World Roman Grecian Armenian Abyssene Russian Protestant which after all their brags of amplitude and universality is three times greater then themselves I desire no fairer issue between him and me I doe from my heart submit to all things which the true Catholick Church diffused over the World doth beleeve and practise And if I should erre in my judgement what the Catholick Church is as I am confident that he and his fellowes doe erre though I have no reason in the world to suspect my present judgement I doe furthermore proâ—ess my readiness to submit to the right Catholick Church whensoever God shall be pleased to reveal it to me This is sufficient to preserve me from being a Schismatick This is sufficient for the salvation of a Christian. He telleth us indeed sometimes that the Roman Church is the true Catholick Church and is diffused all over the World Let him take Roman in the largest sense he can yet still it is but a particular Church of one denomination not Catholick or Universall Whom have they of their Communion in the large Abystene Empire consisting of seventeen Kingdomes Not one Whom have they of their Communion in the Russian Empire neerer home Scarcely one Whom have they of their Communion in all the Eastern Churches perhaps two or three hand-fulls in comparison of those innumerable multitudes of Christians who are subject to the other Patriarchs Before they were so forward and positive in voting for themselves that they are the Catholick Church that they are the infallible Judge it had been meet that they had first agreed among themselves what this Catholick Church is to which every Christian is bound to submit whether it be the virtuall Church that is the Pope or the Pope jointly with his Conclave of Cardinalls or the Pope with a provinciall Councell or the Pope with a generall Councell that is the representative Church or a generall Councell without the Pope or lastly the essentiall Church dispersed over the face of the World for into so many opinions they are divided He addeth that these great multitudes of Christians whereof we speak are not united among themselves but divided in points of Faith in communion of Sacraments and the ministery of them Let Saint Austine answer him Acutum autem aliquid videris dicere cum Catholicae nomen non ex totius orbis Communione interpretaris sed ex observatione Praeceptorum omnium divinorum atque omnium Sacramentorum Thou seemest to thy self to speak very wittily when thou doest not interpret the Catholick Church by the Communion of the whole World but by the Catholick Faith and the right observation of all the Sacraments and true Discipline that is in their sense submission to the Roman Court This last badge which Saint Austin did not know is the only defect of those multitudes of Christians that they will not acknowledge the monarchicall Power of the Roman Bishop As we have seen by experience that when some few of these Eastern or Northern Christians have reconciled themselves to the See of Rome and acknowledged the Papacy they were streight adjudged Orthodox and sound Christians in all other things And the latter of these did provide expresly for themselves at the time of their submission that they would retein their Greekish Religion and Rites He himself in this very place confesseth them to agree in fundamentall points that is to be free from fundamentall errors And for other lesser Controversies they have not half so many among them as the Romanists among themselves As to his marginall note out of Turtullian That Heretici pacem cum omnibus miscent Hereticks mingle themselves with all Sects making it a Symtome of Heresie to be over easie in admitting others to their Communion I doe confess it is a fault indeed But first what doth this concern the Church of England Secondly the greater fault lies on the other hand to be over severe and over vigorous and censorious in casting out or holding others from their Communion and more dangerous to the Church of Christ. In this kinde offended the Donatists the Novatians the Luciferians of old And the Romanists at this day This hath more of the Patriarchall Garbe in it stand from me for I am holier then thou CHAP. 7. That all Princes and Republiks of the Roman Communion doe in effect the same things which King Henry did WE are come now unto his seventh Chapter wherein I am much beholden to him for easing me of the labour of replying For whereas I proved my intention at large by the Acts Laws and Decrees of the Emperors with their Councels and Synods and Electorall College by the Laws of France the Liberties of the Gallicane Church the Acts of their Parliaments and Declarations of their Universities by the practice of the King of Spain his Councels his Parliaments in Sicily in Castile in Brabant and Flanders by the sobbes of Portugall and their bleatings and the Judgment of the University of Lisbone by the Laws and Proclamations and other Acts of the Republick of Venice throughout 68 pages He vouchsafeth not to take notice of any one particular of all this except only some few heads of what I urged concerning the Emperors which he reciteth in lesse then one page and never attempts to answer one syllable of them in particular Yet are these so diametrally opposite to the pretended rights of the Pope his Legislative power his convocating of Synods his confirming Synods his sending out Bulls his receiving Appeals his Patronage of Churches his Pardons and Dispensations his Exemption from all humane judgment his sending of Legates his Tenths and first Fruits his Superiority above generall Councels his Excommunications and in a word his whole Spirituall Sovereignty that nothing can be more opposite In these presidents we did clearly see that essentiall power and right of Sovereignty which I plead for in this Book to make Ecclesiasticall Laws for the externall regiment of the Church to dispose of Ecclesiasticall preferments to reform Ecclesiasticall errors and abuses to be the last Judges of their own liberties and grievances to restrain Ecclesiasticall tyranny and to see that all Ecclesiasticall persons within their Dominions doe their duties And if these instances were not enough many more might be produced of the best Christian Princes Paul the third writ to Charles the fifth That the Decrees of Spira were dangerous to his Soul commands him to put away all disputes of Religion from the Imperiall Diet and referre them to the Pope to order nothing concerning Ecclesiasticall goods to revoke the grants made unto the Rebells against the See of Rome Otherwise he should be forced to use greater severity against him then he would Yet Cardinall de Monte was more angry then his Master saying That he would put his Holinesse in minde rather to abandon the See and restore the Keies to Saint Peter then suffer the Secular power to arrogate Authority to
the Pope Doth any man think that our Ancestors were so simple as to question whether the Body be above the Head or to hope that the Pope would concurre willingly to his own deposition This we know for certain that the Councell of Constance without the presence or concurrence of the Pope did Decree themselves to be a lawfull complete generall Councell superior to the Pope and that he was subject to their censures And deposed three Popes at a time And their acts were confirmed in the Councell of Basile To this Decree of the Councell of Constance he giveth two answers First That it is probable that the Councell meant only of doubtfull Popes But I did take away this answer in the vindication two waies First because it is contrary to the text The words of the Councell are these the Pope that is a Pope truely elected and lawfully admitted It is uncertain whether a doubtfull Pope be Pope or no is subject to a generall Councel that is a generall Councel without the presence or concurrence of the Pope such as the Councel of Constance was As well in matter of faith as of manners This is more then doubtfull titles so as he may not only be corrected but if he be incorrigible be deposed So a Councell may correct the Pope and if they please continue him or if they finde him incorrigible depose him Men are not corrected for weak and litigious titles but for faults in faith or manners Neither can they be said to be deposed who are only declared to have been usurpers Secondly I confuted this answer by the execution of the Decree The Councell did not only declare who was the right Pope which is a judiciary act and may be done by an Inferior towards his Superior but they turned out three Popes together whereof one without controversie was the right Pope And so made right to be no right for the publick good of the Church which is a badge of sovereign and legislative Authority His second answer is That this Decree was not conciliarly made and consequently not confirmed by Martine the fifth This answer was likewise taken away in the vindication First because the Popes confirmation is but a novelty never practised in the ancient Church and signifieth nothing The Pope and his Legates did subscribe in the same manner and form that other Bishops and their Legates did And that was all Secondly because Pope Martines title to the Papacy did depend meerly upon the Authority of the Decree If this Decree were not a lawfull Decree of a lawfull generall Councell and such a Councell as had power to depose the former Pope then Pope Martine was no Pope but an usurper and then his confirmation signified nothing also in that respect Last I shewed that it was conciliarly made And what the word conciliarly there signifieth out of the Acts of the Councell And that passage was not intended for a confirmation but an occasionall Speech after the end of the Councell after the Fathers were dismissed in answer to an unseasonable proposition made to the Pope by the Ambassadors of Polonia and Lituania about a seditious Book which they alleging to have been condemned by the Deputies of the Nations but not being able to affirm that it was condemned in the publick Acts of the Session the Pope answered that he approved what had been conciliarly done To all this he answereth nothing but that the word conciliariter or conciliarly signifieth rather the manner of a Councel then of a Councell Let it be so Is not the decreeing of any thing publickly in the Session the manner of the Councels Acting The Duputies of the Nations were like a Committee of Parliament who have no power to Decree though they be a Committe of the whole House but only to prepare things for the House Now suppose the King at the close of the Parliament being requested to confirm some Acts of a Committe should use the very same expression which Martine the fifth did That he would hold and observe inviolably all things determined and concluded by that Parliament Parliamentariter or Parliamentarily Doth not this evidently confirm all the Acts and conclusions of the Parliament Or what can this in reason exclude but only the Acts of the Committees To say as R. C. saith That he confirmeth only those Acts which were done with due liberation is as much as to say that he confirmeth just nothing at all How shall it be known or who shall be Judg what was done with due deliberation and what was not Neither doth it weigh any thing at all to say as he doth that the word concilium doth exclude the Deputies of the Nations without adding conciliariter for first it is a rule in Law that abundans non vitiat A word or two too much doe no hurt Secondly the Deputies of the Nations did sit and Act by the Authority of the Councell and consequently their Acts were mediatly and in some sort the Acts of the Councel Lastly whether the Decree of the Councel were confirmed or not to me seemeth all one The end of Convocating so many Bishops is to represent the consent of all those respective Churches from which they are sent and to witnesse the received belief We see by their Votes what was the received opinion of the Occidentall Church And we see otherwise suffiâ—ently what was the received opinion of the Eastern Southern and Northern Churches So as the Roman Court will not be able to finde one nationall Church of that age throughout the World to maintain their exorbitant claimes To my fourth argument drawn from the Popes challenge of all Episcopall Jurisdiction and consequently the breaking of all the lines of Apostolicall Succession except his own and to my two additionall arguments concerning the infallibility of the Popes judgment and his power over Princes he answereth nothing but that they are not defined by the Roman Church and therefore cannot be a cause of departing from her communion Neither have I indevoured to charge the crime of Schism upon the Roman Church in generall but upon the Roman Court and the violent propugners thereof whose Tenets these are I wish the Roman Church restored to its ancient splendor of an Apostolicall Church and the principall Protropatriarchate and its beginning of unity Notwithstanding the weaknesse of his answers yet he laies down this for a conclusion That whatsoever I now pretend our separation was schismatically begun And thence inferres upon a ground brought by me Quod ab initio fuit invalidum tract is temporis non convalescit That it is schismaticall still First I denie his ground the separation was not made by us but by them what we did was not schismaticall but just and necessary Secondly his inference is grossely mistaken and the rule which I brought altogether misapplyed That which was invalid from the beginning cannot become valid prescription or tract of time but it may become valid by subsequent Acts of Parties
make that proposition hereticall in it self which was not ever hereticall nor increase the necessary Articles of the Christian Faith either in number or substance What I said is undeniable true First in it self That is in its own nature without any reference to the authority of a Councel And necessary Articles of the Christian Faith that is absolutely and simply necessary for all Christians If the proposition were hereticall in it self then they that held it before the Councel were Hereticks as well as they who hold it after the Councel And that is a necessary Article of the Christian Faith without the actuall belief whereof Christians could never be saved This is sufficient to answer his objection But for the Readers satisfaction I adde moreover that the Romanists believe a generall Councel not only to be fallible without the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope whose priviledge and prerogative the most of them doe make the fole ground of the Churches infallibility but also without his concurrenee to have often erred actually But with the concurrence and confirmation of the Pope they make the determination of a generall Councel to be infallible On the other side we know no such infallibility of the Pope but the contrary After Stephen had taken up the body of Formosus his predecessor out of his grave spoiled him of his pontificall Attire cut off his two Fingers and cast his body into Tybur it became an usuall thing with the following Popes either to enfringe or abrogate the acts of their predecessors Neither was this act of Stephen an errour meerly in matter of fact but principally in matter of Faith that the Episcopall character is deleble We know no such confirmation neâ—dfull nor of any more force then the single Vote of a prime Bishop of an Apostolicall Church And therefore we give the same priviledges to a Councell unconfirmed which they acknowledge to be fallible and to a Councell confirmed by the Pope We have no assurance that all generall Councells were and ever shall be so prudently mesnaged and their proceedings allwaies so orderly and upright that we dare make all their sentences a sufficient conviction of all Christians which they are bound to beleeve under pain of damnation If R C. be not of my mind others of his own Church have been and are at this day When I forbear to cite because I presume it will not be denyed In summe I know no such virtuall Church as they fancy Antiquity never knew it I owe obedience at least of acquiescence to the representative Church and I resolve for ever to adhere to the best of my understanding to the united Communion of the whole essentiall Church which I beleeve to be so far infallable as is necessary for atteining that end for which Christ bestowed this priviledge that is salvation Neither let him think that I use this as an artifice or subterfuge to decline the authority of generall Councells I know none we need to fear And I doe freely promise to reject the authority of none that was truly generall which he shall produce in this question As for occidentall Councels they are farre from being generall My other supposed error is that I say That though a Christian cannot assent in his judgement to every decree of a generall Councell yet he ought to be silent and possess his soul in patience That is untill God give another opportunity and another Councell sit wherein he may lawfully with modesty and submission propose his reasons to the contrary This he saith is to binde men to be Hypocrites and Dissemblers in matter of Religion and by their silence to suppress and bury divine Truth and brings them within the compass of Saint Pauls Woe woe be unto me if I evangelise not Excellent Doctrine and may well serve for a part of the Rebells Catechism Because my Superior is not infallible if I cannot assent unto him must I needs oppose him publickly or otherwise be guilty of Hypocrisie and Dissimulation If he shall think fit in discretion to silence all dispute about some dangerous questions am I obliged to tell the world that this is to suppress or bury divine Truth If he shall by his authority suspend a particular Pastor from the exercise of his pastorall Office must he needs preach in defiance of him or else be guilty of St. Pauls Woe Woe be unto me because I preach not the Gospell I desire him to consult with Bellarmine All Catholicks doe agree that if the Pope alone or the Pope with a particular Councell doe determine any controversie in Religion whether he can erre or whether he can not erre he ought to be heard obediently of all Christians May not I observe that duty to a generall Councell which all Roman Catholicks doe pay to the Pope or is there a less degree of obedience than passive obedience Certainly these things were not well weighed Where I say that by the Church of England in this question I understand that Church which was derived by lineall succession from Brittish English Scotish Bishops by mixt ordination as it was legally established in the daies of Edward the sixth and flourished in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth King Iames and King Charles and now groans under the heavy Yoke of persecution to let us see what an habit of alteration is he excepts against every word of this First against the lineall succession because none of these ancient Bishops taught justification by faith alone This is an argument from the Staffe to the Corner I speak of a succession of holy Orders and he of a succession of Opinions And when the matters come to be searched to the bottom he will be found at a default here also Those ancient Bishops held the same justification by faith that we doe In the next place he excepts against mixt Ordination as partly Papisticall partly Protestanticall He erres the whole Heavens breadth from my meaning Before Austin preached to the Saxons there were in Britain ancient British Bishops and ancient Scotish Bishops who had their severall lines of succession to which Austin added English Bishops and so made a third succession These three were distinct at first but afterwards in tract of time they came to be mixed and united into one succession So as every English Bishop now derives his succession from British Scotish and English Bishops This is the great Bug-bear of mixt Ordination He tells us that King Edward the sixth was a Child He mistakes Kings are never Children nor Minors whilest they have good Tutors and good Councellers was he more a Child than King Iehoash and yet the Church was reformed during his minority This was no Childish Act thanks to Iehoiada a good Uncle and Protector He demands how that Church was legally established in King Edwards daies which was established contrary to the liking of the most and best of the Bishops whereof divers were cast in Prison for not
Church from Rome Yet something he saith upon the by which is to be examined first That they who made the King head of the Church were so far from being Zelots of the Roman Religion that they were not then of the Roman Religion but Schismaticks and Hereticks outwardly whatsoever they were inwardly What a change is here Even now when they opposed the Reformation they were the best Bishops and now when they oppose the Popes Supremacy they are Schismaticks and Hereticks Let them be what they were or whatsoever he would have them to be certainly they were no Protestants And if they were not Roman Catholicks they were of no Christian Communion They professed to live Roman Catholicks and they died Roman Catholicks The six bloody Articles contrived by them and executed by them in the reign of King Henry and the Bonefires which they made of poor Protestants in the dayes of Queen Mary doe demonstrate both that they were no Protestants and that they were Zelots of the Roman Religion But saith he the essence of the Roman Religion doth consist in the primacy of the Pope If it be so then whereas the Christian Religion hath twelve Articles the Roman Religion hath but one Article and that none of the twelve namely the supremacy of the Pope But this needs makes no difference between us For they denyed not the Popes Primacy that is of order but his Supremacy of power Neither is his Supremacy either the essence or so essentiall a part of the Roman Catholick Beleef but that many of the Roman Catholick Communion have denyed it of old as the Councells of Constance and Basile and many doe deny it and more doubt of it at this day But let that be as it will In all other Controversies they were pure Romanists and the denomination is from the greater part Certainly they were no Protestants which is enough for my purpose He tels us from Bishop Gardiner that the Parliament was with much cruelty constrained to abolish the Primacy he means Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome A likely thing indeed that a whole Parliament and among them above fifty Bishops and Abbets should be forced without any noise against their conscience to forswear themselves to deny the essence of their faith and to use his own words to turn Schismaticks and Hereticks How many of them lost their lives first Not one not one changed his Soil not one suffered imprisonment about it For howsoever the matter hath been misconstrued by some of our Historiographeâ—s Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moore were imprisoned before this Act of the Supremacy was made for denying the Kings Mariage and opposing a former Act of Parliament touching the succession of his Children to the Crown Thus much is confessed by Sanders in his Book de Schismate p. 73. b. concerning Fisher and p. 81. concerning Sir Thomas Moor. Quae Lex post Mori apprehensionem constituta erat The Law of Supremacy was made after the apprehension of Sir Thomas Moore Of this much cruelty I doe not finde so much as a threatning word or a footstep except the fear of a Premunire And is it credible that the whole representative of the Church and Kingdome should value their Goods above their Souls Or that two successive Synods and both our Universities nemine dissentiente should be so easily constrained But who constrained the most learned of the Bishopâ— and the greatest Divines in the Kingdome to tell the King that it was his right to publish Catechisms or Institutions and other Books and to preach Sermons at St. Pauls Cross and elswhere for maintenance of the Kings Supremacy These Acts were unconstrained Heare the Testimony of Queen Eizabeth given in their life time to their faces before the most eminent Ambassadors of the greatest Persons in the World when Bishop Gardiner might have contradicted it if he could When the Emperour and other Roman Catholick Princes interceded with her for the displaced Bishops she returned this answer That they did now obstinately reject that Doctrine which most part of themselves under Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth had of their own accord with heart and hand publickly in their Sermons and Writings taught unto others when they themselves were not private Persons but publick Magistrates The charge is so particular that it leaves no place for any answer First of their own accord Secondly not only under Henry the eighth but Edward the sixth Thirdly when they themselves were publick Magistrates Fourthly with heart and hand not only in their Sermons but also in their printed Writings Against Subscriptions and printed Writings there can be no defence But upon whose credit is this constraint charged upon King Henry upon Bishop Gardiners In good time he produceth a Witness in his own cause He had an hard heart of his own if he would not have favored himself and helped to conceal his own shame after King Henry was dead Mortui non mordent Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that writ the book de vera obedientia to justifie the Kings Supremacy Is not this that Stephen Gardiner that tels us That no forrein Bishop hath authority among us that all sorts of people are agreed with us upon this point with most steadfast consent that no manner of person bred or brought up in England hath ought to doe with Rome Is not this he that had so great an hand in framing the oath of Supremacy and in all the great transactions in the later dayes of King Henry was not he one of them who tickled the Kings eares with Sermons against the Popes Supremacy who was a Contriver of the six bloody Articles against the Protestants and was able by his power with the King to bring the great Favorite of those times to the Scaffold for Heresie and Treason To conclude if any thing did constrain him it was either the Bishoprick of London or Winchester or which I doe the rather beleeve out of charity the very power of conscience So much himself confesseth in the conclusion of his book de vera obedientia where he proposeth this objection against himself that as a Bishop he had sworn to maintain the Supremacy of the Pope To which he answers That what was holily sworn is more holily omitted then to make an oath the bond of iniquity He confesseth himself to have been married to the Church of Rome bona fide as to his second Wife but after the return of his first Wife that is the Truth to which he was espoused in his Baptisme being convicted with undenyable evidence he was necessitated out of conscience to forsake the Church of Rome in this particular question of Supremacy and to adhere to his first Wife the Truth and after her to his Prince the supreme head of the English Church upon earth His next attempt is to prove that the Protestants were the Authors of the separation from Rome And he names three Cranmer Crumwell and Barnes He
the Popes at their pleasures gave legislative interpretations of other of their ecclesiasticall Laws as they thought good in order to their own Dominions made ecclesiasticall Corporations appropriated ecclesiasticall Benefices translated episcopall Sees forbid Appeals to Rome rejected the Popes Bulls protested against his Legats questioned both the Legates and all those who acknowledged them in the Kings Bench condemned the Excommunications and other sentences of the Roman Court enlarged or restrained the priviledges of the Clergy prescribed the endowment of Vicars set down the wages of Priests and made Acts to remedy the oppressions of the Roman Court And all this was shewed evidently not out of the single testimonies of some obscure Authors but out of the Customes and Common Law of the Realm out of the Reports of our Judges and greatest Lawyers out of the Laws of Edward the Confessor the Statutes of Clarendon and Carlile the Articles of the Clergy the Statutes of Provisors and many other Statutes made with the generall consent of the whole Kingdome It is not possible in any cause to produce more authenticall proofs then these are To all which in particular R. C. answers not one word So as once more I take it for granted that Henry the eight did nothing in his separation from the Court of Rome but what his most renowned Ancestors had chalked forth unto him All that he saith with any shew of opposition to this is first That whatsoever Kings doe is not lawfull Whereas I spake not of any single Kings but of the whole succession of British Eâ—glish Danish and Norman Kings nor of Kings alone but of them with the consent and concurrence of the whole Kingdome Clergy and Laity whiâ—h proves irrefragably that what they did was the Custome and common fundamentall Law of the Kingdome And that there is no Prescription nor can be against it That they did it de facto is enough to make good my assertion that Henry the eight did no new thing but what his Predecessors in all ages had done before him Secondly he saith That Kings may resist the exercise or Acts of Papall power sometimes and yet acknowledge the power Whereas the Laws and testimonies which I produced doe not only speak against some acts of Papall power but against the power it self against the Popes power to make Laws to send Legats or Bulls or Excommunications without license the power to receive Appeals the power to make ecclesiasticall Coâ—porations the power to dispose of ecclesiasticall Benefices c. What lawfull power had the Pope in the eye of the Law of England who by the Law of England could neither send a Legate thither to doe Justice there nor call the Delinquents or Litigants to Rome to doe Justice there without license Our Laws speak not only against Pandulphus or this or that Legate but against all Legates that come without license nor against the Bull or Excommunication of Paul the third alone but against all Bulls and Excommunications which were brought from Rome into the Kingdome without license Frustranea est ea potentia quae nunquam deduci potest in actum In vain is an absolute power given to a single person to execute that which he cannot execute without another mans license Lastly our Laws do ascribe this very power to the King which the Pope doth challenge The Patronage of the Church the power to make ecclesiasticall Laws the power to call ecclesiasticall Synods the power to dispose of all things which concern the externall regiment of the Church by the advise of his Clergy and Councell within his own Dominions In vain doth he distinguish between the acts or exercise of Papall power and the power it self seeing our ancient Law doth not only forbid the exercise of Papall power but deny the power it self He saith If I would indeed prove that Henry the eight did but vindicate his ancient liberty I should prove that English Kings before him did challenge to be heads of the Church immediatly under Christ by which headship as it was expressed in King Edwards time all Iurisdiction both in spirituall and temporall causes descended from the Crown To prove that Henry the eighth did but vindicate his ancient Liberty it is not necessary that I should justifie all the extravagant expressions or oylie insinuations of parasiticall flatterers Our Kings neither doe challenge nor ever did challenge all Jurisdiction in spirituall causes nor any part of the power of the Keyes either to their own use or to derive it to others Great Pallaces seldome want their Moths or great Princes their Flatterers who are ready to blow the coals of ambition and adorn their Masters with stollen plumes such as the Canonists were of old to the Popes It is not much to be wondred at if some Protestants did overshoot themselves in some expressions upon this subject having learned that language from a Roman Catholick before them Bishop Bonner being the Kings Embassador with Clement the seventh did so boldly and highly set forth his Masters Supremacy in the Assembly of the Cardinalls that they thought of burning him or casting him into a vessell of scalding lead if he had not provided for his own safety by flight Acworth contra Monarch Sanderi l. 2. p. 195. It would better become him and me if any such thing had beene to give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods It is enough to my purpose to have shewed that all King Henries Predecessors did both challenge and enjoy this politicall headship of the Church as I have shewed throughout all the parts branches thereof if he could see wood for trees These very flowers and jewels of the Crown enumerated by me in this Chapter and demonstrated out of our Laws in my vindication doe make up that politique headship that is a power paramount to see that all persons doe their duties in their callings and that all things be acted by fit Agents which are necessary to that great and Architectonicall end that is the safety and tranquility of the Commonwealth This is that title which Edward the Confessor did enjoy before the Conquest namely The Vicar of God to govern the Church within his own Dominions which is neither more nor lesse then the politicall head of the Church In a great Family there are severall offices as a Divine a Physitian a Schoolmaster and every one of these is supreme in his own way yet the Master of the Family hath an oeconomicall power over them all to see that none of them doe abuse their trust to the disturbance of the Family Our Parliament Rolles our ecclesiasticall Registers the Records of the Kings Bench and Common Pleas doe all prove that it is no innovation for our Kings to interpose in ecclesiasticall affairs I doe confesse that some of these flowers which were peculiar to the King as the Patronage and investitures of Bishops in later dayes were snatched from the Crown by the violence of
cause is desperate Howsoever he proveth his intention out of Gildas who confesseth that he composed his History non tam ex scriptis Patriae c not so much from British Writings or Monuments which had beene 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 Popes Librarie 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 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 plainly out of the list of the Bishops ordained three by Saint 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 Saint Peter came into Britain converted many made Bishops Priests and Deacons That Saint Elutherius 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 Saint Ninian was sent from Rome to convert the southern Picts That Pope Caelestine consecrated Palladius and sent him into Scotland where as yet was no Bishop And Saint Patrick into Ireland and Saint Germane and Lupus into Britain to confute the Pelagian Heresie 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 Archiepilcopall Sees and twenty four Episcopall And moreover that Dubritius Primate of Britannie was Legate to the See Apostolick And lastly That Saint Samson had a Pall from Rome I confesse here are store of instances for Preaching and Baptizing and ordeining and Converting but if every word he saith was true it is not at all materiall to the question Our question is concerning exterior Jurisdiction in foro Ecclesiae But the Acts mentioned by him are all Acts of the Key of Order not of the Key of Jurisdiction If he doe thus mistake one Key for another he will never be able to open the right dore He accustometh himself to call every ordinarie Messenger a Legate But let him shew me that they ever exercised Legantine authority in Britain That he doth not because he cannot The Britannick and English Churches have not been wanting to send out devout persons to preach to forrein Nations to convert them to baptize them to ordain them Pastors yet without challenging any Jurisdiction over them 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 honor to the Britannick Church But Metaphrastes is too young a witness his authority over small and his person too great a stranger to our affaires If it could be made appear out of Eusebius it would finde 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 Antioch and there governed that Church the second time Whether St. Peter or St. Paul or St. Iames or Simon Zelotes or Aristobulus or Ioseph 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 Ioseph of Arimathea we have the concurrent testimonies of our own Writers and others the tradition of the English Church the reverent respect borne to Glastenbury the place where he lived and died the ancient characters of that Church wherein it is stiled the beginning of Religion in this Island the buriall place of the Saints builded by the Disciples of the Lord. The very name of the Chappell called St. Iosephs the Armes of King Arthur upon the walls and his monument found there in the reign of Henry the second doe all proclaime this truth aloud His second instance hath more certainty in it That Pope Eleutherius sent Fugatius and Damianus two learned Divines into Britain to baptize King Lucius 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 Eluanus Avalonus Eluan of Glastenbury the Seminarie of Christian Religion in Britain and Medvinus of Belga that is of Wells a place neer adjoyning to Glastenbury to Rome to intreat this favour from Pope Eleutherius So whatsoever was done in this case as it was no act of Jurisdiction so it was not done by Eleutherius by his own authority but by licence and upon request of King Lucius And not to diminish the deserts of Fugatius and Damianus who in all probability were strangers and understood not the Language certainly Eluan and Medwin and many more British Natives had much more opportunity to contribute to the conversion of their native Countrie then forreiners who were necessitated to speak by an Interpreter at least to the vulgar Britans Concerning Pope Victors sending of Legates into Scotland to baptize the King Queen and Nobles when he tells us who was the King who were the Legates and who is his Author he may expect a particular answer But if there be nothing in it but baptizing he may as well save his labour unless he think that baptizing is an act of Jurisdiction which his own Schooles make not to be so much as an act of the Key of Order Ireland was the ancient Scotland The Irish Scots were converted by St. Patrick the British Scots by St. Columba Next for Saint Ninian he was a Britan not a Roman Neither doth venerable Bede say that he was taught the Christian Faith at Rome simply but that he was taught it there regularly that is in respect of the observation of Easter the administration of Baptism and sundry other Rites wherein the British Church differed from the Roman Nor yet doth Bede say that he was sent from Rome to convert the Picts His words are these The Southern Picts as men say long before this had left the errour of their Idolatry and received the true Faith by the preaching of Ninias a Bishop a most reverend and holy man of the British Nation who was taught the Faith and mysteries of truth regularly at Rome Capgrave findes as much credit with us as he brings authority And in this case saith nothing at all to the purpose because
or limitations necessary in every reformation first that it be made advisedly upon well grounded experience Secondly that it be done in a Nationall Synod Thirdly that it be only in matters of humane right Fourthly that nothing be changed but that which is become hurtfull or impeditive of a greater good he leaves out three of these restrictions altogether and only mentions one that it be in matters of humane institution as if the rest were of no consideration He cannot chuse but know that by the Doctrine of their own Schools if a man doe vow any thing to God which afterwards is found to be hurtfull and impeditive of a greater good maketh his vow null and voyd and disobligeth him from performance of it If it be true in a vow to God it is more true in a promise made to man and he needeth no dispensation to retract it But let us follow his steps First whereas I alledge their own Authors to prove that to whom a Kingdome is granted all necessary power is granted without which a Kingdome cannot be governed he distinguisheth between the necessity of the Kingdome and the benefit of the Kingdome a King hath power to doe whatsoever is necessary for the government of his Kingdome but not whatsoever is for the benefit of his Kingdome To this I answer first That he confounds Power and the exercise of Power or the necessity of the one with the necessity of the other Power is the necessary qualification of a King But the act or exercise of that power may be free and sufficiently grounded not only upon the necessity but upon the benefit of the Kingdome A Legislative power is necessary to a King but this doth not imply that he cannot make a Law except only in cases of absolute necessity Power to administer an Oath or to commit a Malefactor is a necessary qualification of a Judg yet he may administer an Oath upon discretion or commit a man npon suspicion If a King or a Judg invested with such a power should misapply it or erre in the exercise of it he owes an account to God and the Prince from whom he received the power but the Subject is bound at least to passive obedience Now let him see his own mistake The question between us is whether a power to reform abuses and inconveniences be necessary to a King to which all his Subjects owe at least passive obedience He answers concerning the exercise of this power in what cases a King may lawfully use it but if the King mistake the case yet the Subject owes passive obedience Secondly I answer that there is a double necessity first a simple or absolute necessity Secondly a respective necessity secundum quid which we may call a necessity of convenience which is a true necessity and a sufficient ground of a Christian Law that is rather to make such a Law then to sustein such indignities or to run such extreme hazards or lose such great advantaages As it seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burthen then these necessary things And of four things these were three to abstain from meats offered to Idols and from blood and from things strangled None of which things were necessary in themselves either necessitate medii or necessitate precepts But they were necessary to avoyd scandall and to gain advantage upon the Jews and to retein them in a good opinion of Christian Religion Saint Iames used the same argument to Saint Paul Thou seest Brother how many thousands of Iews there are which beleeve and they are all zealous of the Law c. If the advantage be but small it is not worth abrogating a Law or changing a received custome but if it be great Malo semel excusare quare secerim quam semper quare non secerim It is better to make one just apology why a man doth abrogate such a prejudicall custome then to be making dayly excuses why he doth not abrogate it Vivere non est vita sed valere To live is not to draw out a lingering breath but to injoy health So the health and convenience and good constitution of a Kingdome is more to be regarded then the bare miserable being of it Thirdly I answer that our Reformation in England was not only beneficiall and advantagious to the Kingdome but necessary to avoid intolerable extortions and grosse unjust and generall usurpations of all mens rights They found plainly that this forrein Jurisdiction did interfere with the Sovereign power The Oaths which Bishops were forced to take to the Pope were examined in Parliament and found to be plainly contradictory to their Oathes of Allegiance and repugnant to that duty which they did owe to generall Councels They found that they were dayly exposed to perill of Idolatry and in danger dayly to have new Articles of Faith obtruded upon them they see that the Pope had implicitly quitted their Patriarchall right and challenged a Sovereignty over the Church by Divine right Lastly they see that this forrein Jurisdiction was become not only uselesse but destructive to those ends for which Patriarchall authority was first instituted As the Hangings are fitted to the House so was the externall Regiment of the Church fitted and adopted to the then State of the Empire when these Ecclesiasticall dignities were first erected for the ease and benefit of the Subject to the end that no man should be necessitated to seek further for Ecclesiasticall Justice then he did for Civil nor to travell without the bounds of his own Province for a finall sentence Therefore wheresoever there was a Civil Metropolis there was placed an Ecclesiasticall Metropolitan also And where there was a Secular Protarch there was constituted an Ecclesiasticall Patriarch to avoid the confusion and clashing of Jurisdictions This is plain out of the Decree of the Councell of Chalcedon that whereas some ambitious persons contrary to the Laws Ecclesiasticall had multiplied Metropoliticall Sees making two in one Province where there was but one mother City or one Civil Metropolis the Councell defined that no man should attempt any such thing for the future But those Cities which had been adorned with the name of Metropolis by the Edicts of Kings should only injoy that priviledge And more plainly by that of Anacletus cited by Gratian if we may credit him Provinces were divided long before the comming of Christ for the most part And afterwards that division was renued by the Apostles and Saint Clement our predecessor so that in the chief Cities of all Provinces where long since were primates of the Secular Law and the highest judiciary Power c. There the Divine and Ecclesiasticall Lawes commanded Patriarchs or Primates to be placed and to be which two though they be different in names yet retein the same sense This was well so long as the Empire continued in the same State and the Provinces
supreme Governor of the Realm of England which signifies no more but this that there is no other supreme Governor of the Realm but he which is most true and to say that he is the only and supreme Governor which implies that there is no other Governor but he which is most false There are both spirituall and civill Governors in England besides him To say the Pope is the only supreme Bishop in his own Patriarchate is most true but to say that he is the only and supreme Bishop in his Patriarchate is most false this were to degrade all his Suffragans and allow no Bishop in his Province but himself Secondly I answer that there is no Supremacy ascribed to the King in this Oath but meerly politicall which is essentially annexed to the Imperiall Crown of every sovereign Prince The Oath saith that the Kings Highness is the only supreme Governor of his Highness Realms and Dominions What doth Saint Peter himself say less to his own Successors as well as others Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be to the King as supreme How often doth Saint Gregory acknowledge the Emperor to be his supreme Governor or sovereign Lord and profess obedience and Subjection unto him and execute his commands in ecclesiasticall things That Common-wealth is miserable and subject to the clashing of Jurisdictions where there are two Supremes like a Serpent with two heads at either end one The Oath addeth in all spirituall or ecclesiasticall things or causes This is true with some limitations as first either by himself or by fit Substitutes who are ecclesiasticall Persons For our Kings cannot excommunicate or absolve in their own persons Secondly it is to be understood of those causes which are handled in foro contentioso in the exterior Court not in the inner Court of Conscience Thirdly either in the first or in the second instance by receiving the appeales and redressing the wrongs of his injured Subjects Some things are so purely spirituall that Kings have nothing to doe in them in their own persons as the preaching of the Word the administration of the Sacraments and the binding and loosing of Sinners Yet the persons to whom the discharge of these Duties doth belong and the persons towards whom these Duties ought to be discharged being their Subjects they have a Power paramount to see that each of them doe their duties in their severall stations The causes indeed are ecclesiasticall but the power of governing is politicall This is the true sense of the Oath neither more nor less as appeareth plainly by our thirty seventh Article Where we attribute to our Princes the chief government by which Titles we understand the mindes of some slanderous Folkes to be offended we give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word or of the Sacraments but that only prerogative which we see to have been given alwaies to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself this is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God whether they be ecclesiasticall or temporall and restrein with the civill Sword the stubborn or evill doers Here is no power asserted no punishment to be inflicted by the King in his own person but only politicall I confess persons deputed and delegated by the King doe often excommunicate and absolve and act by the power of the Keyes but this is by the vertue of their own habit of Jurisdiction All which the King contributes by his Commission is a liberty and power to act in this particular case an application of the matter which a Lay Patron or a Master of a Family or a subordinate Magistrate may doe much more a sovereign Prince This power many Roman Catholick Doctors doe justifie The King of Spain cites above twenty of them Let the Princes of this World know that they owe an account to God of the Church which they have received from him into their protection for whether peace and right ecclesiasticall Discipline be increased or decayed by Christian Princes God will require an account from them who hath trusted his Church unto their Power All this Power the King of Spain exerciseth in Sicily in all ecclesiasticall causes over all ecclesiasticall persons as well in the first instance as the second This Power a Lay-Chanceller exerciseth in the Court Christian This Power a very Abbess exerciseth in the Roman Church over her Nuns Whilest all the Mariners are busied in their severall employments the sovereign Magistrate sits at the Stern to command all and order all for the promotion of the great Architectonicall end that is the safty and welfare of the Common-wealth It followes in the Oâ—th as well as temporall that is as truly and as justly but not as fully nor as absolutely And that no forrein Prelate hath or ought to have any Iurisdiction or Authority Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realm That is to say neither the Pope nor his Court. For a generall Councel which is no standing Court but an aggregate body composed partly of our selves is neither included here nor intended If this be the new Creed of the English Protestant Church as he calls it in scorn it was the old Creed of the Britannick Church as I have proved evidently in the vindication If this profession of Royall Supremacy in our sense doe make men Hereticks and Schismaticks we shall sweep away the most part of the Roman Doctors along with us And for Sovereign Princes we shall leave them few except some necessitous person who could not subsist otherwise then by the favourable influence of the Roman Court Very many Doctors doe hold that for the common good of the Republick Princes have Iurisdiction in many causes otherwise Subject to the Ecclesiasticall Court not only by the positive Law of God but by the Law of Nature And many more give them a power indirectly in causes Ecclesiasticall over Ecclesiasticall persons so far as is necessary for the preservation of the Peace and Tranquility of the Commonwealth nec putem ullum Doctorem Catholicum refragari saith the same Author in the place cited Neither doe I think that any Catholick Doctor will be against it Now I have said my minde concerning the Oath of Allegiance who they were that first contrived it and in what sense we doe maintain it I hope agreably to the sense of the Christian World except such as are prepossessed with prejudice for the Court of Rome As our Kings out of Reverence to Christ did freely lay by the title of Supreme heads of the English Church so though it bee not meet for me to prevent their maturer determinations I should not be displeased if out of a tender consideration of the consciences of Subjects who may erre out of invincible ignorance they would be pleased to lay by the oath also God looks upon his Creatures with all their prejudices why should not man doe the
same It seemeth to be hard measure to destroy men for meer speculative opinions which it may be are not in their own power so long as there is neither blasphemy nor sedition in the case It is often easier to secure a mans actions then to cure the errors of his judgment In the next place he chargeth me with contradicting of my self because I say the Emperors and other Princes of the Roman communion have done the same things in effect with the King of England and in another place I confess that the Kings of England have abolished the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome but the Emperors have not This he faith is to give myself the lie Certainly he was in some heat or passion when this word of disgrace dropped from his penne as commonly disputers are when they finde that they have gotten the wrong end of the staff If he had advisedly read over my assertion it is this that either they have done the same thing in effect or at least have pleaded for it If either part of the disjunction be true my assertion is a truth and no contradiction much less a lie which implyeth that it is both against truth and against conscience Now I have shewed clearly in the vindication that they have not only pleaded it but sworn it that they would maintain the Rites Liberties and Customes of the Empire inviolated against the Pope and the Court of Rome And that they have protested that they would not have his Holiness to be ignorant that they neither could nor would indure his intollerable pressures any longer but would vindicate themselves Further to doe the same thing in effect doth not signifie to doe the same individuall action nor alwaies the same specificall action but only that which argueth the same power or implyeth the same consequences If an ordinary doe suspend a Clerke from his Benefice or degrade him from his holy Orders so long as the question is only whether he be under Jurisdiction of the ordinary it is all one in effect whilest the one proveth the intention as well as the other If a theefe stâ—ale a shilling or a pound it is not the same thing in effect because the Theef pretendeth no right to what he taketh But if a Magistrate impose a tribute of a shilling or a pound where the question is only whether he have power to impose tribute or not it is all one in effect for his title is as just to the one as to the other and as he imposeth a shilling to day so he may if he have occasion impose a pound to morrow The whole and all the parts are the same in effect The Emperors have done all the particular Acts which the Kings of England have done concerning Patronage Investitures Legislation Reformation Legates Appeals Tenths first Fruits c. And moreover have deposed Popes which the Kings of England never attempted to doe though they have not made one generall Act of abolition Why is not this the same in effect He that satisfieth a debt in Pistols and he who satisfieth it in cracked Groats doe both the same thing in effect To conclude they who assume the right to be the last Judges of their own Liberties and Priviledges in all differences between them and the Court of Rome doe the same thing in effect whether the respective Priviledges of the one or the other be more or less But the Emperors and the Kings of England did assume to themselves the right to be the last Judges of their own Liberties and Priviledges in all differences between them and the Court of Rome And therefore though the one might take or mistake himself to be within the old Roman Patriarchate which the other was not or whatsoever other differences there might be in the extent of their Liberties or in their claims yet they did the same thing in effect The only difference between the Emperors and Henry the eight is this that they denyed the Papacy in parcells and he denyed it in gross They denyed his Sovereign Legislative power they denyed his Patronage of Churches they denyed his Investitures of Bishops they denyed his Superiority above generall Councells they denyed his Tenths and first Fruits and Pardons and Indulgences and Dispensations So they pulled away his stolen feathers one by one and Henry the eighth uncased him all at once but except some Patriarchall Rites which Britain never acknowledged which are no parts of the Papacy they left him as naked the one as the other This I might well call the same thing in effect Now are we come to take a view of his witnesses to try if he be more fortunate in offending then he is in defending But truly they are such that their very names and their well known acts do sufficiently confute all his evidence The first is Constantine the great who professed openly that he could not judg of Bishops No such thing He said only that they could not be judged of all men When all men have imperial power his argument will have more force in it but nothing to his purpose The only question between us is about the Papacy and his proof makes only for the priviledges of Episcopacy Whatsoever Constantine did at this time was a meer prudentiall act He had convocated the Bishops together against Arrius and instead of endeavoring to suppress the common enemie they fell into quarrels and mutuall complaints one against another about businesses of no moment Constantine seeing quod per hujusmodi jurgia causa summi negocii frustraretur that the main business against Arrius was hindred by these unreasonable brawlings and ne innotesceret ulli hominum c. to prevent scandall that the faults and contentions of Priests might not appear to the world he suppressed them and referred them to the judgment of God This was a more prudent course and more conducible at that time to the advantage of Christian Religion then to have examined every scandalous accusation of one against another Yet even in this there appeareth sufficient proof of Constantines judiciary power over the Bishops First they did all offer their mutuall accusations one of another to him as to their proper Judge Secondly he commanded them all to put their accusations in writing and to deliver them to his hands Thirdly he bound them all up in a bundell and sealed them Fourthly he made them friends and then burned them in their presence and imposed upon them a perpetuall amnesty or law of forgetfullness All these were judiciary Acts. It is true Constantine honored Bishops very much he made them his companions in his voyages his fellow commoners at his table he cast his Cloak over their faults But this was not for want of judiciary power over them but because they were consecrated to God and he beleeved that in thus doing God would become propitious to him But at other times the case is as clear as the Sun He
have not separated our selves but been chased away who have only forsaken errors not Churches much lesse obstinately and least of all in essentials who would gladly be contented to winke at small faults so they would not obtrude sinfull duties upon us as a condition of their communion The same answer we give to Perkins and Zanchy cited only in the margent whose scope is far enough from going about to perswade us that we ought not to separate from the Church of Rome for which they are cited by him Rather on the contrary if they or any of them have been over rigorous towards the Church of Rome and allow it not the essence of a Church what doth that concern the Church of England Will he blame us for being more moderate Trust me these Authors were far from extenuating the errors of Popery He telleth us That they say unto us as Saint Austin said unto the Donatists If ours be Religion yours is separation They may rehearse the same words indeed but neither is Saint Austins case their case nor the Donatists case our case Sometimes they crie down our Religion as a negative Religion as faulty in the defect And now they accuse us of superstition in the excesse We approve no Church with which they communicate and we doe not Doctor Field saith that if they can prove the Roman Church to be the Church they need not use any other Argument It is most certain we all say the same But still he confoundeth the Church that is the universall Church with a Church that is a particular Church and a metaphysically true Church with a morally true Church Why doth he cite Authors so wide from that which he knoweth to be their sense In this Section there is nothing but crambe bis cocta a repetition of what he hath formerly said over and over of Protestants separating themselves from the whole Christian World in communion of Sacraments Only he addeth the authorities of Master Calvine Doctor Potter and Master Chillingworth which have already been fully answered He saith I indeavour to prove the lawfull Ordination of our first Bishops in Queen Elizabeths time by the testimony of publick Registers and confession of Father Oldcorne He knoweth better if he please that the first Protestant Bishops were not in Queen Elizabeths time but in Edward the sixths time If they were not Protestants they did them the more wrong to burn them for it The Ecclesiasticall Registers doe make their Ordination so plain that no man who will but open his eies can be in doubt of it He confesseth that Father Oldcorne did say our Registers were authenticall So must every one say or think that seeth them and every one is free to see them that will But Father Oldcorne was a prisoner and judged others by himself Yet neither his imprisonment nor his charity did make him swerve in any other point from his Roman Catholick opinions Why did he change in this more then in any of the rest Because there is no defence against a Flaile no resisting evident demonstration which doth not perswade but compell men to believe But wherefore were not these Registers shewed before King James his time They were alwaies shewed to every man that desired to see them Registers are publick Records the sight whereof can be refused to no man The Officers hand is known the Office is secured from all supposititious writings both by the Oath and by the honesty of him that keepeth the Register and by the testimony of all others who view the Records from time to time He might as well ask why a Proclamation is not shewed Which is first publickly promulged and after that affixed to the gates of the City and of the Common-Hall and all other publick places If he could have excepted against the persons either consecraters or consecrated as that there were not such persons or not so qualified or not present at that time he had had some reason for himself But Episcopall Ordination in England was too solemn and too publick an Act to be counterfeited And moreover the Proceedings were published in print to the view of the World whilest there were very many living who were eie witnesses of the Ordination And yet by his favour if there had not been so many Protestant Bishops there as there were it might have made the Ordination illegall but not invalid for which I will give him a president and a witnesse beyond exception The president is Austine the first converter of the English the witnesse Saint Gregory Et quidem in Anglorum Ecclesia c. And truely in the English Church wherein there is no other Bishop but thy self thou canst not ordein a Bishop otherwise then alone c. But when by the grace of God Bishops are ordeined throughout all places Ordination ought not to be made without three or four Bishops He asketh why Bishop Jewell or Bishop Horne did not allege these Registers when they were charged by Doctor Harding and Doctor Stapleton to be no consecrated Bishops I might even as well ask him when he citeth an authority out of Saint Austin why such or such an Author that writ before him upon that Subject did not cite it and thereupon conclude that it was counterfeit An argument from authority negatively is worth nothing Perhaps for I can but guesse untill he cite the places Doctor Stapleton or Harding did not except against the number or qualification of the Ordeiners but against the matter or form of their Episcopal Ordination Perhaps judging them to be Hereticks they thought they had lost their character which yet he himself will acknowledg to be indeleble Perhaps the accusation was general against all Protestants and they gave a general answer Perhaps they were better versed in the Schools then in Records or lastly perhaps or indeed without perhaps they insisted upon the illegality of their ordination in respect of the Laws of England not upon the invalidity of it as shall clearly appear in my next answer In all these cases there was no occasion to allege the Registers Why were they not shewed saith he when Bishop Bonner excepted against the said Horne at the barre What need had the Bishops to desire that their ordination should be judged sufficient by Parliament eight yeers after Now let him take one answer for all There was an Act passed for authorizing the Book of Common-Prayer and the Book of Ordination as an appendix to it to be used throughout England in the reign of Edward the sixth This Act was repealed in the time of Queen Mary and afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth as to the Book of Common Prayer intending but not expresly mentioning the Book of Ordination which was an appendix to it So it was restored again either expresly under the name of the Book of Common Prayer as containing the publick Prayers of the Church for that occasion or at least implicitly as being printed in the Book of
Alan Apol. c. 4. p. 59. Sond de Schism p 103 b. Denique nulla in re a side Catholica discessit nisi libidinis luxuâ—iâ— causa Sect. 4. A full justification of our penall Laws L 3. L. 1. de Orator Leg. 12. tal Aen Gaz. in Theo. phâ—asium Cont Aristâ—câ—aetem Timocratem Sand de Schis l. 1. Camd Annal Eliz. l. 2. p. 7. Id. l. 2. p. 98. Id l 4. p. 145 p. 150. p 164. Câ—md Annal l 3 p. 11 Ibid. l. 3. p. 44. l. 3. p. 74. Camd. An. l. 3. p. 132 Apol. Marc. p. 329. Camd. An. l 3. p. 11. Apr. 1. El. 23. ex Apol. Mart. Edm. Camp epist. ad Conc. R. Aug. pag. 127. Camb. Annal Eliz an 1581. Camb. Annal. Eliz an 1581. Sect. 1. The Kings of England alwaies politicall Heads of the English Church Not only acts of Papall Power but the Power it self contrary to our Laws Jurisdiction is from Ordination but Princes apply the matter Jurisdidiction enlarged and fortified with coercive power by Princes Henry the eighth not exempt from the power of the Keyes An. 25. H. 8. C. xxi Sect. 2. Saint Wilfrid Spel. conc An. 705. Bed l. 5. Ecc. hist c. 20. St. Austin and his â— Fellowes Bed l. 2. c 4. Bed l. 1. e. 25. See Speed l. 6 c. 9. 11.22 Fed. l. 1. c. 29. Bed l. 2. c. 2. Bed l. 2. c. 4. St. Melit L. 2. c. 4. Ibidem Bed l. 3. c 29. An Aâ—ch bâ—shop sent from Rome L. 4 c. 1. Bed l. 3. c 25. St. Peter Poâ—ter of Heaven Camd. Brit. p. 165. St Peter Superior to Saint Paul L. 2. Flor. c. 11. St. Peter a Monarch Bed l. 4 c. 18. John the precentor Malm. l 2â— Reg. c 9. Bishoprickâ— erâ—cted in England by the Pope answered Wil Malmes l. 1. Reg. c. 6. L. 2â— Floâ— c. 11. Edgar apud Ealred in orati ad Episcopos withred a pud Speim Conc p. 192 Clergy-men not exempted from seculaâ— Judges Plat. in politico Ibâ—dem 〈◊〉 Ser. 25 in 14 c 〈◊〉 Rome hath no certainâ—y of iâ—tallibilitiâ— Bell. de Ro. Pont. l. 4. â— 4. Aclred de vita Mirac Edw. Conf. superseriptions to Popes 2 Cor. 11. 28. Aclred ibidem Walsing Aâ— 133 How the Pope presideth above all Creatures Wâ—lsiâ—g â— An 1343. 25 E. 3. Wals. An. 1343. Wals. ibidem Aust. Ep. 50. Sect. 2. Patriarchs indâ—pâ—ndent upon a single Superior Socrat. l. 2. â— 11 Cypr. Epist. l. 1. Ep. 3. Conc. â—â—hâ—sia part 1. act 7. Bâ—itain enjoyed the Cyprian pâ—iviledge Math Paris in H 3. an 1238. Itineâ—az Caâ—â—b l 2. c 1. Bellarmine maâ—â—s the Apostles all equal in power I. 4 de Rom. Pont. c. 23. L. 4 de Ro. pont c. 16. L 1. de Ro Pont. c. 12. Cypr. de unit Ecclesiae Cont. Iovin l. 1. c. 14. How Peter head of the rest A superiority of Order is sufficient to prevent Schisme The rest Pastors as well as Peter De Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 25. l. 1. c. 9. Sect. 2. Universality an incommunicable qualification of the Apostles 9 c. 8. s. 2. Bel l. 4. de Ro. Pont c â—4 All Episcopall jurisdiction is not derived from the Pope Sect. 3. The Chair of St. Peter not fixed to Rome by Divine right l. 2. de Pont. Ro. c. 12. Bel. de Pont. Ro. l. â—â— c. 23. Io 21.18 Bel de Râ— Poâ— 2. c. 12. Ibidem Nor by humane right Sect. 4. Gild. in Prol. Whether St. Peter converted Britain Onuph Of Eleutherius his sending into Engand And Victors into Scotland Ninian Bed l. 3â— c. 4. Palladius and S. Patrick Bed in viâ—a St. Patriâ— l. 1. Germanus and Lupus Prosp. in Chron. Constant de vita Germ. l. 1. Bed l 1. c. 17. Baron an 429. Constant l. c. 19. Idem c. 23 Austine Dubritius St. Samson Vind. p. 150. Pol. Virg. l 13 hist. Angl. Itiâ— Camb l. 1. c. 1. Râ—g â—â—ved An. anno 1â—99 King Iames. Matrix Ecclesia Sect. 5. Bed l. 2. c. 2. â—ed l. 3. c. 25. Vind. p. 115 116. Aqui. ◠〈◊〉 2.2 quaest 88. Art 2. 10. A King hath all power needfull for the preservation of his Kingdome A respective necessity is a sufficient ground of a Reformation Act. 15.28 Act. 21 20 Senec. Our Reformation was necessary Hall 24. Hen. 8. sol 205. The Regiment of the Church conformed to that of the Commonwealth conc chalc c. 11. vel 12. Dist. 99. In gain or losse all circumstances to be considered 1 Pet. 1.7 Our Reformation not contrary to the Decrees of generall Councels Novell 11 131. p. 127. But in pur suance of them King Henries Divorce lawfull but no ground of the Reformation Hall in Hen. 8. an 20. sol 180. b. an 21 f. 182. All the Cardinals of Rome opposed the Dispensation Hall An. 1. H. 8. Acworth emt Sand 1 2. c 13. 14 Hall An. 19. H 8. fâ—l 161. Sand de Schism p. 11. 12. Steph. Wint. de vera Obedientia apnd Gild. t. 1. p. 721. Ld. Cherb in Hen 8. An 1530. p. 303. Sufficere sant alioqui debuisset causae ipsius c. The Parliament not forced Idem p. 334. Anno. 1530. De vera Obedien tia Ibâ—dem p. 719. King Henry did not act against conscience c 3. s. 5. Ld. Cherb H. 8. an 1530. p. 305. Consilio divino Sand. de Sâ—hism p. 102. Lord Cherb fol. 398. P 128. Our separation from the Papacy was not for the faults of Popes but of the Papacy it self Luk. 13.7 whether Popes have done more good or hurt to England not materiall 2 King 18.4 Sect. 2. Conc. Turor Râ—sp ad Art 3. 48. It was lawfull to withdraw obedience from Papâ—ll Authority corrupted Princes the last Judges of the injuries done to their Subjâ—cts by Popes Bish. Epist. ad Reg. Iocob p. 11. Rom. 13.1 2. Prov. â— 15 Kingly Authority from God not Papal Sect. 3. The grounds of our sâ—paration An. 30. Sect. 4. The Popes new Articles of Faith a just cause of separation The deâ—â—ining of the Cup in the Sacrament a just cause of separation Odoardus Barlosa forma Celebrandi c. Papists right Heirs of the Donatists Optat. l. 2. Whether Protestants and Papists differ in Essentials Psal. 139.16 Sect. 5. Papists acknowledge possibility of our salvation as much as we of theirs Sect. 6. Our separation only from errors Math. 15.9 We arrogate to our selves no new Church c. Whether our Religion be the same with theirs or not we are no Schismaticks Quaest 14. de side Aâ—t 1. Justification by speciall faâ—â—h no Aâ—â—icle of our Church Probl. 22. Probl. 26. Our negatives no Articles of Faith Sect. 7. An implicite submission to the Catholick Church sufficient to salvation 〈…〉 Papists agree not what is their infallâ—ble proponent Aust. epist. 48. The name of Catholick from universall Communion not right beleefe c. 2 sect 6. More dangerous to exclude then to include others in our Communion The politick Supremacy of Princes in