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