Against the Revolt to a Foreign Jurisdiction, Chapter 8
Chap. VIII. The Doctrine of Archbishop Bromhall [in defence of Grotius in his Book called, His Vindication of himself and the Episcopal Clergy from the Presbyterian Charge of Popery, as managed by Mr. Baxter in his Treatise of the Grotian Religion, I fiercely Prefaced by a Dignitary of the Church. (Parker.)
§ 1. I mean to give you his own words, and pass by his mistakes against my self. Only saying, That it was not fairly done to affirm that I numbered him with the Papists, or those that designed to bring in Popery, when I had no such words, yea and praising him, excepted him from that number, only dissenting from his too near approach: But whether he except himself, his words will best shew.
§ 2. Page 20, 21. he saith, [I will endeavour to give some light what was the Religion of Grotius: He was in affection a Friend and in desire a true Son of the Church of England: And on his Death bed recomended that Church as it was Legally Established to his Wife, and such other of his Family as were then about him, obliging them by his Authority to adhere firmly to it so far as they had opportunity.(a)They that Record his death say that he died in Rostok in his too hasty passage from Sweden towards is Wife then absent; Quistorpius Pastor of Rostok being with him: Yet this Bishop knew Grotius: Who saith true I know not.
Page 81. [I know no Member of the Greek Church that give them (the Popes) either more or less than I do.(b)How much that is see in their Patriarch Jeremias, and in the Council at Florence.
Page 82. To wave their last four hundred years determinations is implicitely to renounce all the necessary Causes of this great Schism. And to rest satisfied with their old Patriarchal Power and Dignity, and Primacy of Order (which is another part of my Proposition, is to quit the Modern Papacy both Name and Thing.(c)The very worst of Popery was brought in by Hildebrand long before four hundred years last: And he that can receive all that their Councils brought in till 1256. need not stick at any of the rest save Transubstantiation: We cannot obey the Pope as Patriarch and Universal Primate, though he would quit the last four hundred years additions: Nor think this a quitting Popery.
Page 84. In the first place if the Bishop of Rome were reduced from his Universality of Sovereign Jurisdiction Jure Divino, to his Principium Vnitatis, and his Court regulated by the Canons of the Fathers, which was the sence of the Councils of Constance and Basil, and is desired by many Roman Catholicks as well as we. 2. If the Creed or necessary Points of Faith were reduced to what they were in the time of the four first Oecumenical Councils according to the Decree of the third General Council, (d)Did the third tye us to the fourth?admitting no additional Articles but only necessary Explications, and those to be made by the Authority of a General Council, or one so General as can be Convocated. (e)That was well put in. But by whom Convocated?And lastly, Supposing that some things from whence offence hath been either given or taken— I say in case these three things were accorded— whether Christians might not live in an Holy Communion, and come in the same publick Worship of God, free from all Schismatical Separation of themselves one from another, &c.
We have no Controversie with the Church of Rome about a Primacy of Order, but a Supremacy of Power. (f)Over Councils.I shall declare my sence in four Conclusions. 1. That St. Peter had a fixed Chair at Antioch, and after at Rome is a truth which no Man who giveth any credit to the Ancient Fathers and Councils can either deny or well doubt of.
2. That St. Peter had a Primacy of Order among the Apostles is the unanimous voice, &c.
3. Some Fathers and School-men who were no Sworn Vassals to the Roman Bishops affirm that this Primacy of Order is affixed to the Chair of St. Peters Successors for ever, &c.
Page 107. They who made the Bishop of Rome a Patriarch were the Primitive Fathers, not excluding the Apostles and Christian Emperors and Oecumenical Councils: What Laws they made in this case we are bound to obey for Conscience sake (till they be repealed lawfully) by virtue of the Law of Christ.(g)Did Christ make the Subjects of the Roman Emperors perpetual Law-makers to other Princes and all the World? Or to that Empire when it's dissolved?
Page 104. (To my Objection that all Protestants must then pass for Schismaticks that take not the Pope for Principium Vnitatis and Patriarch, &c. he answereth [still weaker and weaker: — Must a Man quit his just right because some dislike it? Their dislike is scandal taken; but the quitting of that which is right for their satisfaction should be the scandal given: Whether is the worse? 1. How are they forced to fall under the reproach of Schismaticks? If they be forced any way, it is by their own wilful Humours or erroneous Conscience: Others force them not. 2. I would have him consider which is worse and the more dangerous condition, for Christians to fall under the reproach of Schismaticks — or to fall into Schism it self. Whosoever shall oppose the just Power of a Lawful Patriarch lawfully proceeding is a material Schismatick.]
Reader, I forbear confuting these things by the way, being now but on the Historical relation of their Judgments. You see how great necessity (to avoid Schism) they place in our subjection to a Forreign Jurisdiction. The Confutation you shall have of all together.