PART I. This will afford them no more help than the other. When the Apostles did descend and deign to take upon them the charge of a particular Church, as the Church of Rome or Antioch, they did not take it by institution, as we do. They had a general institution from Christ for all the Churches of the world. When they did leave the charge of a particular Church to another, they did not quit it by a formal resignation, as we do. This had been to limit their Apostolical power, which Christ had not limited. But all they did was to depute a Bishop to the actual cure of souls during their absence, retaining still an habitual cure to themselves. And if they returned to the same city after such a deputation, they were as much Bishops as formerly. Thus a Bishop of a diocese so disposeth the actual cure of souls of a particular parish to a Rector, that he himself remains the principal Rector when he is present. St. Peter left Rome as much as he left Antioch, and died Bishop of Antioch as much as he died Bishop of Rome. He left Antioch and went to Rome, and returned to Antioch again and governed that Church as formerly he had done. He left Rome after he first sat as Bishop there, and went to Antioch, and returned to Rome again, and still continued the principal Rector of that Church. Linus and Clemens, or the one of them, were as much the Bishop, or Bishops, of Rome during the life of St. Peter and St. Paul, as Evodius and Ignatius, or the one of them, were the Bishop, or Bishops, of Antioch. Suppose a Rector having two benefices dies upon the one of them, yet he dies the Rector of the other as much as that. I confess an Apostle was not capable of pluralities, because his commission was illimited: otherwise than as a Bishop is Rector of all the Churches within his diocese; and though he can die but in one parish, yet he dies governor of all the rest as much as that. If we may believe their history, St. Peter at his death was leaving Rome, in probability to weather out that storm (which did hang then over his head) in Antioch, as he had done in a former persecution. If this purpose had taken effect, then by their doctrine St. Peter had left the Bishopric of Rome, [See Hegesippus, &c., as before quoted.] and died Bishop of Antioch". Thus much for matter of Discourse fact. Secondly, for matter of right, I do absolutely deny, that St. Peter's death at Rome doth entitle the Bishop of Rome as his successor to all or any of those privileges and prerogatives which he held in another capacity, and not as he was Bishop of Rome. Suppose a Bishop of Canterbury dies Chancellor of England, another Bishop dies Chancellor of the University of Cambridge or Oxford; must their respective successors therefore of necessity be Chancellors of England or of that University? No, the right of donation devolves either to the patron or to the society. So, supposing, but not granting, that one who was by special privilege the Rector of the Catholic Church died Bishop of Rome, 207 it belongs either to Christ or His Vicegerent or Vicegerents, invested with imperial power, to name, or to the Church itself to choose, a successor. If they could shew out of Scripture that Christ appointed the Bishops of Rome to succeed St. Peter in a spiritual monarchy, it would strike the question dead; or that St. Peter did design the Bishop of Rome to be his successor in his Apostolical power, or, lastly, that the Catholic Church did ever elect the Roman Bishops to be their ecclesiastical sovereigns, it were something; but they do not so much as pretend to any such thing. The truth is this, that after the death of St. Peter that pre-eminence (I do not say sovereignty), which he had by the connivance or custom of the Church, devolved to his successors in his chair, the Patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria (for I look upon St. Mark as St. Peter's disciple), and Antioch, among whom the Bishop of Rome had priority of order, not of power; to which very primacy of order great privileges were due: yet not so but that the Church did afterwards add two new Protopatriarchs to them, of Constantinople and Hierusalem3, and equalled the Patriarch of Constantinople in all privileges to the Patriarch of Rome'; which they would never have done, nor have proposed the honour which they gave to [Bellarm., De Roman. Pontif., lib. ii. c. 12, Op. tom. i. p. 743. C.] x [Concil. Constantinop. (A.D. 381.) ean. 3, ap. Labb., Concil., tom. ii. p. 947. -Concil. Nicæn. (A. D. 323.) can. 7, ibid. p. 32; et Concil. Chalced. (A. D. y [Concil. Chalced. can. 28, ibid. III. PART I. Rome with a "placet"—" doth it please you that we honour the memory of St. Peter'?"-if they had believed that St. Peter's death at Rome had already settled a spiritual monarchy of that see: which had been altogether as ridiculous, as if the Speaker of the House of Commons should have moved the House in favour of the king, 'Doth it please you that we honour the king with a judiciary power throughout his own kingdom".' [Bishops of Rome did not exercise ecclesias SECTION THE FOURTH. Hitherto R. C. hath not said much to the purpose; now he falls on a point that is material indeed (as to this ground), if he be able to make it good; that "the Bishops of Rome exertical juris- cised ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the Britannic Churches" before the general Council of Ephesus, or at least "before the six hundredth year of Christ"." diction in Britain before A.D. 600.] First, he complaineth, that "few or no records of British matters for the first six hundred years do remain." If so few do remain that he is not able to produce so much as one instance, his cause is desperate. Howsoever, he proveth his intention out of Gildas, who confesseth that he composed his history "non tam ex scriptis patriæ," &c.-" not so much from British writings or monuments (which had been either burned by their enemies with fire, or carried beyond sea by their banished citizens), as from transmarine relations "." Though it were supposed that all the British records were utterly perished, this is no answer at all to my demand, so long as 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. It was of these registers that I spake,—"Let them produce their registers e." Let them shew what British Bishops they have ordained, or what British appeals they have received, for the first six hundred years. Though he be pleased to omit it, I shewed DISCOURSE plainly out of the list of the Bishops ordained,-"three by St. Peter, eleven by Linus, fifteen by Clement, six by Anacletus, five by Evaristus, five by Alexander, and four by Sixtus," &c.-that there "were few enough for the Roman province, none to spare for Britain." He saith, "St. Peter came into Britain, converted many, [R. C.'s inmade Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ;" that "St. Eleutherius stances.] sent hither his legates Fugatius and Damianus, who baptized the king, queen, and most of his people;" that "St. Victor sent legates into Scotland" (it seemeth they had no names), "who baptized the king, queen, and his nobility;" that "St. Ninian was sent from Rome to convert the southern Picts ;" that "Pope Celestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland, where as yet was no Bishop;" and St. Patrick into Ireland; and St. German and Lupus into Britain, "to confute the Pelagian heresy;" and "in the year 596 St. Gregory sent over St. Austin and his companions," to convert the Saxons, "and gave him power over all the Bishops in Britain, and gave him power to erect two Archiepiscopal sees and twenty-four Episcopal;" and, moreover, that "Dubritius, Primate of Britany, was legate to the See Apostolic;" and, lastly, that St. "Samson had a pall from Rome "." I confess, here are store of instances for preaching and baptizing and ordaining and converting; but if every word he saith was true, it is not at all material to the question. Our question is concerning exterior jurisdiction in foro Ecclesiæ; but the acts mentioned by him are all acts of the 208 key of order, not of the key of jurisdiction. If he do thus mistake one key for another, he will never be able to open the right door. He accustometh himself to call every ordinary messenger a "legate." But let him shew me that they ever exercised legantine authority in Britain. That he doth not, because he cannot. The Britannic and English Churches have not been wanting to send out devout persons to preach to foreign nations, to convert them, to baptize them, to ordain them pastors; yet without challenging any jurisdiction over them. [Just Vindic., c. v. vol. i. pp. 161, 162; and Platina, as there quoted.] [Surv., c. v. sect. 4. pp. 71-74.] PART Whether St. Peter Britain. Now to his particular instances. We should be glad that he could prove St. Peter was the first converter of Britain, and take it as an honour to the converted Britannic Church. But Metaphrastes is too young a witness, his authority over small, and his person too great a stranger to our affairs. If it could be made appear out of Eusebius, it would find more credit with us. If St. Peter did ever tread upon British ground, in probability it was before he came first to Rome, which will not be so pleasing to the Romanists. For, being banished by Claudius, he went to Hierusalem, and so to Antioch3, and there governed that Church the second time. Whether St. Peter, or St. Paul, or St. James, or Simon Zelotes, or Aristobulus, or Joseph of Arimathea, was the first converter of Britain, it makes nothing to the point of jurisdiction, or our subjection to the Bishop of Rome. But for Joseph of Arimathea, we have the concurrent testimonies of our own writers and others-the tradition of the English Church--the reverent respect borne to Glastonbury, the place where he lived and died-the ancient characters of that Church, wherein it is styled, 'the beginning of religion in this island,' "the burial place of the Saints, builded by the disciples of the Lord'." The very name of the chapel called St. Joseph's, the arms of King Arthur upon the walls, and his monument found there in the reign of Henry the Second, do all proclaim this truth aloud". Of Eleu therius his sending His second instance hath more certainty in it, that Pope Eleutherius sent Fugatius and Damianus, two learned divines, into Eng into Britain, to baptize King Lucius. land. But it is as true that Lucius was converted before, either in whole or in part, and sent two eminent divines of his own subjects, Elvanus Avalonius,-Elvan of Glastonbury, the seminary of Christian religion in Britain,—and Medvinus of |