὰς ἐν Κύπρῳ ποιεῖσθαι χειροτονίας, καθὰ διὰ τῶν λιβέλλων καὶ τῶν οἰκείων φωνῶν ἐδίδαξαν οἱ εὐλαβέσε τατοι ἄνδρες, οἱ τὴν πρόςοδον τῇ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ ποιησάμενοι, ἕξουσι τὸ ἀνεπηρέαστον καὶ ἀβίαστον οἱ τῶν ἁγίων ἐκκλησιῶν τῶν κατὰ τὴν Κύπρον προεστῶτες, κατὰ τοὺς κανόνας τῶν ὁσίων πατέρων καὶ τὴν ἀρχαίαν συνήθειαν, δι ̓ ἑαυ τῶν τὰς χειροτονίας τῶν εὐλαβεστάτων ἐπισκόπων ποιούμενοι· τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων διοικήσεων καὶ τῶν ἁπανταχοῦ ἐπαρχιῶν ἐκφυλαχθήσεται· ὥστε μηδένα τῶν θεοφιλεστάτων ἐπισκόπων ἐπαρχίαν ἑτέραν οὐκ οὖσαν ἄνωθεν καὶ ἐξαρχῆς ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτοῦ ἤγουν τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ χεῖρα καταλαμβάνειν· ἀλλ ̓ εἰ καί τις κατέλαβεν, καὶ ὑφ ̓ ἑαυτῷ πεποίηται βιασάμενος, τοῦτον ἀποδιδόναι, ἵνα μὴ τῶν πατέρων οἱ κανόνες παραβαίνωνται, μηδὲ ἐν ἱερουργίας προσχήματι ἐξουσίας τύφος κοσμικῆς παρειςδύηται, μηδὲ λάθωμεν τὴν ἐλευθερίαν κατὰ μικρὸν ἀπολέσαντες, ἣν ἡμῖν ἐδωρήσατο τῷ ἰδίῳ αἵματι ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, ὁ πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐλευθερώτης. Ἔδοξε τοίνυν τῇ ἁγίᾳ καὶ οἰκουμενικῇ συνόδῳ, σώζεσθαι ἑκάστῃ ἐπαρχίᾳ καθαρὰ καὶ ἀβίαστα τὰ αὐτῇ προϊόντα δίκαια ἐξαρχῆς ἄνωθεν κατὰ τὸ πάλαι κρατῆσαν ἔθος, ἄδειαν ἔχοντος ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τὰ ἴσα τῶν πεπραγμένων πρὸς τὸ οἰκεῖον ἀσφαλὲς ἐκλαβεῖν· εἰ δέ τις μαχόμενον τύπον τοῖς νῦν ὡρισμένοις προκομίσοι, ἄκυρον τοῦτον εἶναι ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγίᾳ πάσῃ καὶ οἰκουμενικῇ συνόδῳ.—Synodi Ephes. Canon viii. ap. Balsamon, p. 319.] III. and all the orthodox bishops from the Apostles' times," ab his CHAP. qui in Cypro constituti sunt, "have been constituted and ordained by their own bishops of the island," and accordingly they required that they might continue in the same manner, sicut initio a temporibus Apostolorum. ... permansit Cypriorum synodus," as they had done from the times of the very Apostles,” still appealing εἰς τὸ ἀρχαῖον ἔθος, ἀρχαίαν συνήθειαν, τὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄνωθεν δίκαια, " to the ancient manner, the ancient customs, the privileges," which from their first plantation they had enjoyed, and that from the Apostles themselves. And accordingly that council condemned the pretension of the patriarch of Antioch, as that which was πρᾶγμα παρὰ τοὺς ἐκκλησιαστικοὺς θεσμοὺς καὶ τοὺς κανόνας τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων καινοτομούμενον, “an innovation against the ecclesiastical laws and canons of the holy fathers," and orders not only in behalf of the Cypriots that the bishops of their Churches ἕξουσι τὸ ἀνεπηρέαστον καὶ ἀβίαστον.... "shall continue to enjoy their right inviolate according to the ancient custom," but extended their sentence to all other dioceses in these words, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων διοικήσεων καὶ τῶν ἁπανταχοῦ ἐπαρχιῶν ἐκφυλαχθήσεται, ὥςτε μηδένα τῶν θεοφιλεστάτων ἐπισκόπων ἐπαρχίαν ἑτέραν, οὐκ οὖσαν ἄνωθεν καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτοῦ, ἤγουν τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ χεῖρα, καταλαμβάνειν. "The same shall be observed in all other dioceses and provinces wheresoever, that no bishop shall lay hold of another province, which hath not been formerly and from the beginning under their or their ancestors' power." And again, ἔδοξε τῇ ἁγία καὶ οἰκουμενικῇ συνόδῳ σώζεσθαι ἑκάστῃ ἐπαρχία καθαρὰ καὶ ἀβίαστα τὰ αὐτῇ προϊόντα ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄνωθεν κατὰ τὸ πάλαι κρατῆσαν ἔθος. “This holy and œcumenical synod hath decreed, that the privileges and rights of every province shall be conserved pure and inviolate, as they have enjoyed them from the beginning, according to the custom that hath anciently been in force." All deducing this power of primates over their own bishops, (and together excluding all foreign pretenders,) from the Apostles and first planters of the Churches, and requiring all to remain as they were first thus constituted. Wherein as there be many things of useful observation, which will be more fitly applicable in the progress of this discourse, so that which is alone pertinent III. CHAP. to this place is only this, that there may be a disobedience and irregularity, and so a schism, even in the bishops in respect of their metropolitans, and of the authority which they have by canon and primitive custom over them, which was therefore to be added to the several species of schism set down in the former chapters. The first charge CHAP. IV. THE PRETENDED EVIDENCES OF THE ROMANIST AGAINST THE CHURCH OF 1. THE scene being thus prepared, and the nature and sorts of schism defined and summarily enumerated, our method now leads us to enquire impartially, what evidences are producible against the Church of England, whereby it may be thought liable to this guilt of schism, and these pretended evidences may be of several sorts, according to the several species of this sort of schism described and acknowledged by us. 2. The first evidence that is offered against us is taken against us, from a presumed supremacy of the bishop of Rome, as sucour casting cessor to St. Peter, over all Churches in the world, which pope's su- being in the days of Henry VIII. renounced and disclaimed, premacy. first by both Universities, and most of the greatest and fa out the mous monasteries of this kingdom,-in their negative answer and determination of this question, an aliquid authoritatis in hoc regno Angliæ pontifici Romano de jure competat plusquam alii cuiquam episcopo extero? "Whether the pope of Rome have of right any authority in the realm of England, more than any other foreign bishop hath ?"-and that determination of theirs testified under their hands and seals, and after by act of convocation subscribed by the bishops and clergy, and confirmed by their corporal oaths, and at last the like imposed by act of parliament, 35 Hen. VIII. c. 1, all this is looked on and condemned as an act of schism in this Church and nation, in renouncing that power of St. Peter's successors placed over all Christians by Christ. 3. This objection against us consisting of many branches, every of which must be manifested or granted to have truth IV. in it, or else the objection will be of no force; 1. the matter CHAP. of fact, that thus it was in England; 2. the consequence of that fact, that it were schism, supposing these successors of St. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ; 3. the matter of fact again, that St. Peter's successors were thus constituted universal pastors by Christ; this again of two branches, i. that St. Peter was so constituted; ii. that the power instated on St. Peter devolved on the bishops of Rome; I shall endeavour to expedite this matter by granting, and not requiring the pretenders further to prove the two first branches, and leave the issue of the debate to their manifesting the truth, or our manifesting the falsehood of the last mentioned, but indeed the principal fundamental part of the contention, as it consists of two branches, one as it respects St. Peter, the other as it respects his successor in the see of Rome; wherein if the Romanists' pretensions shall appear to have truth in them, we must be acknowledged, by breaking off from our submission to that see, to be formally schismatics, according to the grounds already laid and acknowledged by us; but on the other side, if their pretensions herein shall appear to be false, or insufficiently proved and manifested, there is no other branch of the argument, be it never so true, which can give the conclusion any authority with any pondering rational man, it being in the power of any weak link to destroy the usefulness of the whole chain, and consequent to the falseness or inevidence of any one proposition, that the conclusion shall not be inferred by that arguing. St. Peter 4. And first for the pretension as far as it respecteth St. The suprePeter, and must be managed by evidences, and so concluded macy of either on one side or the other, I shall begin with offering examined. my evidences for the negative. against it. Apostle of 5. And first it is evident by Scripture, that this Apostle Evidences was the Apostle of the circumcision, or Jews, exclusively to First from the uncircumcision, or gentiles, which were generally an- his being other's province. By Apostle here I understand a commis- the cirsioner of Christ's, endued with authority by Him, and this com- cumcision peculiarly. mission given to him, as to all the other Apostles, indefinitely and unlimitedly, not restrained by Christ's words to any particular province, but extending equally to the whole world; what therefore is done in this kind is by subsequent act of CHAP. the Apostles themselves, who are testified to have done that IV. which it had been very unskilful and improvident, and con sequently unreasonable, not to have done, viz., distributed Acts i. 25. their universal great province into several κλήρους ἀποστολῆς, "distributions," or "lots," or "lesser provinces," one or more to go one way, the other another, which is there called by St. Peter πορευθῆναι εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν ἴδιον, " to go to his own," or "proper place," or "assignation," for the witnessing the resurrection, and proclaiming the faith or doctrine of Christ to the world. : 6. Now if the circumcision, or Jewish Christians, were peculiarly St. Peter's province, the lot or division assigned unto him,agreeable unto which it is, that both his preaching in the Acts is to the Jews in Judea and Samaria, and his Epistles are both of them addressed to the Jews of the dispersion, and none else,-then it is not imaginable how he should be the universal, or supreme pastor, or bishop of the whole world for the Christians of that age of the world being either Jews or gentiles, the Jews again either those that remained in their country or those that were dispersed in other regions, there was but one portion of one of these which can reasonably be placed under St. Peter's jurisdiction. The Jews that were in Judea were all immediately subject to the several bishops in each city, and all they to their metropolitan, James the bishop of Jerusalem. Of this James the brother, or near kinsman, of Christ, many of the ancients affirm, that he was by Christ after His resurrection constituted bishop there; others that it was done by Christ and * [ἔπειτα] ὤφθη Ἰακώβῳ, [τῷ ἀδελφῷ τοῦ Κυρίου] τῷ ὑπ' αὐτοῦ κατασταθέντι ἐπισκόπῳ πρώτῳ Ἱεροσολύμων. Theoph. in 1 Cor. xv. 7. ex sententia Chrysostomi. [ἔπειτα ὤφθη Ιακώβῳ ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ τῷ ἀδελφῷ ἑαυτοῦ· αὐτὸς γὰρ αὐτὸν λέγεται κεχειροτονηκέναι, καὶ ἐπίσκοπον ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις πεποιηκέναι πρῶτον.-S. Chrys., Hom. xxxviii. in Epist. i. ad Cor., tom. x. p. 355.] Ἰάκωβος ὁ πρῶτος ἀρχιερέων, καὶ δεσποτικῇ χειρὶ τὸ ἱερὸν χρίσμα καὶ τὴν ἐφορίαν Ἱεροσολύμων λαχών. Photius, Epist. 117. [p. 158.] So also Nicephorus, [καὶ δὴ μετὰ τὴν Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου τελείωσιν, τὴν Ιακώβου ὃς ἀδελφὸς τοῦ Κυρίου ἐλέγετο, καὶ τὴν Ἱεροσολύμων ἐκκλησίαν πρῶτος παρὰ τοῦ Σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ ἐγκε- 1 [τὸν γὰρ Ἰακώβου θρόνον τοῦ πρώτου τῆς Ἱεροσολύμων ἐκκλησίας τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν πρὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ Σωτῆρος καὶ τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑποδεξαμένου.—Euseb. Hist. Eccl., lib. vii. cap. 19.] |